Richard WilsonHarvard University
Pert of the HAPPEX
Collaboration
Summary of moredetailed seminars
at JLab by K. Paschke
and APS by Paul Souder
Parity-Violating Electron Scattering on Hydrogen and Helium …
And Strangeness in the Nucleon
PHYSICAL REVIEW
P. Lehmann, R. Taylor*, and Richard Wilson§ Ecole Normale Supérieure, Laboratorie de l'Accélérateur Linéaire, Faculté des
Sciences, Université de Paris, Orsay (Seine et-Oise), France
Received 26 December 1961
We have measured the electron-proton scattering cross section at 248.9 Mev, 104.81°;209.6 Mev, 149.75°; and 139.3 Mev, 104.19°. We find the following values:
F1=0.767±0.025, F2=0.707±0.028, and F1/F2=1.085±0.025 at -q2=2.98 f-2
F=0.902±0.011 at -q2=1.05 f-2.
ADDENDUMGe = 0.725
Gm/μ= 0.729at -q2=2.98 f=2
45 years ago (Spring 1961)....I started my intereest in electron scattering
and form factors Ge and Gm In Breit (brick wall frame) these are the
Fourier transforms of charge and magnetic moment distributions Sachs)
We defined Ge = F1 + q2/4M2 κ F2 and Gm = F1 + κ F2
because of misuse of Fe = F1 = FDirac and and Fm as F κ
J = eGe + eσ x q Gm
Q2 (GeV/c)2
GE
n
r2
s(r)
r [fm]
GE for the neutroncharge distribution: +ρ core, -ρ fringe, charge radius
Neglecting recoil and spin:Obtain Fourier transform of charge distribution
Nucleon charge and magnetization distributions:
GE(Q2), GM(Q2) GEp(0) = 1 GM
p(0) = +2.79 p
electric and magnetic form factors GEn(0) = 0 GM
n(0) = -1.91 n
Elastic Scattering and Form Factors
The DIPOLE FIT
The FIT is extraordinarily good.
I have never heard a good explanation.
It is used for comparison
EM Form Factors
Electromagnetic form factors parameterized as by:Friedrich and Walcher, Eur. Phys. J. A, 17, 607 (2003)
-GA(8)
-GA(3)
1.5%GMn
10%GEn
1.5%GMp
2.5%GEp
ErrorFF
GEn from BLAST: Uncertainty
at 7-8%
Weak decay of60Co Nucleus
60Co
60Ni
50 Years of Charged Weak Interactions
Issues in weak interactionsthe search for new physics:
Other“Nuclei”
21Naμn
Physics beyond V-A?Effect of mν?
CKM Unitarity?Time reversal Symmetry?
Weak interactions also providea novel probe of QCD
Electron Scattering off Nucleons & Nuclei
1970... Neutral Currents andWeak-Electromagnetic Interference
The Question: What is the Role ofStrangeness in the Nucleon?
?
Breaking of SU(3) flavor symmetry introduces uncertainties
Possible explanation that would influence Form Factors:
One example:
Can We Measure the Contribution of Strange Quarks to Form Factors? Yes!
Detailed Formulae: Clean Probe of StrangenessInside the Nucleon
• Measurement of APV yields linear combination of GsE, G
sM
• Sensitive only to GsE
Hydrogen
4He
Extrapolated from G0 Q2=[0.12,0.16]
GeV2
95% c.l.
2 = 1
World Data (Sept. 05) at Q2 ~ 0.1 GeV2
GEs = -0.12 ± 0.29
GMs = 0.62 ± 0.32
Would imply that 5-10% of nucleon
magnetic moment is Strange
Note: excellent agreement of world data set
Caution: the combined fit is approximate. Correlated errors and assumptions not taken into account
Extrapolated from G0 Q2=[0.12,0.16]
GeV2
95% c.l.
