Hi Karen,
Michael explained to me that because energy loss is not included in
reconstruction of real data (while both MCs include energy loss) this is
what he expected... I somehow thought it should look like the radiated MC,
that's why I showed the wrong one yesterday, which although had a double
peak was more or less around the red curve... but that was wrong, as
Michael pointed out in the meeting and I verified I had a sign error.
It is still not clear to me why it is expected for the W spectrum to look
like the unradiated MC once I apply kinematic corrections. If anyone can
shed some light on this for me, I would appreciate it...
Thank you,
Adrian
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Karen Dow wrote:
> Adrian,
>
> I agree, the peak makes sense in terms of the 2 sectors agreeing. But now,
> why is the peak at the UNradiated location, and the width comparable to
> UNradiated? I can't remember from all the discussions -- do the kinematic
> corrections also compensate for energy loss and radiation?
>
> Karen
>
> Adrian T Sindile wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> Michael was right (obviously), I had a sign error (I was applying
>> corrections in the wrong direction).
>>
>> Here are the plots again:
>>
>> http://einstein.unh.edu/~adrian/Wraw.gif
>>
>> http://einstein.unh.edu/~adrian/Wcorrected.gif
>>
>> There is no double peak, once I apply momentum corrections right.
>> Sorry for the confusion,
>> Adrian
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> Adrian Sindile
>> Research Assistant
>> Nuclear Physics Group
>> University of New Hampshire
>> phone: (603)862-1217
>> FAX: (603)862-2998
>> email: asindile@unh.edu
>> http://einstein.unh.edu/~adrian/
>>
>
--------------------------------- Adrian Sindile Research Assistant Nuclear Physics Group University of New Hampshire phone: (603)862-1217 FAX: (603)862-2998 email: asindile@unh.edu http://einstein.unh.edu/~adrian/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:33 EST
