Difference between revisions of "April 27, 2009 (11AM), Physics Working Group"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
== Agenda == | == Agenda == | ||
| − | |||
1. [[Media:BggenStudy1.pdf|Simulating the phi using parametric MC (Michael Dugger).]] | 1. [[Media:BggenStudy1.pdf|Simulating the phi using parametric MC (Michael Dugger).]] | ||
| Line 16: | Line 15: | ||
3. Updates on INT meeting? (Jo or Adam or Curtis) | 3. Updates on INT meeting? (Jo or Adam or Curtis) | ||
| + | |||
| + | 4. The idea of a physics experts list? (Ryan): | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Physics Experts List? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I would like to try to put together a "physics experts list." The idea would be to try to break down the GlueX physics program into "subtopics" (e.g. meson spectroscopy, baryon spectroscopy, charm, etc.) and to associate "experts" (one or more) with each subtopic. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The short-term role of the experts would be to: | ||
| + | *(i) serve as consultants in their field (e.g. I personally don't know a lot about DVCS and if I have a question it would be nice to know who I could turn to to get an answer); | ||
| + | *(ii) help develop the physics case for their field; | ||
| + | *(iii) identify key analyses that could be done in their field; | ||
| + | *(iv) (longer term) try to organize simulations of these key analyses (if appropriate) or at least make sure they are feasible with GlueX. | ||
| + | |||
| + | A preliminary division of topics might look like this: | ||
| + | *1. Meson Spectroscopy (hybrids, glueballs, vectors, etc.) | ||
| + | *2. Baryon Spectroscopy | ||
| + | *3. Scattering (DVCS, pion form factor, GPD's, etc. etc.) | ||
| + | *4. Charm | ||
| + | *5. Primakoff and eta physics (gamma gamma widths, rare eta decays, etc.) | ||
| + | *6. In-Medium Modifications | ||
| + | |||
| + | I would eventually like to devote a physics working group meeting to each of these topics where we could (with the help of experts) identify the key analyses, think about the physics cases, discuss the simulations needed, etc. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Note that I'm not proposing we "break into subgroups." I would just like to start identifying physics topics and their associated experts so we can start looking at them in a little more depth. | ||
Revision as of 22:06, 26 April 2009
Connect Information
ESNET and EVO will be available:
1. ESNET: 85-42553 (85-HALLD)
2. An EVO room under GlueX will be reserved
Agenda
1. Simulating the phi using parametric MC (Michael Dugger).
2. May Collaboration Meeting agenda (Ryan)
3. Updates on INT meeting? (Jo or Adam or Curtis)
4. The idea of a physics experts list? (Ryan):
Physics Experts List?
I would like to try to put together a "physics experts list." The idea would be to try to break down the GlueX physics program into "subtopics" (e.g. meson spectroscopy, baryon spectroscopy, charm, etc.) and to associate "experts" (one or more) with each subtopic.
The short-term role of the experts would be to:
- (i) serve as consultants in their field (e.g. I personally don't know a lot about DVCS and if I have a question it would be nice to know who I could turn to to get an answer);
- (ii) help develop the physics case for their field;
- (iii) identify key analyses that could be done in their field;
- (iv) (longer term) try to organize simulations of these key analyses (if appropriate) or at least make sure they are feasible with GlueX.
A preliminary division of topics might look like this:
- 1. Meson Spectroscopy (hybrids, glueballs, vectors, etc.)
- 2. Baryon Spectroscopy
- 3. Scattering (DVCS, pion form factor, GPD's, etc. etc.)
- 4. Charm
- 5. Primakoff and eta physics (gamma gamma widths, rare eta decays, etc.)
- 6. In-Medium Modifications
I would eventually like to devote a physics working group meeting to each of these topics where we could (with the help of experts) identify the key analyses, think about the physics cases, discuss the simulations needed, etc.
Note that I'm not proposing we "break into subgroups." I would just like to start identifying physics topics and their associated experts so we can start looking at them in a little more depth.
