Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:04:07 +0900 (JST)
From: JimHill <jimhill@neutrino.kek.jp>
Subject: Re: Neutrino factory physics study draft report
In-reply-to: <200003241900.NAA19718@b0ig16.fnal.gov>
To: "Steve Geer, x2395" <sgeer@fnal.gov>, Heidi Schellman <schellman@fnal.gov>
Reply-to: JimHill <jimhill@neutrino.kek.jp>
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1000327113004.10702D-100000@lbpaper.kek.jp>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

  Hello,
      I have assumed here that comments on the draft go to the two of you
instead of the whole list. Most of these are detailed. I scanned through
the whole thing, but have only minutely parsed the first half so my
comments peter out after there for now. They are in page order, but ones
that I consider important or basic (like obvious typos or a plot that
mislabels an oscillation curve) I put a '*' before.

      An overall comment on the oscillation section:
This is rather hard to address now, but at the NNN,'00 conference at
Irvine one site study relevant talk was presented for the 'WIPP' facility
in southern New Mexico, <~2000Km from FNAL. Perhaps more mention of this
baseline could be worked in.

HMS I must admit I got snookered on this one.  I was at NNN and asked the
WIPP guy the distance.  I think he gave me the distance from Brookhaven
so I did not worry about the short baseline.  As someone who drives to
New Mexico frequently this is a bit embarassing.  Doing real justice
to a new baseline involves a lot of simulation work and may be a
good goal for the NNN workshop this summer

>> It appears that somewhat longer baselines are prefered from the 
>> study. 

      Another even more general comment:=20
Many of the figures have too small titles, and some too small axis values
and labels.

>> We are fixing those that we can.

- Page 4, the first sentence:
 "...the possibility that it may be possible..." Is this really the result
of someone wanting to really shave their bets, or was it written by a
non-native English speaker?

>> Fixed

- Page 4, above formula 4: I suggest
 "neutrino mixing parameter" --> "neutrino mixing amplitude"

>> didn't change neutrino mixing parameter to neutrino mixing amplitude 
>> because it's not an amplitude in the QM sense.

* Page 5, item 3 in list: (typo)
 "events is what" --> "events in what"

>> done

- Page 6, formula 5: (Suggested reference) For ancient formulae related to
muon decay, a decent reference is:
 Konopinski, E.J., 'The Theory of Radioactive Beta Decay', Clarendon
Press, Oxford, 1966.

>> Thanks for the suggestion, but the Gaisser book is also very nice.

- Page 7, figure 1: The caption should mention why the plots go up to
300GeV even though the statement of the study limits us to 50GeV. Also, is
it really useful to put all four plots since it cuts down their size? If
only two are presented, the could be labeled with parentheses around the
bar over the nu and the symbols could be given for polarization * lepton
number.

>> The figure comes from Ref. 2 which is why it goes to 300 GeV. 
>> If might have been better having only 2 plots, but having all 
>> four is not bad either. Thanks for the suggestion.

- Page 8, formulae 11,12: Since these are for both muons and electrons,
use the label 'l' instead of \mu.
I changed to lepton throughout and 
- Page 10, above formula 15: I think E_\mu is supposed to be E_\nu.
 it's E_\mu at this point as I've integrated over Enu
* Page 13figure 7: The plot legend and the caption are inconsistent.
Fixed 
* Page 13, 2nd line below figure: (typo) "\nu_mu" --> "\nu_\mu" (missing
backslash).

>> Fixed


- Page 13, before last paragraph: after "more complicated... far detector"
I would suggest to add ", but one which depends only on geometry and is
therefor easily modeled." We would not want to suggest that it may become
a source of large error later. 

>> I added a comment to that effect, unfortunately, because it is dominated
>> by geometry, it's pretty worthless for measuring the effects at long distance


- Page 14, figure 9: This is maybe the worst offender for figure labelling
style. Also, is there a reason for the abscissa to go below 0?

>> Fixed except for the axes


- Page 17, line 6: Previous references to delta(m^2) all use capital
Delta. This section uses small delta throughout. It is a little different
since it is essentially a theory section, but it might be a kinder
transition if this were made uniform.

>> Now we use small delta throughout

* Page 16, top paragraph: "We cant" --> "We cannot" (or at least put the
apostrophe into (can't"). Personally, I would also replace the "?" and "!"
near there with periods. If not, fix that each of those have preceding
spaces.

>> Fixed

* Page 16, second paragraph: "There exists" --> "There exist"

>> done

- Same part: (suggestion)
 "These electroweak singlet neutrinos do not have electroweak couplings,
and their interactions are not described by the SM." -->
 "These electroweak singlet neutrinos by definition have 0 electroweak
couplings and therefor no interactions described within the SM.


? Page 16, in and below below formula 19: Some matrix identities with
transpose: Shouldn't these be Hermetian conjugates?

>> The expressions are correct as they stand. Note the + h.c. in equation (19).

- Page 19 top paragraph: "...so U is a square unitary matrix."  Unitarity
isn't really implied by the number. (Is it?)

>> Strictly speaking you are right. However we wanted to point out that
>> the matrix is also unitary, and this was a convient place to do so.

* Page 22, above formula 42: (typo) "We begin be considering" --> "We
begin by considering"=20

>> Fixed

* Page 25, table 3: (I might be wrong, but this is important.) The first
two rows have the same label. I think the second should be indexed 21
instead of 32.

>> Fixed

* Page 29: (Figure labels) The K2K sensitivity curve shown is a nu_mu
DISappearance limit and should therefor be labeled nu_mu->nu_X (or nu_mu
disap.) I believe the same is true for the MINOS curve shown.
- Page 29: (Figure layout) The region labeled just "SUPERK" should be
labeled something like "SK atmos." to avoid confusion with the various SK
solar regions. I would also suggest making it darker since it is a rather
important region and the present color coupled with its small size make it
one of the hardest to see.

>> We will look into getting this figure updated if we can

* Page 30, middle: (Picky, but...) "expected to confirm" --> "expected to
confirm or strike down". If we know the answers, we don't need to do the
experiments. The previous sentences never directly say they are within
some particular scenario of nature. (Same occurs on page 34, line 5)

>> I think its true that we do expect confirmation (although strike 
>> down is not ruled out, it is not expected).

- Page 37, figure 15: "The distributions are from..." --> "These and the
next distributions are from..."

>> done

- Page 39, figure 17: (Another with very hard to see labels and titles)
Caption should note that the X-axes have different scales in the two
plots.

>> Figure improved.


- Page 41, figure 19: (I know the text did this, but...) Restate to what
this momentum is transverse.

>> Done

- Page 47 second paragraph of sect. 3.4.5: (comment as an SK collaborator)
The propaganda when SK started to the Japanese funding agents was that we
would run for 100 years. Realistically, it should have no problem to stay
up for at least several years and the Japanese government is committed to
it. We certainly want to make sure it is up for supernova watches until
something much better comes along. In light of this, I think it is safe to
make a stronger statement here about SK's future for the next ten years.

>> Revised sentence.

* Page 49, beg. of 3rd full paragraph: This reference seems to have a
label for the section in it instead of the figure (here #25). The rest
seems to have compiled right, so probably this is a typo.

>> Latex problem ... need to fix this.


* Page 54, near top: More bad reference labels?


>> done


 JimHill


Quote of the week:
  "The main purpose of the stock market is to make=20
   fools of as many men as possible."=20
                                               Bernard Baruch=20