110 likes | 200 Views
Discussions. Understanding the difference of the measurements from Mx, LRG and LPS methods. DPDF and factorisation. Discussion. Comparison with Colour Dipole Model - II. Low Q 2 from ZEUS M X 98-99. (x 1./0.7). M X =30 GeV. M X =20 GeV. M X =11 GeV. M X =6 GeV. M X =3 GeV.
E N D
Discussions • Understanding the difference of the measurements from Mx, LRG and LPS methods. • DPDF and factorisation Tsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006
Discussion Tsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006
Comparison with Colour Dipole Model - II Low Q2 from ZEUS MX 98-99 (x 1./0.7) MX=30 GeV MX=20 GeV MX=11 GeV MX=6 GeV MX=3 GeV MX=1.2 GeV Predictions of model are corrected by 1/0.7 for the MN<2.3 GeV of ZEUS MX method. DIS05, Madison, Apr. 27 – May 1
Comparison with Colour Dipole Model - III High Q2 from ZEUS MX 98-99 (x 1./0.7) MX=30 GeV MX=20 GeV MX=11 GeV MX=6 GeV MX=3 GeV MX=1.2 GeV • CGC and FS04(sat) are able simultaneously to describe F2 and xIPF2D(3). • Forshaw & Shaw have not been able to find a good fit which does not invoke saturation. DIS05, Madison, Apr. 27 – May 1
Discussion Tsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006
Discussion Tsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006
Discussion –H1 Q2 dependence Tsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006
Testing Regge factorization: Q2 dependence Tsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006
Testing Regge factorization: dependence Tsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006
Reggeon and pion contributions in diffractive processes K. Golec-Biernat, J. Kwiecinski and A. Szczurek, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 3955. Tsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006
Comparison of LPS and MX method g*p Xp via the exchange of a Reggeon aj. • MX method suppresses the Reggeon contributions. • Good agreement between LPS and MX method ( for MN < 2.3 GeV) except for the region of xIP > 0.01 where Reggeon contributions may dominate LPS. Discussion Tsukuba Japan, Apr. 23, 2006