[Clas_hadron] dnp presentation

[cnepali at jlab.org]

Hello Mac:

Thanks for your comment. I am looking on this. However, I have used the
same convention that many groups (Fermi lab, Hermes, etc.) have used in
transverse polarization of hyperons in exclusive production. I have
decided to remove the comparison plot for now.

Chandra

> 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
>>
>