1. 1

2. 2 History  Draft #1 Released to the collaboration on 8 December  Draft #2 Released to the Collaboration on 16 December  We have received 9 (12 in CDS) comments (as of midnight yesterday) –All 9 responses are already in CDS –In some cases, the response included more technical information (plots, etc.) than we will be able to include in the paper –Very many useful suggestions – thanks! The paper is quite a bit stronger now.  I will discuss the non-English comments/changes in the following slides.  Reminder: –There is nothing keeping LHCb or CMS from doing the exact same thing as we are. Arguably, they may even have better optimized detectors for this. If we want to be the discoverers of this particle, we need to move quickly. –Past experience suggests that they both know exactly what we have. –CMS has been asking theorists questions about the  (3P)

3. 3 Two Small Physics Content Changes  We now include the fit value of in the paper: 0.963 ± 0.006. –Reminder: This is the downward shift in mass due to the electron’s energy loss in the sample using converted photons. –This is constrained by the known position of the  (1P) and  (2P) peaks.  The fit hasn’t changed – we are just providing more information.  We allow silicon-only tracks to be used as electron candidates, but if the track is in the TRT and has too few high-threshold hits, we veto it. –Again, no change, but what we wrote before made it look like we required the electron to have transition radiation and thus be in the TRT – which was inconsistent with the  cuts in the paper. If it’s in the TRT, then we require it look like an electron.

4. 4 Other Collaboration comments  There is still some confusion regarding m 3 -bar and the masses of the 1 ++ and 2 ++ states. –This m 3 -bar is there because we expect to be seeing two peaks too close together to resolve, but only observe the one. We therefore discuss the “barycenter” of the peaks, which is a single parameter in the fit. –The textual confusion is caused by having two related sentences in the description far apart. –We tried to fix it with reordering, but all attempts put other things that also needed to be close farther away, with the net effect being a more confusing description. with an equation, but it’s so long and unwieldy that it’s not very clarifying. Everything we tried made it worse, so we mostly kept it as is. –We did try to make it a little clearer what was measured and what was theory. It’s not perfect, but it’s better.

5. 5 Title and Abstract  Title: Observation of a New  b State in Radiative Transitions to Y(1S) and Y(2S) at ATLAS  Abstract: The  b (nP) quarkonium states are produced in proton-proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV and recorded by the ATLAS detector. Using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 4.4 fb −1, these states are reconstructed through their radiative decays to Y(1S, 2S) with Y   +  −. In addition to the mass peaks corresponding to the decay modes  b (1P, 2P)  Y(1S) , a new structure centered at a mass of 10.539±0.004 (stat.)±0.008 (syst.) GeV is also observed, both in the Y(1S)  and Y(2S)  decay modes. This is interpreted as observation of the  b (3P) system. –Was “observation is interpreted” We tried to keep things very close to what was agreed to on Friday.

6. 6 Next Steps  Anticipating Klaus’ favorite question: –We have a draft with all requested changes (as of midnight yesterday) implemented. –We could have a submission-ready draft immediately following this meeting.