Transcript Slide 1
Nucleon Electromagnetic Form
Factors
Experimental Perspectives
Will Brooks
EINN 2005
Basics
Status of Data
Insights and Opinions
Conclusions and Outlook
Basics
Scientific motivations:
To understand the ground state
structure of the proton and neutron:
Basic
s
An important experimental constraint
for determining Generalized Parton Distributions
A challenging test for nucleon models and for lattice QCD
Required for extracting information on strange quark distributions in
the proton
To understand nuclei
Nucleon form factors a basic and essential ingredient in models of
nuclei
Several significant and surprising new results in the past
decade
Basic
Form factors describe extended systems
s
Nucleon form factors: quarks
Very general hadron current for elastic scattering (single
photon exchange approximation)
k’
k
q
p
p’
Note: there are numerous other
nucleon form factors, e.g., :
Basic
s
Not in this talk, but see Kent Paschke’s talk this afternoon
Also, F(q2>0) not in this talk, but upcoming Frascati workshop
Recent reviews: Hyde-Wright and de Jager, Annu. Rev. Nucl.
Part. Sci. 2004 54:217; Gao, Int’l J. Mod. Phys. E, 2003.
Basic
s
Functions F1 and F2: Dirac, Pauli form factors
Dirac: ‘non-spin flip,’ Pauli: ‘spin flip’
Proton: F1(0)=F2(0)=1, Neutron: F1(0)=0, F2(0)=1
In Breit frame, obtain simple
expressions for the charge density and
current densities:
Basic
s
These motivate the definition of the Sachs form factors:
(= - q2)
The cross section in terms of G’s has no
interference terms:
Basic
s
Dividing kinematic factors out yields the reduced cross
section convenient for ‘Rosenbluth separations’ for
X(e,e’):
(= - q2)
Can also measure form factor ratio with
polarization techniques, e.g. proton recoil
polarization:
Basic
s
Dipole form, Galster parameterization:
Basic
s
Describes GMp and GMn reasonably well
Describes GEn reasonably well
Status of data
Best known
Rosenbluth separation
Required to obtain GEp from GEp/GMp
Recent revisions
The Proton
Magnetic
Form Factor
Full Q2 range
Intermediate Q2 region
Rosenbluth separation
Polarization transfer
The Proton
Electric
Form Factor
All data
Data extracted using Rosenbluth separation only
Data extracted using polarization transfer only
B
A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION:
The Rosenbluth/polarization GEp discrepancy may be
resolved by including corrections for two-photon exchange
(TPE)
A direct measurement of the TPE contribution is given by
the ratio of positron and electron elastic scattering:
Re+e-(e,Q2) ≡ s(e+p)/s(e-p)
The correction factor to the e-p elastic cross section due to
TPE is just 1-(Re+e--1)/2
Experiments in Jefferson Lab’s Halls A, B (CLAS),
and C to investigate different aspects of the TPE
problem
Radiative corrections
to single photon
exchange
Any dependence different
from Re+e- = 1 indicates TPE
Expected size of
two-photon-exchange
Because GE2 is the slope of the Rosenbluth plot, any
slope/curvature in Re+e- will modify the extraction of GE
BMT - Blunden, Melnitchouk,
Tjon – hadronic model where
intermediate state is a proton
with a form factor.
Axial-VMD
BMT
CABCV
CABCV – Chen, Afanasev,
Brodsky, Carlson,
Vanderhaeghen – partonic
calculation with GPD as
intermediate state
Axial-VMD – Bjorken model
updated by Afanasev and fitted
to data to explain the full GEp
discrepancy.
Experimental method:
producing positrons and
electrons
Untagged, collimated photon beam produced by the standard
Hall B tagger system (5% radiator) is incident from the right:
Experimental method – details of
chicane
Y scale is expanded by a factor of 6 compared to X scale
Incident lepton
momentum spectrum
(0 – 5 GeV/c)
Experimental method:
strategies
Lepton beam energy is a continuum and is not known event-by-event,
therefore, need energy-independent process identification
Want leptons over a full range in scattering angle (epsilon), therefore,
cannot use standard CLAS electron identification and pion rejection
Use correlated, over-constrained kinematics to identify the elastic
scattering process
Measure momentum and angle for electron and for proton
Distinguish lepton from proton via time-of-flight
Suppress non-elastic background
Cross-checks –
Systematic uncertainties
expect same answer
when reverse chicane field:
• electrons ↔ positrons
• checks asymmetries in magnetic fields and trajectories
when reverse torus field
• checks any residual asymmetries in e+/e- acceptance
from each of six sector pairs
when electron or positron beam is blocked
Directly measuring incident e+/e- flux asymmetry
Defining the fiducial volume of event via proton, which is
identical for e+/e Final budget: 1% systematic uncertainty
Expecte
d
accuracy
±1% error band shown for reference
The Neutron
Nuclear target
Electric
Besides Rosenbluth separation,
Form Factor
techniques to determine GEn include:
(deuterium, from T20 measurement)
Highly sophisticated, high-precision measurements!
Many (7) techniques from many (7) laboratories!
Data from past few decades
Low Q2 region
Low Q2 region
The Neutron
Magnetic
Form Factor
Nuclear target
Required to obtain GEn from GEn/GMn
Techniques to measure GMn include:
Rosenbluth separation (with deuteron wavefunction
modeling and subtraction of proton contribution)
‘Ratio’ method: 2H(e,e’n)/2H(e,e’p) (more on this later)
with Faddeev or PWIA modeling
New preliminary data set from CLAS/JLab!
