Proton Charge Radius Review and the MUSE...
Transcript of Proton Charge Radius Review and the MUSE...
Proton Charge Radius Review and the MUSE Experiment at PSI
Katherine Mesick for the MUSE CollaborationRutgers University
Hall A/C Collaboration MeetingJune 5-6, 2014
Paul Scherrer InstituteVilligen, Switzerland
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 2
ReviewHistory of Proton Charge Radius Measurements:
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 3
ReviewHistory of Proton Charge Radius Measurements:
Muonic hydrogen
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 4
Review
Proton Radius Puzzle: 7 disagreement between more precisemuonic hydrogen spectroscopy results and electron measurements
Currently no generally accepted solution to this puzzle!
~0.88 fm
~0.84 fm
Muonic hydrogen
History of Proton Charge Radius Measurements:
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 5
In the news
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 6
In the news
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 7
In the news
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 8
In the news
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 9
In the news
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 10
Elastic ep ScatteringBernauer et al. (2010)
1400 points covering Q2 ~ 0.004 – 1 GeV2, point-to-point cross section uncertainties 0.4%Studied multiple fit formsPrecise extractions
rE = 0.879 ± 0.008 fm
rM
= 0.777 ± 0.017 fm
Radius extracted from slope of theform factor at Q2 = 0:
GE/G
D
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 11
Muonic HydrogenMeasure 2S 2P Lamb Shift [Pohl et al., Nature 466, 213-217 (2010)]
Reconfirmed in 2S 2P Lamb + 2S-HFS [A. Antognini et al., Science 339, 417 (2013)]
rp = 0.84184 ± 0.00067 fm
rp = 0.84087±0.00039 fm
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 12
PDG SummaryMost measurements of the radius of the proton involve electron-
proton interactions, and most of the more recent values agree withone another. The most precise of these is rp = 0.879(8) fm
(BERNAUER 2010). The CODATA 10 value (MOHR 2012), obtained from the electronic results, is 0.8775(51). However, a measurement
using muonic hydrogen finds rp = 0.84087(39) fm (ANTOGNINI 2013),which is 13 times more precise and seven standard deviations (using
the CODATA 10 error) from the electronic results....
Until the difference between the ep and μp values is understood, itdoes not make sense to average the values together. For the present,
we give both values.
It is up to workers in this field to solve this puzzle.
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 13
Possible Explanations● Experimental issues...
● p is wrong: 3-body effects, ...● ep is wrong: underestimated uncertainties, bad radius extractions, ...
● New physics...● Beyond Standard Model: lepton non-universality, new force / particle
(dark photon?), many theories exist! (see next slide)● Novel Hadronic Physics: proton polarizability correction (m
l4) leading
to enhanced two-photon exchange for p
● Many bad theories ruled out...● Structure in form factor, quantum gravity, oscillating protons, frame
dependence, large 3rd Zemach moment, measuring different things
● No explanation with majority support in community● Need More Data!
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 14
Dark Photons and the PRP
Tucker-Smith and Yavin, PRD 83, 101702(R) (2011)new force with few MeV mass particle coupling
to andp (not e)predicts similar effect for D, larger effect for He
Batell, McKeen, and Pospelov, PRL 107, 011803 (2011)New e/differentiating U(1) force, <100 MeV gauge boson, predicts enhanced parity violation in p scattering, order 10e-4
Carlson and Rislow, PRD 86, 035013 (2012)Two new particles couple to and not e
scalar + pseudoscalar orvector + axial vector
Constraints on allowed masses from Kaon decays
Examples that can solve the PRP and are consistent with muon g-2...
S + PSallowed
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 15
New: Heavier Muonic SystemsPRELIMINARY: Deuteron charge radius (slide from A. Antognini)
PRELIMINARY: muonic He and e-He scattering are consistent
These limit theory models! Excludes Pospelov, limit NP with new particles to m < 1.5 MeV under certain assumptions (Carlson)
Electronic+
iso-shift
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 16
A Recent Nucleon Sea Idea
Perterbative Non-perturbative
Jentschura, PRA 88, 062514 (2013): Non-universality due to e+e- sea
- Pertubative: scattered electron coupling to electronic vacuumpolarization, part of radiative correction to proton polarizability – too small
- Non-perturbative: ~10e-7 light e+e- sea pairs per valence quark, electrons measure a larger proton size
- Controversial, but not ruled out
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 17
What to do?● New data needed to test that the e and are really different,
and the implications of novel BSM and hadronic physics● BSM: modified scattering probability for Q2 up to m2
BSM, enhanced parity violation
● Hadronic: enhanced two-photon exchange● Experiments include:
● Redoing atomic hydrogen● Light muonic atoms for radius comparison in heavier
systems● Redoing electron scattering at lower Q2
● Muon proton Scattering● Muon Scattering on Nuclei● Kaon Decays
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 18
What to do?
MUSE tests these
● New data needed to test that the e and are really different, and the implications of novel BSM and hadronic physics
● BSM: modified scattering probability for Q2 up to m2BSM,
enhanced parity violation● Hadronic: enhanced two-photon exchange
● Experiments include:● Redoing atomic hydrogen● Light muonic atoms for radius comparison in heavier
systems● Redoing electron scattering at lower Q2
● Muon proton Scattering● Muon Scattering on Nuclei● Kaon Decays
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 19
What to do?
MUSE tests these
Possible next gen.
● New data needed to test that the e and are really different, and the implications of novel BSM and hadronic physics
● BSM: modified scattering probability for Q2 up to m2BSM,
enhanced parity violation● Hadronic: enhanced two-photon exchange
● Experiments include:● Redoing atomic hydrogen● Light muonic atoms for radius comparison in heavier
systems● Redoing electron scattering at lower Q2
● Muon proton Scattering● Muon Scattering on Nuclei● Kaon Decays
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 20
What to do?● New data needed to test that the e and are really different,
and the implications of novel BSM and hadronic physics● BSM: modified scattering probability for Q2 up to m2
BSM, enhanced parity violation
● Hadronic: enhanced two-photon exchange● Experiments include:
● Redoing atomic hydrogen● Light muonic atoms for radius comparison in heavier
systems● Redoing electron scattering at lower Q2
● Muon proton Scattering● Muon Scattering on Nuclei● Kaon Decays
MUSE tests these
Possible next gen.
JLab (ep)& Mainz (ep, eD)
CREMA (D, He)
TREK (J-PARC)
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 21
e-μ Universality
no difference
1970s-1980s: experiments tested e-μ universality to ~10% levelElastic μp scattering: Elastic μp scattering:
DIS μp scattering:
e-C, and μ-C are in agreement
Also no evidence for TPE effects
Ellsworth et al (1968)
(A. Entenberg et al (1974))
Kostoulas et al (1974)
σμp/σep ≈ 1.0 ± 0.04 (±8.6% systematics)Data ~ 15% low
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 22
e-μ Universality
no difference
1970s-1980s: experiments tested e-μ universality to ~10% levelElastic μp scattering: Elastic μp scattering:
DIS μp scattering:
e-C, and μ-C are in agreement
Also no evidence for TPE effects
Ellsworth et al (1968)
(A. Entenberg et al (1974))
Kostoulas et al (1974)
σμp/σep ≈ 1.0 ± 0.04 (±8.6% systematics)Data ~ 15% low
Constraints not very good!
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 23
MUSE: μp scatteringWhy μp elastic scattering?
rp (fm) electrons muons
atom 0.8758 ± 0.0077 0.8409 ± 0.0004
scattering 0.8770 ± 0.0060 ???
MUSE: First competitive μp measurement simultaneous e and μ for direct comparison will also measure TPE for e and μ
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 24
Why μp elastic scattering?
Challenges: secondary muon beam!
rp (fm) electrons muons
atom 0.8758 ± 0.0077 0.8409 ± 0.0004
scattering 0.8770 ± 0.0060 ???
