Lead ( Pb) Radius Experiment : PREX Elastic Scattering Parity Violating Asymmetry  5 E = 1 GeV, electrons on lead Spokespersons Paul Souder, Krishna Kumar Guido Urciuoli, Robert Michaels Graduate Students Ahmed.

Download Report

Transcript Lead ( Pb) Radius Experiment : PREX Elastic Scattering Parity Violating Asymmetry  5 E = 1 GeV, electrons on lead Spokespersons Paul Souder, Krishna Kumar Guido Urciuoli, Robert Michaels Graduate Students Ahmed.

Lead (
208
Pb) Radius Experiment :
PREX
Elastic Scattering
Parity Violating Asymmetry
 5
E = 1 GeV,
electrons on lead
0
Spokespersons
Paul Souder,
Krishna Kumar
Guido Urciuoli, Robert Michaels
Graduate Students
Ahmed Zafar, Chun Min Jen,
Abdurahim Rakham (Syracuse)
208Pb
Jon Wexler (UMass)
Kiadtisak Saenboonruang (UVa)
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Ran March – June 2010 in Hall A
Idea behind
Z
0
PREX
of Weak Interaction :
Clean Probe Couples Mainly to Neutrons
( T.W. Donnelly, J. Dubach, I Sick 1989 )
In PWIA (to illustrate) :
 d 
 d 

 

GF Q 2
 d  R  d  L
A 

2 2
 d 
 d 

 

 d  R  d  L
2
F n (Q ) 

2
 1  4 sin W 

2
F
(
Q
)
P


0
w/ Coulomb distortions (C. J. Horowitz) :
dA
 3% 
A
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
dRn
 1%
Rn
PREX
Physics
Output
Measured Asymmetry
Correct for Coulomb
Distortions
Weak Density at one Q 2
Mean Field
& Other
Models
Small Corrections for
Atomic
Parity
Violation
G
n
E
s
GE
MEC
2
Neutron Density at one Q
Assume Surface Thickness
Good to 25% (MFT)
Stars
Slide adapted from
C. Horowitz
Rn
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Neutron
Fundamental Nuclear Physics
:
What is the size of a nucleus ?
Neutrons are thought to determine
the size of heavy nuclei like 208Pb.
Can theory predict it ?
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Reminder: Electromagnetic Scattering determines
 r 
(charge distribution)
208
d
d  m b
d 
d  str 
1
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Pb
 r 
2
q  fm
1
3
Z 0 of weak interaction : sees the neutrons
Analysis is clean, like electromagnetic scattering:
1. Probes the entire nuclear volume
2. Perturbation theory applies
proton
neutron
Electric charge
1
0
Weak charge
0.08
1
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
6
Electron - Nucleus Potential
Vˆ (r )  V (r )   5 A(r )
axial
electromagnetic
/
V (r )   d r Z  (r ) | r  r |
3 /
208
/
A(r ) 
d
d

| FP (Q 2 ) | 2
d d Mott
FP (Q 2 ) 
1
4
3
 d r j0 (qr )  P (r )
2 2
(1  4 sin
2
 W ) Z  P ( r )  N  N ( r )
A(r ) is small, best observed
by parity violation
Pb is spin 0
Proton form factor
GF
1  4 sin 2 W  1 neutron weak
charge >> proton weak charge
Neutron form factor
FN (Q 2 ) 
1
4
d
3
r j 0 (qr )  N (r )
Parity Violating Asymmetry
 d 
 d 

 

