[Clas_hadron] dnp presentation

[Mac Mestayer]

Hello Chandra;

You really need to clear this up.
I think that Biplab's definition is more typical.
In exclusive production of a baryon and a pseudoscalar;
usually it is the meson's momentum which is used to
define axes, presumably because usually the meson is
the directly detected particle.

At any rate, do the Sigma+ and Sigma0 results use
opposite conventions??

 			regards, Mac Mestayer

"mestayer at jlab.org", (757)-269-7252

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, Biplab Dey wrote:

> My axes definitions are in Fig. 8.1:
> http://wwwold.jlab.org/Hall-B/general/thesis/BDey_thesis.pdf
> and my definition of the recoil polarization occurs in Eq. 8.31.
> I think it's opposite to what you have. That said, I agree, it's
> confusing. Andy Sandorfi has compiled a nice table of the ``more
> commonly'' used conventions, which you might find useful as well:
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1108/1108.5411.pdf
> All the best,
> -Biplab
>
>
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, cnepali at jlab.org wrote:
>
>>
>> I have used \hat{n} = \hat{\gamma} X \hat{\sigma}. Asymmetry of the decay
>> proton is taken with respect to this \hat{n}, +ve along \hat{n}. I can
>> show you many-many papers that have used this definition (called P_z). Is
>> your definition opposite to this? We need to clarify this
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clas_hadron mailing list
> Clas_hadron at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/clas_hadron
>