MUSE: First competitive μp measurement simultaneous e and μ for direct comparison will also measure TPE for e and μ
e μ
Stable? yes noType primary secondaryEmittance small largeIntensity 1015/s 105/s – 106/sBackgrounds - e,
MUSE: μp scattering
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 25
πM1 Channel at PSI
100-500 MeV/c mixed beam of e, μ, π
e, μ, πe, π, μe, π, μ
Intermediate Focus:Dispersion ~7cm/%
ProductionTarget
50 MHz p
Beam spot in Hall: ~1.5 cm x 1 cm ~ 35 mr x 75 mr
3% momentum 0.1% resolution
Timing separation atchosen momentum
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 26
Detector Overview in Simulation- Measure ep and p cross sections p = 115, 158, and 210 MeV/c = 20o – 100o
Q2 = 0.002 – 0.07 GeV2
- Measure both + and – polarity
- Challenges Beam flux 5 MHz, DAQ rate 2 kHz,
only order 1-10 Hz elastic events!Require high pion rejection efficiency
and good particle IDMoller and muon decay from target
need background subtraction
Experiment Setup
- TOF for PID, momentum determination- Measure tracks before and after target- Downstream beam scint. to monitor stability
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 27
Beamline Instrumentation
e/π/µ separated in
timeBC @ IFP BC GEMs Target
SciFi Veto Beam Scint
Sapphire Beam Cerenkov(Rutgers/HUJI)
Better timing at analysis levelMuon decay rejection, TOF, momentum determination50 ps resolution expected
Scintillating Fiber Array(Tel Aviv)
1 ns timing for PID, beamflux normalization
2 mm fibers, double endedmaPMT readout
Position & time correlationswith GEMsGEMs (Hampton)
Determine angleincident to 0.5 mr
Third GEM toreject ghost tracks
Existing fromOLYMPUS
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 28
Scattered Particle DetectorsStraw Tube Tracker (HUJI + Temple): ~3000 straws, 2 chambers each side of beam,
determine scattered particle trajectory, 140 mCopy existing PANDA designCalibrated relative to GEMs by rotating into beam
Fast scintillators (South Carolina): ~ 90 bars, 2 planes on each side of the beamCopy CLAS12 design, 100 (200) cm long front (back)High-precision 40-50 ps timing, part of beam PID
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 29
DAQ & TriggerDAQ (GWU): Use custom TDCs – TRB3
- cost effective, 256 ch/board- < 25 ps resolution (11 ps in GSI bench test)- PADIWA for frontend amplifier/disc- Scaler functionality on board- 5 FPGAs/board
Use standard v792 ADCs for time-walk
Trigger (Rutgers)
- Use FPGA from TRB3- SciFi + BC + Beam RF determine beam PID- Pion rejection >99.9%- Trigger: beam PID + not
VETO + scat. particle
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 30
Beam test measurements
beam
- Characterization of beam – RF distributions - Determine beam size and divergence (GEMs) - Study beam tune, backgrounds - Measure timing resolution, characterize BC - DAQ and software development
Test Measurements: - Dec 2012 - June 2013 - Fall 2013 - June 2014 - Dec 2014 (planned)
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 31
Beam test measurementsStudying the beam tune: ADC versus RF Time (total TOF over 23.5 m)
e e “Bad tune”: bkgd muons frompion decay before the “jaws”
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 32
Beam test measurementsMini Scattering Measurement – GEM tracks projected to target
Target INBeam telescope Scattered telescope
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 33
Beam test measurementsMini Scattering Measurement – GEM tracks projected to target
Target OUTBeam telescope Scattered telescope
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 34
Decay Background SimulationGeant4 simulation of muon decay event separation:
- TOF from Cerenkov to Scintillator
153 MeV/c 210 MeV/c
- Better (6) separation at 115 MeV/c- Will also measure empty target for subtraction, can also calculate
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 35
MUSE Timeline● Feb 2012: First proposed to PSI PAC● July 2012: PAC / PSI Technical Review● Fall 2012: 1st beam test run at M1● Jan 2013: PAC / PSI Approval● June 2013: 2nd beam test run at M1● Fall 2013: Funding requests● Jan 2014: 2nd PAC / PSI Review● March 2014: NSF Review with DOE representation● Now: R & D funding from NSF / DOE (amount tbd)● June & Dec 2014: Next beam test runs at M1● June 2015: Advanced test run with some equipment● Nov 2016: “Dress rehearsal” with full beamline detectors and
1 full spectrometer side● 2017-18: Two 6-month production runs
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 36
Expected ResultsRelative comparisons for e+/e- (top), mu+/mu- (bottom)
Stat. Errorsonly, but they dominate
Plottedversusepsilon --virtualphotonpolarization
Slightly diff. y scale
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 37
Expected ResultsCross Sections: μ+p (top), e+p (bottom) [Kelly FF's]
Offset in blue points forplotting
Statisticalerrors only
For electrons:Stat. errorswell below 1%
For muons:Stat. errorsbelow 1% for115 and 153,above 1% at210.
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 38
Expected Results In Relative Comparison:
0.6% (0.3%) systematicuncertainty in CS (FF)
δr = 0.007 fm (µ) δr = 0.006 fm (e)
δr = 0.009 fm (µ-e)
Current discrepancy ~0.035 fm -> ~4σ measurement
Relative Radius Uncertainties
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 39
Summary
● Proton Radius Puzzle is a high profile issue, and is still unresolved 4 years later
● Explanation unclear, not general consensus– BSM? TPE? Experiment?
