John,
This is exactly what we are doing in the quasi-elastic case. We cancel
the tensor term by using tensor -2 states information.
Cheers, Vitaliy
jrc@physics.unh.edu wrote:
>I understand why Pete and Genya are getting different results for the
>vector asymmetry in ed elastic scattering. Below is a note that Genya
>forwarded to Pete. By only using N1+N2 in the denominator, Genya's
>asymmetry includes the tensor polarization in the denominator. N1+N2
>is proportional to the cross section multiplied by (1 + P_T*A_T). The
>tensor analyzing power is strongly negative, thereby reducing the
>denominator and making the apparent asymmetry larger.
>
>On the other hand, I have Pete dividing the same numerator N1-N2 by
>the sum of all 6 polarization states, which is just proportional to
>the cross section and independent of tensor polarization. Since 4
>polarization states are used in the numerator and 6 in the denominator,
>the resulting asymmetry is multiplied by 6/4. The reason for extracting
>the vector asymmetry this way is obvious. It is independent of the
>tensor asymmetry.
>
>
>---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
>Subject: Re: no timing cuts? (fwd)
>From: "Peter Karpius" <karpiusp@einstein.unh.edu>
>Date: Wed, April 28, 2004 1:57 pm
>To: jrc@einstein.unh.edu
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>John-
>
> Here is what I got from Genya- perhaps we are doing the same thing
>he just separates tensor with cuts (this is what you said right? Tensor
>beam-target asym is zero for elastic?)
>
> Pete
>
>
>> I calculate asymmentry as (N1 - N2)/(N1+N2),
>> where N1 = N++ + N--; N2= N+- + N-+, where signs correspond to
>>target polarization and beam helicity.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:31 EST