John, I appologize for formating problem. I include a text file with
this information. Hope it works for you. My parametrization does not
mean that P0 is a function of Q^2. It does mean that background/signal
(signal-to-noise ratio) is a function of Q^2.
Cheers, Vitaliy
John Calarco wrote:
>Hi Vitaliy,
>
> The format of your numbers got messed up in transit. So it is hard
>for me to tell what is left and what is right. (I tried 2 different
>mail readers with the same result.)
>
> Given that, however, one can look at the consistency of the numbers
>in the order that they appear. My conclusions would be (1) there is no
>significant left/right difference (presumably because it is inside of
>A_V^{ed}) and (2) the Q^2 parametrization is wrong because it appears
>as if P0 = Pe*Pz is a function of angle (or Q^2) which it cannot be.
>
> Is that what I'm supposed to get out of this? Just want to make sure
>I'm on the same page.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
right: left:
\theta = 45 \Chi2 = 10.8/4 \Chi2 = 5.48/4
P0 = 0.545 \pm 0.048 P0 = 0.494 \pm 0.03
P1 = 2.629 \pm 1.59 P1 = 3.953 \pm 1.3
\theta = 40 \Chi2 = 11.36/4 \Chi2 = 5.46/4
P0 = 0.431 \pm 0.04 P0 = 0.4634 \pm 0.03
P1 = 2.96 \pm 1.7 P1 = 3.787 \pm 1.3
\theta = 35 \Chi2 = 11.83/4 \Chi2 = 5.453/4
P0 = 0.45 \pm 0.038 P0 = 0.44 \pm 0.03
P1 = 3.2 \pm 1.78 P1 = 3.64 \pm 1.3
\theta = 30 \Chi2 = 12.2/4 \Chi2 = 5.48/4
P0 = 0.42 \pm 0.036 P0 = 0.422 \pm 0.025
P1 = 3.5 \pm 1.86 P1 = 3.6 \pm 1.2
\theta = 25 \Chi2 = 12.6/4 \Chi2 = 5.48/4
P0 = 0.399 \pm 0.035 P0 = 0.4075 \pm 0.024
P1 = 3.68 \pm 1.92 P1 = 3.395 \pm 1.3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:30 EST