Asymmetries -vs- Differences in xsecs

  • Thread starter Thread starter virtual_image
  • Start date Start date
virtual_image
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi, I was asked today about the difference between asymmetries and 'differences in the corresponding cross sections'. Can anyone help me with this? Also, what are the key measurements needed to calculate asymmetries (BSA, BCA, TTSA etc) and what measurements are needed to calculate the differences in the cross-sections?

e.g. F1, F2, electric charge etc

I'd be interested in comparing the measurements needed for each to see where they differ
 
Physics news on Phys.org
virtual_image said:
Hi, I was asked today about the difference between asymmetries and 'differences in the corresponding cross sections'. Can anyone help me with this?
I don't know if what I'm going to tell you is trivial : the all point of asymetries as compared with cross section is that efficiencies and acceptances for detection cancel in the ratio, making asymetries so much easier to measure. Except for that, there is a common misconception that the denominator is not important, or constant in each single bin, but it is often not the case, and knowledge of cross section difference is more valuable than just asymetries.
 
Thanks,

the discussion I was having was about the two differing approaches that different physicists use. It was brought up that some use the asymmetries and others use the cross section differences.

What I was wondering was what are the benefits of using each. For example, in the BCA case (say), are there less things needed to be calculate to work out the asymmetries or cross sectional differences?

It was suggested I make a table of all quantities required to compare both methods. e.g do both require F1 and/or F2 to be extracted? which CFF's etc
 
virtual_image said:
What I was wondering was what are the benefits of using each. For example, in the BCA case (say), are there less things needed to be calculate to work out the asymmetries or cross sectional differences?
If you want to calculate asymetries, you mostly just make the ratio of the number of counts. If you want to calculate the cross section, you have to worry about the efficiencies, acceptances, and all normalizations that can appear. It is very clear that if you know the numerator and the denominator separately, you know more than if you just know the ratio. This is not even specific to physics.

So it all depends on what you want to do exactly. And it is here it gets technical.
It was suggested I make a table of all quantities required to compare both methods. e.g do both require F1 and/or F2 to be extracted? which CFF's etc
I guess you are talking about Dirac and Pauli form factors F1 and F2. They are usually determined from a Rosenbluth separation of electric and magnetic Sachs FFs. This amounts to measure the cross section at fixed angle and different Q2.

But what are CFF's ? Compton Form Factors ?
 
Last edited:
Yeah Compton Form Factors

Cheers for the reply
 
virtual_image said:
Compton Form Factors
Compton Form Factors appear in various contexts however, so it is difficult to tell you more without further information.

Assuming you are working on DVCS for instance, I can tell you that extracting GPDs from asymetries is not an easy task. At least in a model independent manner.
 
Thread 'Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)'
Well, I'm simulating a neutron-proton scattering phase shift. The equation that I solve numerically is the Phase function method and is $$ \frac{d}{dr}[\delta_{i+1}] = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\frac{V(r)}{k^2}\sin(kr + \delta_i)$$ ##\delta_i## is the phase shift for triplet and singlet state, ##\mu## is the reduced mass for neutron-proton, ##k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}/\hbar^2}## is the wave number and ##V(r)## is the potential of interaction like Yukawa, Wood-Saxon, Square well potential, etc. I first...
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top