[Clas_hadron] dnp presentation

[Bill Briscoe]

I do agree with Andy on this point. Please remove that bullet.

Bill

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Dr. A.M. Sandorfi <sandorfi at jlab.org>wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clas_hadron mailing list
> Clas_hadron at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas_hadron
>



-- 
William J. Briscoe
Department of Physics
The George Washington University
Director, Center for Nuclear Studies
Director, Data Analysis Center
202-994-6788 (Foggy Bottom Campus)
703-726-8340 (Virginia Science and Technology Campus)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/clas_hadron/attachments/20111026/b36c6ca9/attachment.html