2 = 1
Theory Calculations
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) & hep-lat/0601025
18
17
16
19
21 22
The HAPPEX CollaborationCalifornia State University, Los Angeles -
Syracuse University -DSM/DAPNIA/SPhN CEA Saclay -
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility- INFN, Rome - INFN, Bari -
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Harvard University – Temple University –
Smith College - University of Virginia - University of Massachusetts – College of William and Mary
1998-99: Q2=0.5 GeV2, 1H2004-06: Q2=0.1 GeV2, 1H, 4He 2007:Q2=0.6, 1H
Example at JLab: HAPPEX Experiment
Jefferson Laboratory
Polarized e-
Source
Hall A
AB
C
Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility
CEBAF
Features:1. Polarized Source2. Quiet Accelerator3. Precision
Spectrometersin Hall A
Target400 W transverse flow20 cm, LH220 cm, 200 psi 4He
High Resolution SpectrometerS+QQDQ 5 mstr over 4o-8o
Hall A
Compton1.5-3% systContinuous(Saclay)
Møller2-3% syst
(JLAB)
Polarimeters
Cherenkovcones
PMT
PMT
Elastic Rate:1H: 120 MHz4He: 12 MHz
High Resolution Spectrometers
100 x 600 mm
12 m dispersion sweeps away
inelastic events
Very clean separation ofelastic events by HRS optics
Overlap the elastic line above the focal plane and integrate the flux
Large dispersion and heavy shielding reduce backgrounds at the focal plane
Harvard Contribution:
Also Polarization intensity correlationshence on beam position and asymmetries
corrected by feedback (developed in 1986)
Integrating electronics (Oliver/Wilson)and avoidance of ground loops
Background-4HeDedicated runs at very low current using track reconstruction of the HRS
Dipole field scan to measure the probability of rescatteringinside the spectrometer
AcceptanceRolloff
HeliumHelium 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)
Rapid Helicity Flip: Measure the asymmetry at few 10-4 level, 30 million times
LR
LRLR
NN
NNA
Slow Helicity Flip: check answer .
Polarized Electrons for Measuring Asymmetries
>85%Polarization
Measurement of P-V Asymmetries610
LR
LRLRA
Statistics: high rate, low noiseSystematics: beam asymmetries, backgrounds, Helicity correlated DAQNormalization: Polarization, Linearity, Background
5% Statistical Precision on 1 ppm -> requires 4x1014 counts
Rapid Helicity Flip: Measure the asymmetry at few 10-4 level, 30 million times
•Analog integration of rates ~100 MHz•High luminosity: thick targets, high beam current•Control noise (target, electronics) •Polarized source uses optical pumping of strained photocathode: high polarization and rapid flip
LR
LRLR NN
NNA
Beam Position Differences, Helium 2005
Problem: Helicity signal deflecting the beam through electronics “pickup”
Large beam deflections even when Pockels cell is off
Helicity signal to driver reversed
Helicity signal to driver removed
All’s well that ends well
• Problem clearly identified as beam steering from electronic cross-talk
• Tests verify no helicity-correlated electronics noise in Hall DAQ at sub ppb level
• Large position differences mostly cancel in average over both detectors
X Angle BPM
Raw ALL Asymetry
mic
ron
pp
m
Beam Position Differences, Helium 2005
Raw Left Asymmetry
Raw Right Asymmetry
Corrected Right Asymmetry
Corrected Left AsymmetryBeam Asymmetries
Energy: -3ppb
X Target: -5 nm
X Angle: -28 nm
Y Target :-21 nm
Y Angle: 1 nm
Total Corrections:
Left: -370 ppb
Right: 80 ppb
All: 120 ppb
pp
mp
pm
pp
mp
pm
Beam Position Differences, Hydrogen 2005X Angle BPM
Energy: -0.25 ppb
X Target: 1 nm
X Angle: 2 nm
Y Target : 1 nm
Y Angle: <1 nm
Surpassed Beam Asymmetry Goals for Hydrogen Run
Corrected and Raw, Left arm alone,
Superimposed!pp
mm
icro
n
Total correction for beam position asymmetry on Left, Right, or ALL detector: 10 ppb
Spectacularperformance of
source and accelerator(We should havepublished on-line
Results.)