GF Q 2
 d  R  d  L
A 

2 2
 d 
 d 

 

 d  R  d  L
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011

FN (Q 2 ) 
2
 1  4 sin W 

2
F
(
Q
)
P


0
PREX:
2
Measurement at one Q is sufficient to measure R
N
( R.J. Furnstahl )
Why only one
parameter ?
(next slide…)
proposed error
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Slide adapted from J. Piekarewicz
Nuclear Structure: Neutron density is a fundamental
observable that remains elusive.
Reflects poor understanding of
symmetry energy of nuclear
matter = the energy cost of N  Z
E(n, x)  E(n, x  1/ 2)  S (n) (1  2 x 2 )
n  n.m. density
x  ratio
proton/neutrons
• Slope unconstrained by data
208
• Adding R N from
Pb
will eliminate the
dispersion in plot.
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Thanks, Alex Brown
Skx-s15
PREX Workshop 2008
E/N
N
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Thanks, Alex Brown
PREX Workshop 2008
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Skx-s20
Thanks, Alex Brown
PREX Workshop 2008
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Skx-s25
Application: Atomic Parity Violation
2
• Low Q test of Standard Model
• Needs RN
H PNC 
GF
2 2
  N
Isotope Chain Experiments
e.g. Berkeley Yb
(or APV measures RN )
 N (r )  Z (1  4 sin 2 W )  P (r )  e/  5  e d 3 r


0
APV
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
13
Application :
Neutron
Stars
What is the nature
of extremely dense
matter ?
Do collapsed stars form
“exotic” phases of
matter ? (strange stars,
quark stars)
Crab Nebula
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
(X-ray, visible, radio, infrared)
PREX & Neutron Stars
( C.J. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz )
R N calibrates EOS of
Neutron Rich Matter
Crust Thickness
Explain Glitches in Pulsar Frequency ?
Combine PREX R N with
Obs. Neutron Star Radii
Phase Transition to “Exotic” Core ?
Strange star ? Quark Star ?
Some Neutron Stars
seem too Cold
Cooling by neutrino emission (URCA)
Crab Pulsar
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Rn  Rp  0.2 fm
URCA probable, else not
How to do a Parity Experiment
(integrating method)
Flux Integration Technique:
HAPPEX: 2 MHz
PREX: 500 MHz
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Example : HAPPEX
Pull Plot
(example)
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
PREX Data
( A A)/
Beam Asymmetries
Araw = Adet - AQ + E+ ixi
Slopes from
•natural beam jitter (regression)
•beam modulation (dithering)
PAVI 09
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
18
Parity Quality
Beam !
Points: Not
sign corrected
Helicity – Correlated
Position Differences
< ~ 3 nm
Average with signs =
what exp’t feels
 X R  X L
Wien Flips helped !
for helicity L, R
Units: microns
Slug #
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
( ~ 1 day)
Hall A Compton Upgrade
with
Green Laser
Sirish Nanda, et. al.
1 % Polarimetry
at
1 GeV
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Magnet and Target
Hall A Moller Upgrade
Sasha Glamazdin, et.al.
Superconducting Magnet from Hall C
Saturated Iron Foil Targets
1 % Polarimetry
DAQ Upgrade (FADC)
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
High Resolution Spectrometers
Spectrometer Concept:
Resolve Elastic
1st excited state Pb 2.6 MeV
Elastic
detector
Inelastic
Quad
Left-Right symmetry to
control transverse
polarization systematic
target
Dipole
Q Q
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Planned Tungsten
Collimator and
Shielding
PREX Region After Target
Top view
HRS-L
Septum
Magnet
Q1
target
HRS-R
Q1
Former O-Ring location
which failed and caused
significant time loss
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Collimators
PREX-II proposal
Geant 4 Radiation Calculations
J. Mammei, L. Zana
• benchmarking against LD2 (ran at 100 uA)
• exploring shielding strategies
Number of Neutrons per incident Electron
0 - 1 MeV
W
LD2 tgt
Pb tgt
10 m
Z
Strategy
1 - 50 MeV
0.70    30
50 - 500 MeV
• x10 reduction in
0.2
to 10 MeV
R.
Michaels,
Jlabneutrons
(similar
UGM, June,
2011 to LD2)
(distance along beamline)
PREX -I
PREX -II
• Tungsten ( W ) plug
• