1 / 43

New Results from the HAPPEx Experiments at Q 2 = 0.1 GeV/c 2

New Results from the HAPPEx Experiments at Q 2 = 0.1 GeV/c 2. nucl-ex / 0609002 submitted to PRL. Robert Michaels. For the HAPPEX Collaboration

ingrid
Download Presentation

New Results from the HAPPEx Experiments at Q 2 = 0.1 GeV/c 2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New Results from the HAPPEx Experiments at Q2= 0.1 GeV/c2 nucl-ex / 0609002 submitted to PRL Robert Michaels For the HAPPEX Collaboration Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility – Argonne National Laboratory – CSU, Los Angeles -William and Mary – Duke – DSM/DAPNIA/SPhN CEA Saclay - FIU – Harvard- INFN, Rome - INFN, Bari – IAE, Beijing – IPT Kharkov - Jozef Stefan Institute – Kent State - MIT – NPIRAS, St. Petersburg – ODU – Rutgers - Smith College – Syracuse– Temple – U. Blaise Pascal – U. of Illinois Urbana-Champagne – UMass, Amherst– U. of Kentucky –U. of Virginia – UST, Heifei

  2. Outline • Parity-violation in electron scattering • Elastic Vector Strange Form Factors: GsE and GsM • Q2 = 0.1 (GeV/c)2 as/of early 2005 • Results from 2005 data taking of HAPPEx-II: • HAPPEx-hydrogen and HAPPEx-Helium • The present situation at Q2 = 0.1 (GeV/c)2 • Implications and Conclusions

  3. ) Strangeness in the nucleon Nucleon in QCD « sea » • s quark: cleanest candidate to study the sea • How much do virtual pairs contribute • to the structure of the nucleon ? • Momentum : 4 % (DIS) • Spin : 0 to -10% (polarized DIS) • Mass : 0 to 30 % (N -sigma term) • (large uncertainties on these contributions) Goal:Determine the contributions of the strange quark sea ( ) to the charge and current/spin distributions in the nucleon : “strange form factors” GsE and GsM

  4. Parity Violating Electron Scattering  Weak NC Amplitudes Interference:  ~ |MEM |2 + |MNC |2 + 2Re(MEM*)MNC Interference with EM amplitude makes Neutral Current (NC) amplitude accessible Tiny (~10-6) cross section asymmetry isolates weak interaction

  5. Form Factors Adopt the Sachs FF: (Roughly: Fourier transforms of charge and magnetization) NC probes same hadronic flavor structure, with different couplings: • GZE/M provide an important new benchmark for testing • non-perturbative QCD structure of the nucleon

  6. Gg,pE,M GuE,M GpE,M Well Measured Charge symmetry Gg,nE,M GdE,M Shuffle GnE,M GsE,M GZ,pE,M GsE,M <N| sgm s |N> Charge Symmetry One expects the neutron to be an isospin rotation of the proton : New : CSV could be as large as our stat. error: Kubis & Lewis PRC 74 (015204) 2006.

  7. Backward angle Forward angle Isolating the form factors: vary the kinematics or target For a proton: ~ few parts per million For 4He:GEs alone For deuterium: enhanced GAe sensitivity

  8. Strangeness Models (as/of 2000) Leading moments of form factors: s = GMs (Q2=0) s = GEs/ (Q2=0)

  9. . World Data (early 2005) at Q2 ~ 0.1 GeV2 Note : SAMPLE result adopts Zhu et al. calculation of GAe PRD 62(2000)033008 GEs = -0.012 ± 0.29 GMs = 0.62 ± 0.32 Would imply that 5-10% of nucleon magnetic moment is Strange Caution: the combined fit is approximate. Correlated errors and assumptions not taken into account

  10. Rapid Helicity Flip: Measure the asymmetry at 10-4 level, 10 million times • High luminosity: thick targets, high beam current • Control noise (target, electronics) • High beam polarization and rapid flip Measurement of P-V Asymmetries 5% Statistical Precision on 1 ppm -> requires 4x1014 counts A (ppm) Statistics: high rate, low noise Systematics: beam asymmetries, backgrounds, Helicity correlated DAQ Normalization: Polarization, Linearity, Dilution

  11. HAPPEX (second generation) New 2005 results: nucl-ex/0609002 Submitted to PRL E=3 GeV q=6° Q2= 0.1 (GeV/c)2 • Hydrogen : GsE + a GsM • 4He: Pure GsE :

