Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

EDT: 12 (noon)

FNAL: 11 am

LANL: 10 am

 

Zoom link: https://fnal.zoom.us/j/438821341

 

Thursday, March-29 7 pm meeting:

...

Slide: https://seaquest-docdb.fnal.gov/cgi-bin/private/ShowDocument?docid=5362

 

DiscussionsSome of main discussions:

Issue 1: phi-s definition and , reference frame and future improvement

 There was a confusion about the best reference frame for Drell-Yan. I followed the E1039-Proposal which used the Collin-Sopper frame, but the definition of phi-s (the spin polarization vector angle) is not clear. Is Collin-sopper frame the best referance for Drell-Yan -Yan analysis? I quoted some reference in my slide. The NMSU group have also discussed this issue but the conclusion hasn't settled yet. In the meeting, we got two others good paper/literature for reference:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2769-7

http://wwwcompass.cern.ch/compass/notes_public/2010-2.pdf 

There was also offline discussion with Kenichi about the paper Phys. Rev. D 79, 034005 (2009) by S. Arnold et all "Dilepton production from polarized hadron hadron collissions". The (preliminary) conclusion is the dilepton rest frame (Collins-Sopper frame) is the frame that we have to use.

There was also suggestion to put the phi-asymmetry correction to the Sivers extraction.

 

Issue 2: Is rate dependence affect asymmetry

The incoming proton beam intensity are not flat. Is the rate dependence affect the asymmetry? It is too early to put a conclusion but everybody agree that this issue worth to be investigated.


Issue 3: List and Assign

Part 2 of the meeting listed the critical issue needed to be addressed and assign (proposed) the PIC (Person in Charge). The issues are listed on the slide.