Comments received January
25
Thomas Ullrich
I share the worries Tony expressed in his comments. The
current organization of the bullet items in (1) separates detector upgrades and
luminosity upgrade. As detailed in the RHIC-II white paper both go hand in
hand. We can only fully exploit the detector upgrades with increased
luminosity. I don't think that splitting them this way is a good choice. In my opinion the way it was expressed in the
version we had on the board in Rutgers before
we all left was very well done. It was my understanding that we all agreed on
that: a comma separated list with RHIC running, detector upgrades and
luminosity upgrades. All are equally needed to achieve the central goal as
defined in the first sentence.
I'm also a bit worried about a certain imbalance in details between item 1 (RHIC) and 2 (LHC). While we are very detailed on (1) and even to some degree in (3),
(2) is rather vague. Significant and timely is fine with me but I wonder
if leaving it as it is, leaves too much room for interpretation. I understand
that we do not want to be too specific since this might haunt us later but
being to vague might also fire back. I leave this up
to those that are involved in the LHC program; this is just an observation.
Thomas
Comments received January
24
John Harris
I would like to suggest that the LHC bullet (to be realized)
be moved into the all-encompassing bullet number 1. It should appear as the
second sub-bullet. The theory is applicable to both and would be appropriate
after RHIC and LHC sub-bullets. I fear that in the present formulation, the LHC
investment will not have sufficient priority nor be timely enough to happen
before it is too late.
If you disagree with putting "all the eggs in one basket" (which I
worry about), we should move all the sub-bullets of number 1 out as real
numbered bullets, with the LHC experiment behind RHIC experiment.
Sincerely,
John
Mike Tannenbaum
I would like to suggest one change. I propose that you
change the first bullet in section 3 about the EIC from:
"Precision mapping of the sea-quark and gluon landscape
in a nucleon to clarify its spin and flavor structure"
to
"Precision mapping of the quark and gluon landscape in
nucleons and nuclei to clarify their spin and flavor structure"
My reasoning is that one of the main arguments for the EIC is that there are no
measurements of quark structure functions (best done with DIS) in nuclei as a
function of impact parameter and only 1 attempt that I know of (E665-ZPC65,
225-244 (1995). I speak as one of the people who made the first one of these
measurements (at BNL-see Proc. 6th Symp.
Elec. Phot. 1973, p311) 5 years after DIS was
discovered in e-p scattering at SLAC. Regarding gluon structure function
measurements, first of all there are no measurements in nuclei. Also, for
decades (since 1979) very few hadron oriented people
believed in the indirect measurements of the gluon structure function of the
proton from DIS and preferred direct photon production in p+p collisions which
gives a direct measurement from g+q--> gamma+q if the quark structure functions are known (from
DIS). Of course this can easily be extended to p+A collisions with impact parameter measurement. More
recently photoproduction, gamma+g-->c
+c-bar (which can be done at EIC both in protons and nuclei) provides a direct
measurement of the gluon structure function if pT is
large enough to be in the perturbative region (which
it isn't at fixed target facilities, so far).
With reference to sea-quark measurements, it is my opinion
that the best, if not the only measurements come from Drell-Yan
production q+q-bar--> mu+
mu- in p-p and p-A collisions. Also we intend to do
this in p-p collisions at RHIC using W production. Hence, I can't imagine why
you list sea-quark measurements as one of the arguments for the EIC rather than
just quarks.
Sincerely,
Mike Tannenbaum
Comments received January
23
Denes Molnar
A quick suggestion - Point #1, 2nd bullet, 2nd line: insert
"baryon" between "finite" and "density".
D.
Richard
Milner
Here
is some input on the Rutgers bullets.