  12. Polarized e- Source Hall A Hall A at Jefferson Lab

  13. Polarimeters Compton 1% syst Continuous Møller 2-3% syst Target 400 W transverse flow 20 cm, LH2 20 cm, 200 psi 4He Hall A at Jefferson Lab High Resolution Spectrometer + septum 5 mstr over 4o-8o

  14. Summary of Data Runs: HAPPEX-II This talk

  15. PMT Elastic Rate: 1H: 120 MHz Cherenkov cones 4He: 12 MHz PMT Locate detector over elastic line and integrate the flux Clean separation of elastic events by HRS optics  High Resolution Spectrometers Detector Detector 12 m dispersion sweeps away inelastic events Brass-Quartz Integrating Cerenkov Shower Calorimeter Large dispersion & heavy shielding reduce backgrounds at focal plane

  16. Backgrounds Aluminum endcaps Shown is the single-particle momentum spectra. Detector Footprint • Aluminum target windows • Inelastics and re-scattering • Poletip (negligible) Inelastics Aluminum endcaps Detector Footprint

  17. natural beam jitter (regression) • beam modulation (dithering) Slopes from Independent methods provide a cross-check. Each is subject to different systematic errors. • Regression: • Natural beam motion, measure dA/dDxi • Simultaneous fit establishes independent sensitivities • By definition, removes correlation of asymmetry to beam monitors • Sensitive to highly correlated beam motion and electronics noise • “Dithering”: • Induce non-HC beam motion with coils, measure dS/dCi, dxi/dCi • Relate slopes to dS/dxi • Not compromised by correlated beam motion • Robust, clear signals for failures • Sensitive to non-linearities Correcting Beam Asymmetries Araw = Adet - AQ + i=1,5ixi

  18. Helicity signal to driver removed Problem: Helicity signal deflecting the beam through electronics “pickup” Large beam deflections even when Pockels cell is off Beam Position Differences, Helium Position difference goal: 3 nanometers! • All’s well that ends well • Problem clearly identified as beam steering from electronic cross-talk • No helicity-correlated electronics noise in Hall DAQ at < ppb level • Large position differences cancel in average over both detectors X Angle BPM micron Raw ALL Asymetry ppm Helicity signal to driver reversed

  19. Corrected Left Asymmetry Raw Left Asymmetry Corrected Right Asymmetry Raw Right Asymmetry Beam Position Corrections, Helium Beam Asymmetries Energy: -3ppb X Target: -5 nm X Angle: -28 nm Y Target :-21 nm Y Angle: 1 nm ppm ppm Total Corrections: Left: -370 ppb Right: 80 ppb All: 120 ppb ppm ppm

  20. X Angle BPM Beam Position Corrections, Hydrogen Surpassed Beam Asymmetry Goals for Hydrogen Run Energy: -0.25 ppb X Target: 1 nm X Angle: 2 nm Y Target : 1 nm Y Angle: <1 nm micron Corrected and Raw, Left arm alone, Superimposed! ppm Total correction for beam position asymmetry on Left, Right, or ALL detector: 10 ppb

  21. Asymmetry (ppm) Slug 4He Results Raw Parity Violating Asymmetry Araw correction ~ 0.3 ppm Helicity Window Pair Asymmetry Q2 = 0.07725 ± 0.0007 GeV2 Araw = 6.40 ppm 0.23 (stat)  0.12 (syst)

  22. Asymmetry (ppm) Slug 1H Results Raw Parity Violating Asymmetry Araw correction ~3 ppb Helicity Window Pair Asymmetry Q2 = 0.1089 ± 0.0011GeV2 Araw = -1.58 ppm 0.12 (stat)  0.04 (syst)

  23. Hydrogen: 87.1 ± 0.9 % Helium: 84.4 ± 0.8 % Compton Polarimetry Continuous, non-invasive Here : Electron Detector analysis Cross-checked with Møller, Mott polarimeters also: independent electron analysis Helium ran with lower beam energy, making the analysis significantly more challenging. Breakthroughs in both photon and electron analyses obtained 1% systematic uncertainty

  24. Miscellany • Backgrounds: Dilutions: 2 % (4He) 0.8% (1H) Systematic 42 ppb (4He) 26 ppb (1H) • Q2 & effective kinematics: Q2 < 1.0% • Two-photon exchange corrections: small (no explicit correction made) • Transverse asymmetry: measured directly in dedicated runs, cancels in left-right sum; Systematic:4 ppb (1H) 8 ppb (4He) • Electromagnetic Form Factors: use Friedrich & Walcher parameterization, Eur. Phys. J. A, 17, 607 (2003),and BLAST data for GEn • Axial Form Factor: highly suppressed for 1H (not present for 4He) • Vector Electroweak Radiative Corrections: Particle Data Group • Blinded Analysis

