Privacy and Security Notice
Archived Messages for CLAS_OFFLINE@cebaf.gov: Re: PART bank
Re: PART bank
Dennis Weygand (weygand@CEBAF.GOV)
Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:19:22 -0500
Maurik Holtrop wrote:
>
> Hello Cole,
>
> I read the same thing, and I think you are reading this correctly. In my
> opinion we should change this to the Particle Data Group pid, which is
> used in the rest of the CLAS codes (eg. SEB), and in the MCTK banks.
>
> Currently GSIM reads and uses the PART bank, but assumes that the pid is
> Particle Data Booklet id. If there is a strong opinion that PART should be
> GEANT pid, I can fix GSIM accordingly.
>
> I think we should have a discussion about PART, and what should be in it.
>
> I think one of the missing parameters of PART is a t_0 time, or "time
> calculated back to the vertex origin." Adding this would allow the
> simulation of out of time tracks.
> Additionally we could consider uncertainties on the x,y,z,px,py,pz,t_0
> quantities.
>
> - Maurik
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Maurik Holtrop http://www.physics.unh.edu/Maurik
> UNH Physics Department tel: (603) 862-2019 | fax: (603) 862-2998
> DeMeritt Hall email: maurik.holtrop@unh.edu
> Durham, NH 03824 Home:(603) 659-8765
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Lee Cole Smith wrote:
>
> > Question about the PART bank:
> >
> > The clasbanks.ddl says pid (column 1) of PART is
> > particle ID using the GEANT convention. Is this
> > correct? Looking at GSIM/kine_mcin.F it appears this
> > routine assumes PART/pid is in the PDG convention because
> > there is a routine pdg_to_geant before the call to gskine.
> > We need to get this cleared up if we are going to use the
> > PART bank in both recsis and gsim.
> >
> > Cole Smith
> > cole@apollo.phys.virginia.edu
> >
Maurik and I have disagree about this in the past- I 'm in favor of the
GEANT id, which is (IMHO) closer to what we want this word to be, ie,
exactly what final state particle this is, eg, electron, proton, pi+,
etc.
The PDG for is designed to handle much more than this which for us is
overkill, the codes are confusing and do not enumerate easily.
I think we need mor input on this- what the collaboration wants this
bank to be- If you want to put resonances here, maybe the PDG is better,
if you simply want final state four-vectors, I think the GEANT ID is
preferred- for E852 this was the input bank to the PWA, and the GEANT
code was really better.
--
Regards,
D. P. Weygand
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
Phone: (757) 269-5926
FAX: (757) 269-5800
weygand@cebaf.gov
http://www.sura.org/~weygand