Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Reply to Comment on "High-Precision Determination of the Electric and Magnetic Form Factors of the Proton"

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1108.3533 v1 pith:FZLMOX73 submitted 2011-08-17 nucl-ex

Reply to Comment on "High-Precision Determination of the Electric and Magnetic Form Factors of the Proton"

J. C. Bernauer , P. Achenbach , C. Ayerbe Gayoso , R. B\"ohm , D. Bosnar , L. Debenjak , M. O. Distler , L. Doria
show 17 more authors
A. Esser H. Fonvieille J. M. Friedrich J. Friedrich M. G\'omez Rodr\'iguez de la Paz M. Makek H. Merkel D. G. Middleton U. M\"uller L. Nungesser J. Pochodzalla M. Potokar S. S\'anchez Majos B. S. Schlimme S. \v{S}irca Th. Walcher M. Weinriefer
This is my paper
classification nucl-ex
keywords commentanalysisarxivcalculationscorrectionsformnucl-exuncertainty
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

In arXiv:1108.3058v1 [nucl-ex], Arrington criticizes the Coulomb corrections we applied in the analysis of high precision form factor data (see Phys.Rev.Lett.105:242001, 2010, arXiv:1007.5076v3 [nucl-ex]). We show, by comparing different calculations cited in the Comment, that the criticism of the Comment neglects the large uncertainty of "more modern" TPE corrections. This uncertainty has also been seen in recent polarized measurements. We rerun our analysis using one of these calculations. The results show that the Comment exaggerates the quantitative effect at small Q^2.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.