  25. 4He: Nuclear Effects O+ O+ T=0 transition • Any one-body electroweak operator O: (eg Fetter and Walecka) <J,T|O|J,T> =  J,T (,’)<’|O|> |> =complete set one-body density matrix element single-particle matrix element (nuclear structure) (nucleon structure) • Asymmetry involves ratio of weak/EM matrix elements (GEs and GET=0); Single term in J,T in transition; O same in weak and EM except for couplings  same one-body density matrix elements in numerator/denominator  nuclear structure cancels, only nucleon form factors remain This result is EXACT, if : • 4He g.s. pure isospin state: Ramavataram, Hadjimichael, Donnelly PRC 50(1994)1174 • No D-state admixture: Musolf & Donnelly PL B318(1993)263 • Meson exchange corrections small: Musolf, Schiavilla, Donnelly PRC 50(1994)2173 • Nuclear effects all << 1%, no explicit correction made.

  26. HAPPEx Error Budget-Helium 2005 (this report) 2004 run Error Budget-Hydrogen 2005 (this report) 2004 run

  27. HAPPEX-II 2005 Results HAPPEX-4He: Q2 = 0.0772 ± 0.0007 (GeV/c)2 APV = +6.40  0.23 (stat)  0.12 (syst) ppm A(Gs=0) = +6.37 ppm GsE = 0.002  0.014(stat)  0.007(syst) HAPPEX-H: Q2 = 0.1089 ± 0.0011 (GeV/c)2 APV = -1.58  0.12 (stat)  0.04 (syst) ppm A(Gs=0) = -1.640 ppm 0.041 ppm GsE + 0.09 GsM = 0.007  0.011(stat)  0.004(syst)  0.005(FF)

  28. HAPPEX-II 2005 Results • Three bands: • Inner: Project to axis for 1-D error bar • Middle: 68% probability contour • Outer: 95% probability contour Caution: the combined fit is approximate. Correlated errors and assumptions not taken into account

  29. World Data near Q2 ~0.1 GeV2 GMs = 0.28 +/- 0.20 GEs = -0.006 +/- 0.016 ~3% +/- 2.3% of proton magnetic moment ~0.2 +/- 0.5% of electric distribution HAPPEX-only fit suggests something even smaller: GMs = 0.12 +/- 0.24 GEs = -0.002 +/- 0.017 Caution: the combined fit is approximate. Correlated errors and assumptions not taken into account

  30. World data consistent with state of the art theoretical predictions 16. Skyrme Model - N.W. Park and H. Weigel, Nucl. Phys. A 451, 453 (1992). 17. Dispersion Relation - H.W. Hammer, U.G. Meissner, D. Drechsel, Phys. Lett. B 367, 323 (1996). 18. Dispersion Relation - H.-W. Hammer and Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. C 60, 045204 (1999). 19. Chiral Quark Soliton Model - A. Sliva et al., Phys. Rev. D 65, 014015 (2001). 20. Perturbative Chiral Quark Model - V. Lyubovitskij et al., Phys. Rev. C 66, 055204 (2002). 21. Lattice - R. Lewis et al., Phys. Rev. D 67, 013003 (2003). 22. Lattice + charge symmetry -Leinweber et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 212001 (2005) & Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 022001 (2006) [22]

  31. A Global Fit: R.D. Young, et al. nucl-ex/0604010 all data Q2 < 0.3, leading moments of GEs , GMS • Kelly’s EMF • Float GAe separately for neutron and proton With HAPPEx-2005 data Before HAPPEx-2005 data Figures courtesy of R. Carlini, R. Young

  32. Future: HAPPEX-3(2007 or 8)

  33. Conclusions • Marvelous consistency of data. • Q2 = 0.1 GeV2 : GsM and GsE consistent with zero; constraining axial FF to Zhu et al. theory favors positive GsM • 4He: best fractional error in PV experiment to date (< 4%) no axial contamination  uniquely determines GsE • 1H: < 100 ppb error on A, unprecedented “parity quality” • Still room (& hints?) for non-zero values at higher Q2 • Future of Strangeness form factors: • G0 Backward: will allow GsM and GsE separation at two Q2 • Mainz: PV-A4 backward-angle program well underway • HAPPEx-III: high precision forward-angle @ Q2 = 0.6 GeV2

