[Clas_hadron] dnp presentation

[Dr. A.M. Sandorfi]

Chandra,

To be clear, of four possible Clebsch coeffs there's one with the opposite
sign, which might through some interference give you a net opposite sign,
although it's a bit of a stretch. But I certainly see no isospin reasons
that observables for the two final states should have comparable magnitude.

Andy


On 10/26/11 7:34 PM, "A.M.  Sandorfi" <sandorfi at jlab.org> wrote:

> Dear Chandra,
> 
> Interesting results. Beyond the comments others have made, the third bullet
> on your conclusion slide is not likely. In general, polarization observables
> will be sensitive to interfering multipoles that will be channel dependent.
> But we could make a simple model and ignore that: the processes you are
> comparing are gp-> K0 Sigma+ and gp -> K+ Sigma0. The photon doesn't
> conserve isospin and can act as a scalar or a vector. In the former case,
> the ratio of the isospin Clebsch coeff for these two decay channels is
> -sqrt(2); for the latter, the ratio is +1/sqrt(2). So you could get a sign
> change it the scalar photon interaction dominated. ...but it's a stretch to
> assume such a simple isospin dependence for such matrix elements. In any
> case your 4th bullet is correct.
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/26/11 5:30 PM, "Volker Crede" <crede at fsu.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Chandra,
>> 
>> the results look interesting, indeed. The Sigma^0 and Sigma^+ results differ,
>> but appear to be very similar in shape; the difference for the polarization
>> seems to be about one independent of angle and energy.
>> 
>> In addition to the previous comments:
>> 
>> * I also do not understand the argument for the QGP, at least not in the
>> sense
>> we usually discuss QGP. Perhaps you should take it out.
>> 
>> * You need to be more consistent with the symbol for the proton (should be
>> lower case p) and for the polarization (should be upper case P). It is
>> confusing on some slides where you use P for both.
>> 
>> Good luck
>> 
>>         Volker
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 26, 2011, at 10:35 AM, cnepali at jlab.org wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> I will be giving a talk at DNP meeting on Oct 28th. The talk is
>>> 
http://wwwold.jlab.org/Hall-B/secure/hadron/presentations/2011/dnp2011_chand>>>
r
>>> a.pdf
>>> . Sorry it is late. Please send me your comment and suggestion.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chandra
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Clas_hadron mailing list
>>> Clas_hadron at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas_hadron
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clas_hadron mailing list
>> Clas_hadron at jlab.org
>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas_hadron
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Clas_hadron mailing list
> Clas_hadron at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas_hadron