Revert "feat: add detector thresholds (minimum energy deposit)"

[veprbl]

Reverts eic/npsim#9

See https://chat.epic-eic.org/main/pl/szkezeezwjnb3fiaiihg8ze87o I can confirm that EEEMCal is performing very poorly as of 23.08.0 campaign.

[wdconinc]

Does this PR, combined with https://github.com/eic/EICrecon/pull/890, leave us in a satisfactory situation for 23.09? What about the calorimeters? We would be running completely thresholdless again, which can't seem right. Will there be a PR to add those thresholds to EICrecon in time for 23.09?

[kkauder]

Does this PR, combined with eic/EICrecon#890, leave us in a satisfactory situation for 23.09? What about the calorimeters? We would be running completely thresholdless again, which can't seem right. Will there be a PR to add those thresholds to EICrecon in time for 23.09?

The calo thresholds are less obvious and need DSC input.

[Chao1009]

A threshold at a few MeV in the calorimeter seems too high at the simulation level. Such a few-MeV threshold is typically applied at the readout level (e.g., a PMT), which accumulates the energy (photons) from dozens of secondary particles.

[wdconinc]

We know. The question is what are we going to do about it, who is going to do it, and when.

[Chao1009]

We know. The question is what are we going to do about it, who is going to do it, and when.

I strongly feel this should be the responsibility of each DSC since this value is dependent on the calorimeter materials and the readout (e.g., what minimum energy a particle needs to generate some light that will be collected).

[veprbl]

For now, I think we have to run the calorimeters thresholdlessly.

Even before this, we already had thresholds implemented at the reconstruction stage.

[veprbl]

Filed eic/EICrecon#895