Hi,
please find these minutes along with RF's and CZ's talks on
http://blast.lns.mit.edu/PRIVATE_RESULTS/USEFUL/\
ANALYSIS_MEETINGS/meeting_050824/
Agenda:
-Discussion of Pzz from d(e,e'd) elastic (CZ) and from d(e,e'p) (RF):
What are the values (for the same dataset), what are the systematics.
-Set up discussion list for meeting with H. Arenhoevel
Minutes:
-Renee is showing remotely her slides on Pzz from quasielastic d(e,e'p)
+poor agreement of AdT with MC at high pmiss
+Pzz=0.577+-0.0086 averaged over Q2=0.1-0.5 (CZ-Abbott-III: 0.558+-0.02)
+shape of costhM agrees better ... (thM is angle between spin and pmiss)
+high-pm disagreement at low Q2, better agreement at higher Q2
+costhM agreement good at low Q2, but bad at high Q2
+Data/MC agreement was better in 2004!
+Q2 dependence of extracted Pzz for 2005, not so in 2004; only the
average agrees with CZ's Pzz. Pzz rising with Q2 (as opposed to hPz).
+In discussing 2004-2005 consistency, AedV shows feature in both datasets
of Q2 dependent hPz (question if it can be attributed to deviation of
nucleon form factor from dipole
+What if different target spin states show different degrees of tensor
polarization - false asymmetries should be checked, e.g. AedT (=0)
+Kinematic corrections: Update of magnetic field map soon available;
CC currently studying wch/geometry effects
+Different Q2 bins may prefer different regions of z at target.
Polarization may be z-dependent
-CZ's update on Pzz:
+VEPP-3 (2003) use the same Q=1.96fm^-1 for Pzz normalization (Phillips),
Pzz 3% smaller than if using Arenhoevel
+Arenhoevel poorly describes GM (or B)
+Abbott-III is used:
2004:Pzz=0.678+-0.014(stat)+-0.013(recon)+-0.001(spinangle)+-0.034(theo)
2005:Pzz=0.558+-0.014(stat)+-0.013(recon)+-0.001(spinangle)+-0.028(theo)
+Showing T20 plots and residues (data-model)/model.
No significant Q2 dependence. Some Q2 dependence of residue may be
introduced if the most extreme theories are used for normalization.
+Theoretical uncertainty estimation by variance of various theories in
case of T20. However, there is only one model for e,e'p quasielastic.
+For Pzz from e,e'p, question is how well Arenhoevel model holds at high
Q2/ high pm
+What does good aggreement for costhM mean if pmiss disagrees strongly?
Wrong model? Wrong pmiss reconstruction?
-Shopping list for H. Arenhoevel:
+H.A. at Bates on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday. Make available to him list
of discussion points and the three theses of VZ,CC,AM.
+Do we have enough calculations (-> use realistic N-FF's)?
In the end, BLAST should deliver self-consistent results:
Parameterizations of world+BLAST data should be used in deuteron model
used in turn to determine nucleon form factors, in a loop
+ed elastic vs. quasielastic as Pzz polarimeter: theoretical
uncertainties
+AedV: Q2 dependence of hPz: z-dependence of polarization or due to
deviation of realistic form factors from dipole?
+D-state for deuteron: deviations in AedV at mediate pmiss
+Which parts of the deuteron model are well, which are not so well
under control?
+Deuteron quadrupole moment issue
+Pion production; preformed double-deltas
+Limitations of the deuteron model w.r.t. maximum momentum?
+How can model be modified (wave function) to accomodate data?
Next analysis meeting is on Tuesday 8/29/2005 at 09:00 at Bates.
All physics channels are to be reviewed, im preparation of the upcoming
meetings in Hawaii, Milos, Sanata Fe, ...
Regards,
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:32 EST