It is also true that Pete's analysis using hPz from D(e,ep)n from Aaron
and Rene is also consistent with Abbott I.
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Michael Kohl wrote:
> Hi Chi,
>
> how far away is the corrected Phillips NNLO+dGQ/(1+Q^2/M^2)^5 calculation at
> 2fm^-1? Unfortunately, you did not give the Pzz's for the EFT in your
> presentation of last week.
>
> If the theories really start to converge, I would be inclined to rather use
> them or one of them than a parameterization of T20 that is based on fitting
> data that had the same problem like ours. This is particularly valid where
> new data has been normalized to existing data. Or expressed differently, if
> the T20 data that entered in Abbott's fit had used different normalizations,
> Abbott's result would have looked different, which is not the case for the
> theories (hopefully).
>
> Would it make sense to use Phillips NNLO+dGQ/(1+Q^2/M^2)^5 and account for
> the uncertainty at the normalization point at 2fm^-1 by evaluating the error
> band of that theory like Dan suggested??
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Chi Zhang wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Michael and all
>>
>> Since the (1+Q^2/M^2)-5 correction puts both van orden and schiavilla close
>> to Abbott's parameterization I, I would propose use Abbott I as THE
>> normalization which was what I use originally. I switched to Abbott III a
>> while ago with the arguement that it is the middle one of the three
>> parameterizations and gave a higher value for Pzz.
>>
>> By using Ab I, we solve a few problems. 1. We do not need to rely on the
>> Qd correction game while having very close results to theories after the Qd
>> correction. who knows what will be invented before I got out of here. 2.
>> Since later we refit Abbott I and use Abbott I to fix A(Q) in separation of
>> GC, GQ, it would be more natural to use Abbott I all over. 3. the spin
>> angle fit from Abbott I is 47.5 for 2005 setup which is slightly closer to
>> the map. 4. Abbott I is also the one among the three that is closest to the
>> middle of Bates and NIKHEF data points.
>>
>> We can discuss about how to revise the normalization uncertainty later.
>>
>> Chi
>>
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Michael Kohl wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Chi and collaborators,
>>>
>>> being back from Ohio I'd like to report to you a little from my meeting
>>> with Dan Phillips. My seminar presentation on BLAST showing data from all
>>> channels was very well received and seemed to impress people a lot.
>>> You can find a pdf file of my talk on the Blast website at
>>> http://blast.lns.mit.edu/PRIVATE_RESULTS/Ohio_Seminar_060110/
>>>
>>> It was satisfactory to see that renormalizing the theories for T20 with
>>> (25.83-GQ(0))/(1+Q^2/M^2)^5 gives the most consistent T20 description
>>> among all. We agreed that the so-renormalized EFT T20 curve should be
>>> considered "the one". Also, it was highly appreciated the additional
>>> constraint on the location of the node of GC set by BLAST.
>>>
>>> Dan kindly requested to indicate an error band for the calculation. One
>>> thing is to estimate how accurate the Qd correction would be. We agreed
>>> that you should vary M between 0.75 and 1.5 GeV for the scale parameter.
>>> In principle, also the exponent could or should be subject to variation,
>>> say 5+- 1 or 2 ... you should try it and possibly add the variances due to
>>> M and the exponent in quadrature.
>>>
>>> The other uncertainties with the EFT calculation are the choice of the NN
>>> potential (shown in Dan's talk at Bates of last January) and the MEC (in
>>> particular pi-rho-gamma) considered in the current. Feel free to contact
>>> Dan if you need additional calculations.
>>>
>>> The third point we discussed was the timeline for the paper. Dan
>>> understands that the Qd renormalization is quite important for the
>>> interpretation of the BLAST data and therefore plans to write a short
>>> paper on the Qd correction (a brief report). He would be able do do this
>>> in spring and finish this by May. We discussed wether this paper on the Qd
>>> correction or the BLAST data should be published first.
>>>
>>> If the BLAST data is to be published first, we would probably use the
>>> above Qd correction and quote it as "private communication". His
>>> subsequent paper would be a justification in posterior ( ... and
>>> effectively appear like fiddling the description of already-existing
>>> data).
>>>
>>> If Dan's brief report is published first, the BLAST paper could refer to
>>> it when the curve is shown. Furthermore, the theory would appear to be
>>> more predictive. Though the BLAST data would have triggered Dan's
>>> reconsiderations, there is no fitting of data involved in the applied Qd
>>> correction.
>>>
>>> Dan and I therefore agreed that the BLAST data be better published after
>>> Dan's brief report. As the BLAST steering committee decided that a BLAST
>>> hardware paper be published before any other physics paper, and as the
>>> kinematic offsets for the reconstructed angle is in the process of being
>>> understood, I don't see right now why we could not proceed like this.
>>> Let's work out the final results and the paper first and then evaluate for
>>> how long we are willing to hold it up once it's ready.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +-------------------------------------+--------------------------+
>>> | Office: | Home: |
>>> |-------------------------------------|--------------------------|
>>> | Dr. Michael Kohl | Michael Kohl |
>>> | Laboratory for Nuclear Science | 5 Ibbetson Street |
>>> | MIT-Bates Linear Accelerator Center | Somerville, MA 02143 |
>>> | Middleton, MA 01949 | U.S.A. |
>>> | U.S.A. | |
>>> | - - - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - -|
>>> | Email: kohlm@mit.edu | K.Michael.Kohl@gmx.de |
>>> | Work: +1-617-253-9207 | Home: +1-617-629-3147 |
>>> | Fax: +1-617-253-9599 | Mobile: +1-978-580-4190 |
>>> | http://blast.lns.mit.edu | |
>>> +-------------------------------------+--------------------------+
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> +-------------------------------------+--------------------------+
> | Office: | Home: |
> |-------------------------------------|--------------------------|
> | Dr. Michael Kohl | Michael Kohl |
> | Laboratory for Nuclear Science | 5 Ibbetson Street |
> | MIT-Bates Linear Accelerator Center | Somerville, MA 02143 |
> | Middleton, MA 01949 | U.S.A. |
> | U.S.A. | |
> | - - - - - - - - - - - - | - - - - - - - - -|
> | Email: kohlm@mit.edu | K.Michael.Kohl@gmx.de |
> | Work: +1-617-253-9207 | Home: +1-617-629-3147 |
> | Fax: +1-617-253-9599 | Mobile: +1-978-580-4190 |
> | http://blast.lns.mit.edu | |
> +-------------------------------------+--------------------------+
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-- 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 - 14:07:33 EST