[Clas_hadron] dnp presentation

[cnepali at jlab.org]

Ok and thanks Mac for your suggestion. In this case, we neither detect K_s
nor \Sigma{+}, both are reconstructed from their decay products.

Chandra

> Hello Chandra;
>
> It's a shame to remove the comparison plot; very interesting
> data.  If in fact the two analyses used opposite conventions, it
> is only necessary to flip the sign of one (or the other) and explain
> it to your audience.
>
> By the way, the reason Hermes, Fermilab, etc. use their formalism
> is that they are doing semi-inclusive production; they only detect
> the baryon.  Of course, to compare to their data, you should use
> their convention.
>
> I hope you can still show the comparison data.
>
>  				- Mac
>
> "mestayer at jlab.org", (757)-269-7252
>
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011, cnepali at jlab.org wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>