Intermediate Q2 region
Low Q2 region
Low Q2 region
Low Q2 region
Low Q2 region
Low Q2 region
Low Q2 region
Low Q2 region
Measure ratio of quasi-elastic e-n
scattering to quasielastic e-p
scattering off deuterium:
‘Ratio’
Method
~1.0 for Q2>1 GeV2, calculated from deuteron models
→ Measure R, use known GEp, GMp, GEn to extract GMn
(t=Q2/4M2)
Method insensitive to:
Luminosity uncertainties
Electron radiative processes,
reconstruction efficiency, trigger efficiency
Deuteron wavefunction
‘Ratio’
Method
Method requires:
Accurate neutron detection efficiency
Equivalent solid angles for proton and neutron
Final state is positively identified by experimental
information
Can be extended to higher Q2
NEUTRON DETECTION EFFICIENCY:
Data taken with hydrogen target and
deuterium target simultaneously in beam:
D2
‘Ratio’
Method
in CLAS
H2
Tag neutrons with H2 target via ep→e’np+
In-situ efficiency, timing, angular resolution determination
Completely insensitive to PMT gain
variations/changing backgrounds
Detect neutrons with the
calorimeters and TOF
Dual-Cell
Liquid
Cryotarget
Neutron Detection
Benefits of
CLAS
Numerous cross-checks
Three independent, overlapping measurements of e-n
Three magnetic field settings allow independent, partially overlapping
measurements of e-p
→Multiple, overlapping measurements of GMn
Accomodates dual-cell target
In-situ neutron tagging
In-situ proton elastic scattering (alignment, proton efficiencies)
Can veto events with extra charged particles
Can study accuracy of deuteron model
Overlapping
Measurements of GMn
(Semi-schematic)
Neutrons in
large-angle
Calorimeter
Neutrons in
forward-angle
calorimeters
Neutrons in
TOF counters
Protons in
middle DC
Protons in
forward DC
0
1
2
3
4
5
Q2 (GeV2)
Consistency of Overlapping Data
W vs. qpq
QE Protons
QE Neutrons
Effect of qpq cut on W2 spectrum in
exclusive channel
Inclusive
data
Inclusive
data
Q2>
Quasielastic
signal
CLAS/E5 Data
Inelastic
background
Corrections to the
Data
Neutron detection efficiency vs. momentum and hit position
Proton detection efficiency vs. momentum and detector
element
measured with elastic scattering
Electron momentum corrections applied (small)
Nuclear corrections (small, have evaluated in two models)
Radiative corrections (~0 for electron, small but poorly
known for electron-proton interference and TPE)
Sources of systematic
uncertainties
Detection efficiencies
Nucleon solid angle
Uncertainty in other nucleon form factors
Inelastic background
Deuteron wave function
Photon rejection
Radiative corrections, including two-photon-exchange
Insights and Opinions
A critical, thoughtful, synthetic
theoretical analysis of the nucleon
form factors is now needed
Insights and opinions
Models should compare to all four form factors (plus timelike)
It is not a failure for a model/lattice to fail to describe data
Functional form of GMn appears to be quite similar to
proton, slightly smaller (~5%) at larger Q2 > 1 GeV2
dipole a very good approximation (~5-6 %) to at least 5 GeV2
With GPDs, can study connections between DIS and elastic FF,
now have much more information with neutron data at larger Q2
– can, e.g., compare u and d quark roles in DIS and FF
Measuring the same observable with fundamentally
different techniques is very important.
Conclusions and outlook
Enormous technical progress in
experimentally determining nucleon form
factors over the past decade
Conclusion
s and
outlook
Can now begin to quantitatively compare proton to
neutron over a wide range in Q2
Challenge for theoretical models/lattice is much greater –
should compare predictions to all four form factors. A
much more rigorous requirement.
Near future, can get GMn to Q2 ~ 7.5 GeV2 and GEn up to 4
GeV2; with 12 GeV upgrade, to 14 GeV2 for GMn and GEp
“Beyond the Born Approximation: A Precise Comparison of
Positron-Proton and Electron-Proton
Elastic Scattering in CLAS”
A precise comparison of e+p and e-p elastic scattering over a wide
kinematic range is feasible in CLAS. The ratio s(e+p)/s(e-p) directly
yields the two-photon-exchange contribution to elastic scattering.
JLab experiment: E04-116
J. Arrington*, K. Hafidi, R. J. Holt, P. E. Reimer,
E. C. Schulte, X. Zheng, Argonne National Lab
F. Klein, D. Sober, The Catholic University of America
K. Joo*, M. Ungaro, University of Connecticut
B. A. Raue*, W. Boeglin, M. Moteabbed, Florida International University
A. Afanasev*, W. K. Brooks*, V. D. Burkert, A. Deur,
L. Elouadrhiri, D. W. Higinbotham, B. A. Mecking, W. Melnitchouk, Jefferson Lab
G. E. Dodge, C. E. Hyde-Wright, L. B. Weinstein*, Old Dominion University
and the CLAS Collaboration
*spokespersons
CLAS – the CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer
Charged particle angles 8° - 144°
Neutral particle angles 8° - 70°
Momentum resolution ~0.5% (charged)
Angular resolution ~0.5 mr (charged)
Identification of p, p+/p-, K+/K-, e-/e+
Expected Results – Comparison to Theory
1%
1%
Expected Results –
Comparison to Existing Data with Q2>0.8 GeV2
1%
Expected Results –
Breadth of
Coverage
1%