● MUSE tests these
– Simultaneous measurement of /e for direct comparison of radius with reduced systematics
– Measure of e+/e- and for TPE● R & D work underway, planning for production
running in 2017-18
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 40
MUSE Collaboration
New Collaborators welcome! Thank You!http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~rgilman/elasticmup
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 41
Extras
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 42
Equipment Summary
+ Temple
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 43
Expected RatesRate for detector arms combined, 5 MHz total beam flux
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 44
Elastic ep ScatteringScattering knowledge dominated by recent Bernauer et al. Mainz experiment, plus Jlab polarization data
Extracting a radius from the scattering data has been a challenge.Until recent, all analyses ignored most of the following issues:
The good modern analyses tend to have fewer issues
● Coulomb corrections● Two-photon exchange● Truncation offsets● World data fits vs. radius fits● Model dependence● Treatment of systematic uncertainties● Fits with unphysical poles● Including time-like data to “improved” radius
Generate FF pseudodataFit with Taylor seriesCalculate truncation offset
Always under estimate radius!
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 45
Beam test measurements
Studying backgrounds from “jaws”- We will use a collimator to limit beam flux
Comparison of ADC spectrum to Geant4 simulation
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 46
Relative Systematics TableSolid Angle 0.1%Scintillator Efficiency 0.1%Beam Momentum Sensitivity 0.1%Angle Determination 0.1%Magnetic Contributions 0.1%Multiple Scattering 0.3%
Radiative Corrections – μ 0.1%Radiative Corrections – e 0.5%
● Negligible Systematics:● Beamline Detector Efficiency● Beam Flux● Target Thickness● Data set Normalization
● TBD Systematics (small)● Analysis Uncertainties● Detector Stability
Total RelativeUncertainty inCross Section*:
μ: 0.4%
e: 0.6%
* Uncertainties factor of two smaller for form factor
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 47
Radiative Corrections / TPEEffect ~ 3% for 100o at 210 MeV/c for muons, ~ 5 times larger for eUncertainties over an order of magnitude smallerStandard codes exist – updated to avoid approximations
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 48
Radiative Corrections / TPEEffect ~ 3% for 100o at 210 MeV/c for muons, ~ 5 times larger for eUncertainties over an order of magnitude smallerStandard codes exist – updated to avoid approximations
Geant4 Simulation
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 49
Systematics for Ratios● In the ratios (e+/e-, μ+/μ-, e/μ) some of the cross section
systematics cancel further● The uncertainty is reduced by a factor of 2 if we
compare the form factor rather than the cross section: dσ/dΩ proportional to G2
● Gain a normalization uncertainty of 0.2% (0.1%) for the cross section (form factor) ratios
TPE Ratios:
● Comparing same particle, different polarity, same scattering angle● Solid angle, angle determination uncertainties vanish● Non-2 photon part of radiative correction vanishes● Multiple scattering and magnetic contributions vanish
Syst. uncert: 0.3%
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 50
Systematics for Ratios● In the ratios (e+/e-, μ+/μ-, e/μ) some of the cross section
systematics cancel further● The uncertainty is reduced by a factor of 2 if we
compare the form factor rather than the cross section: dσ/dΩ proportional to G2
● Gain a normalization uncertainty of 0.2% (0.1%) for the cross section (form factor) ratios
Cross Section (FF) Ratios:
● Comparing different particle, slightly different scattering angle● Majority of systematics remain● Partial cancellation of scintillator efficiency, angle determination,
multiple scattering, and magnetic contribution due to few-percent difference in angle for e, μ
Syst. Uncert: 0.6% (0.3%)
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 51
Estimated Results: μ/e
Left: Calculated difference in cross sectionBelow: Cross section ratio with statistical
uncertainties
● Uncertainty reduced by factor of 2 in theform factor, leading to <1% statisticaluncertainties for most of the dataset (renormalized to unity, stat. errors only)
Slightly diff. y scale
June 5-6, 2014 Hall A/C Collaboration Meeting 52
Magnetic Contribution
● Magnetic contribution ~30% at largest Q2 setting
● Bernauer data: uncertainty in magnetic form factor ~0.3%
● There is a 1% difference in magnetic radius between Bernauer and Arrington(1/2 may be from different two photon corrections)
e
μ
● Uncertainty 0.1-0.14% level● Drops out in +/- comparisons● Goes away to some degree in e/mu
comparison since kinematics are similar (Q2 different by a few percent)