-
The authors of the EIC science overview paper (Antje Bruell, Rolf Ent,
Abhay Deshpande, Raju Venugopalan and myself)
propose to change the draft of the first physics bullet in the EIC recommendation
to read
`Precision
imaging of the sea-quarks and gluons to determine the spin, flavor and spatial
structure of the nucleon'
Glenn
Young
I
read the revised version of this just posted by the RHIC folks. I'm happy with what is written as far as
intent. However, I am still worried about the second bullet about theory under
the first topic. It is not that I don't agree with the focus, but instead that
I worry that any phrasing that could be interpreted as "more money for the
same area of work" may meet with a tepid, or worse, reception at the
agencies. I think the present phrasing
just needs to be made a little more precise.
I suggest re-casting just a bit to affirm support for current endeavors
and then propose increases for the new opportunities. What I am thinking is along the lines of
"Continued
support for the ongoing theoretical studies of QCD matter, finite temperature
and finite density lattice QCD studies, and an increase of funding to support
new initiatives now possible, for example those which combine phenomenological mmodeling and data analysis."
I
think the last phrase has to be an example of what new funding could support. I
realize one doesn't want an argument to break out that only a certain targeted
area should be a beneficiary of any new support that could come.
I'm
in part reacting after watching many Long Range Plans since 1983 ask for more
operating money but the only real increases going to new initiatives. New initiatives don't have to be machines and
detectors, since after all INT was the one new initiative from the 1987 NSAC
Theory Report ("Koonin report") that Dave Hendrie said was straightforward to guide thru DOE, OMB and
Congress. SO let's have a new initiative
in theory, and let's stress that this has just now become possible because of
the confluence of data in hand to influence thinking (we did not discuss sQGP at the time of the 2002 LRP, after all), technical
developments in theoretical methods and tools, and the advance in scientific
understanding generally, that we realize there is a new opportunity in theory
if we can only have the resources to address it.
Regards,
Glenn
Comments received January 22
Peter
Paul
The
rewritten recommendations are fine as they read. However, I believe they are weaker
ones as stated than the general momentum at the meeting for focusing on
studying the glue. The glue as the medium that holds quarks
together, but also as QCD matter itself. Then from this thrust follows
the study of the QGP etc. as stated, and other
manifestations of glue. It seems to me that an explicit focus on the glue
presents a grander, more impressive goal.
Peter
Paul
Volker
Koch
I
think the recommendations are very well written and reflect the sentiment of the town meeting.
I also like the bullets in the first recommendation, which separate the detector and luminosity
upgrades and put them in the correct
order of importance. Also the theory bullet is fine as it is.
The
only small suggestion I have is to find a better word for "qualitative"
in the first
sentence "Our central goal is a
QUALITATIVE advance in our understanding of QCD Matter, through quantitative
..." Maybe "substantial"
or something like that is a better choice. "Qualitative" in the meaning of "not
quantitative" is exactly what we want to get away from... I know this is
not the intended meaning, but at first sight I got confused by this.
Cheers
Volker
Tony
Frawley
The
prioritized bullets read well and make very good sense. They do a good job of summarizing
the case. However I have one specific concern:
The
first bullet has three sub-bullets, which are a package of items that are all
essential for a successful program. I agree completely with the intended
message. But I am somewhat concerned that they might be read as implying that
the RHIC II luminosity upgrade, by far the most expensive, is lower in priority
than the first two - rather than being crucial to our ability to capitalize on
them, and crucial to the relevance of the RHIC program after the LHC turns on.
This is clear to us, but it is not obvious to nuclear physicists outside our
field.
Having said that, putting the RHIC II upgrade first would destroy
the nice flow of the three sub-bullets, so I do not suggest that. It may
be that the words that support these bullets can make it clear that the future
of the RHIC program would be severely limited without the luminosity upgrade.
Another possibility is to add some words to the RHIC II sub-bullet so that it
reads something like:
"The RHIC II luminosity upgrade, to provide access to the low
cross section processes required for these quantitative studies."
The
intent would be to make it less easy for the reader to decide that 2 out of 3
would be pretty good :) .
Cheers
Tony