Re: [BLAST_SHIFTS] tensor polarization results

From: John Calarco (jrc@einstein.unh.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 15 2004 - 14:08:50 EST


Genya

I agree that we should follow either your suggestion to turn off the
transverse holding field or Richard's suggestion to reverse it (I see
them as being equivalent) as soon as is practical. Your comment that
the elastic vector is small compared to the tensor asymmetry is correct,
and therefore it should have a small effect. My worry is that somehow
the data are being sorted incorrectly (some bit incorrectly set) and
that the asymmetry is being "calculated" incorrectly from the data.

                                                              John

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Genya wrote:

>
>
> Genya wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > vitaliy ziskin wrote:
> >
> >> Richard,
> >> Which side gives 20%? This maybe a strange coincidence but the
> >> tensor asymmetry for d(e,e'p)n also shows 20+/-12 % target
> >> polarization in electron-left sector and 65 +/- 10% in electron-right
> >> sector. To me this seems too strange of a coincidence, espacialy
> >> considering that vector (e,e'p)n results are consistent in both
> >> sectors. I, however, do not see how a target field can effect only
> >> tensor asymmetry and not
> >
> >
> > Actually, I see high polarization when electron goes to the right.
> > Genya
>
> Soryy, I meesed this one up. In reality I see high polarization
> with electron in LEFT sector, which confirms
> Vitalij's observation.
> Rickardo repeated my calculations of the "theoretical" asymmetry
> and confirmed my results. Now matters
> really look somewhat troubling. Perhaps we should switch to a
> longitudinal only field to evaluate the situation.
> And perhaps we should do it ASAP, may be tomorrow.
> Genya
>
> >
> >
>
>
>

-- 
John R. Calarco
Dept. of Physics
Univ. of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824
phone: (603)862-2088
FAX:   (603)862-2998
email: calarco@unh.edu



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:30 EST