Yeah, that's what my comment was about... I have the feeling they were a bit too quick with the replies. Also for the rest of the comments I think they sometimes miss the point (maybe that was my way of formulating the questions, though).
Jeroen
On 04/09/2013 03:09 PM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
There was an addition :
Dear All,
To come back to the phi definition, I have just realised that part of the expression for sin phi in the paper draft was missing. It should have said:
\sin \phi = \left( (\hat{p}_{\mup} \times \hat{p}_{\mun}) \times (\hat{p}_{\Kp}\times \hat{p}_{\pim}) \right) \cdot \hat{p}_{\Kstarz}
I am not sure how we missed this before the draft was circulated.
Tom
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1540190?ln=en
On 04/08/2013 05:41 PM, Patrick Koppenburg wrote:
Hi all,
The K*mumu people were very fast in replying to our review. See
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1537911
I have not digested all of that yet. One cookie goes to Jeroen for having spotted a mistake in a formula.
Cheers,
Patrick
Bfys-physics mailing list Bfys-physics@nikhef.nl https://mailman.nikhef.nl/mailman/listinfo/bfys-physics