June 2004HAPPEX-He• about 3M pairs at 1300 ppm
=> Astat ~ 0.74 ppm
June – July 2004HAPPEX-H• about 9M pairs at 620 ppm
=> Astat ~ 0.2 ppm
July-Sept 2005HAPPEX-He• about 35M pairs at 1130 ppm
=> Astat ~ 0.19 ppm
Oct – Nov 2005HAPPEX-H• about 25M pairs at 540 ppm
=> Astat ~ 0.105 ppm
Summary of Data Runs: HAPPEX-II
1H Preliminary Results
Q2 = 0.1089 ± 0.0011GeV2
Araw = -1.418 ppm 0.105 ppm (stat)
Araw correction ~11 ppb
Raw Parity Violating Asymmetry
Helicity Window Pair Asymmetry
~25 M pairs, width ~540 ppm
Asym
metr
y
(pp
m)
Slug
4He Preliminary Results
Q2 = 0.07725 ± 0.0007 GeV2
Araw = 5.253 ppm 0.191 ppm (stat)
Raw Parity Violating Asymmetry
Helicity Window Pair Asymmetry
35 M pairs, total width ~1130 ppm
Araw correction ~ 0.12 ppm
Slug
Asym
metr
y
(pp
m)
COMPTON POLARIMETRY (SACLAY)
Compton Int. Point
detector
e- detectorHall A
• Non-invasive, continuous polarimetry • 2% systematic error at 3 GeV for HAPPEX-II• Independent photon and electron analyses• Cross-checked with Hall A Moller, 5 MeV Mott
Compton Polarimetry (Saclay)
Hydrogen: 86.7% ± 2%
Helium: 84.0% ± 2.5%
Electron Detector analysis
Cross-checked with Møller
Helium ran with lower beam energy, making the analysis significantly more challenging.
New developments in both photon and electron analyses in preparation: anticipate <2% systematic uncertainty
Measuring Q2
Nuclear recoil, using water cell optics target: p between elastic and excited state peaks reduces systematic error from spectrometer calibration.
At Q2~0.1 GeV2 (6o) in 2004:
Achieved ~ 0.3%
%5.02 Q
Goal:
Q2 measured using standard HRS tracking package, with reduced beam current
• Central scattering angle must be measured to < 0.25%• Asymmetry distribution must be averaged over finite acceptance
False Asymmetries 48 ppb
Polarization 192 ppb
Linearity 58 ppb
Radiative Corr. 6 ppb
Q2 Uncertainty 58 ppb
Al background 32 ppb
Helium quasi-elastic background
24 ppb
Total 216 ppb
Error Budget 2005
False Asymmetries 17 ppb
Polarization 37 ppb
Linearity 15 ppb
Radiative Corr. 3 ppb
Q2 Uncertainty 16 ppb
Al background 15 ppb
Rescattering Background
4 ppb
Total 49 ppb
Helium Hydrogen
HAPPEX-II 2005 Preliminary Results
A(Gs=0) = +6.37 ppm
GsE = 0.004 0.014(stat) 0.013(syst)
A(Gs=0) = -1.640 ppm 0.041 ppm
GsE + 0.088 Gs
M = 0.004 0.011(stat) 0.005(syst) 0.004(FF)
HAPPEX-4He:
HAPPEX-H: Q2 = 0.1089 ± 0.0011 (GeV/c)2 APV = -1.60 0.12 (stat) 0.05 (syst)
ppm
Q2 = 0.0772 ± 0.0007 (GeV/c)2 APV = +6.43 0.23 (stat) 0.22 (syst)
ppm
HAPPEX-II 2005 Preliminary ResultsThree bands:
1. Inner: Project to axis for 1-D error bar
2. Middle: 68% probability contour
3. Outer: 95% probability contour
Caution: the combined fit is approximate. Correlated errors and assumptions not taken into account
Preliminary
Previous World Data near Q2 ~0.1 GeV2
Caution: the combined fit is approximate. Correlated errors and assumptions not taken into account
Preliminary
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
World data confronts theoretical predictions
Preliminary
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) & hep-lat/0601025
Richard Wilson May 9th 2006
Accepted 2007 runs
Happex 3 at q2 = 0.6 (Gev/c)2
To cofirmor deny D0 resultsD0 data have a backround of hyperons.
Could ALL have the same reason for being 1SD high
Comparison of <r2> neutron & <r2> proton radius in lead
Improved electronics (alas Jlab not Harvard)
Higher precision on polarization (Jlab)
He cooled lead target (RW/ROM)
New small angle defelcting magnet (Syracuse)
In retirement knocking 1014 balls around
More fun than a single ball at Hilton Head.(or Acupulco)
AND these are polarized!
Thank you for your attention
Top Related