  34. Backup Slides

  35. Two Photon Exchange • Beyond single boson exchange in electroweak interference: •  and Z box and crossing diagrams. • effects appear small at large  and small Q2 • not a concern at present experimental precision. • Electromagnetic Form Factors used to extract strange form factors: • which form factors to use? • Transverse Asymmetry/Beam normal asymmetry/Vector analyzing power: • “background” to PV measurements, if electron beam not 100% longitudinal and detectors not perfectly symmetric. •  interesting in its own right – imaginary parts of TPE.

  36. Validity of charge symmetry assumption • Size of charge symmetry breaking effects in some n,p observables: • n - p mass difference  (mn - mp)/mn ~ 0.14% • polarized elastic scattering n + p, p+n A = An - Ap = (33 ± 6) x 10-4 • Vigdor et al, PRC 46, 410 (1992) • Forward backward asymmetry n + p  d + 0 Afb ~ (17 ± 10)x 10-4 • Opper et al., nucl-ex 0306027 (2003)  For vector FF: theoretical CSB estimates indicate < 1% violations - Miller PRC 57, 1492 (1998) Lewis & Mobed, PRD 59, 073002(1999) Very recent : effects could be large as statistical error on our data! Kubis & Lewis PRC 74, 015204 (2006)

  37. EM Form Factors Electromagnetic form factors parameterized as by: Friedrich and Walcher, Eur. Phys. J. A, 17, 607 (2003) GEn from BLAST: Claimed uncertainty at 7-8%

  38. HAPPEX (first generation) Hydrogen Target: E=3.3 GeV, q=12.5°, Q2=0.48 (GeV/c)2 APV = -14.92 ppm ± 0.98 (stat) ppm ± 0.56 (syst) ppm GsE + 0.39GsM = 0.014 ± 0.020 (exp) ± 0.010 (FF) • Phys. Rev. Lett. 82,1096 (1999); • Phys. Lett. B509, 211 (2001); • Phys. Rev. C 69, 065501 (2004) “Parity Quality” Beam @ JLab AA suppressed by ‘ (1 – 4 sin2w) where ‘ = [(1 + )(1 - 2)]½  (0.08)(0.08) here.

  39. Acceptance Rolloff Background Dedicated runs at very low current using track reconstruction of the HRS Dipole field scan to measure the probability of rescattering inside the spectrometer Helium Helium QE in detector: 0.15 +/- 0.15% Helium QE rescatter: 0.25 +/- 0.15% Al fraction: 1.8 +/- 0.2% Hydrogen: Al fraction 0.75 +/- 25 % Hydrogen Tail + Delta rescatter: <0.1% Total systematic uncertainty contribution ~40 ppb (Helium), ~15ppb (Hydrogen)

  40. Asymmetry explicitly depends on Q2: Goal: Q2 measured using standard HRS tracking package, with reduced beam current Determining Q2 • Central scattering angle must be measured to dq< 0.5% • Asymmetry distribution must be averaged over finite acceptance

  41. SAMPLE (MIT/Bates) GMs = 0.23  0.36  0.40 GeA(T=1) = -0.53  0.57  0.50 E.J. Beise et al., Prog Nuc Part Phys 54 (2005) Results of Zhu et al commonly used to constrain GSM result: GsM = 0.37  0.20Stat 0.36Syst 0.07FF

  42. PV-A4 (MAMI/Mainz) “Evidence for Strange Quark Contributions to the Nucleon’s Form Factors at Q2 = 0.1 GeV2” PRL 94, 152001 (2006) Back Angle runs underway to separate GsM, GA at additional points…

  43. A Simple Fit (for a simple point) Simple fit: GEs = r_s*t GMs = mu_s Includes only data Q2 < 0.3 GeV2 Includes SAMPLE constrainted with GA theory and HAPPEX-He 2004, 2005 G0 Global error allowed to float with unit constraint Nothing intelligent done with form factors, correlated errors, etc. Preliminary • Quantitative values should NOT be taken very seriously, but some clear, basic points: • The world data are consistent. • Rapid Q2 dependence of strange form-factors is not required. • Sizeable contributions at higher Q2 are not definitively ruled out. (To be tested by HAPPEX-III, G0 and A4 backangle.)

More Related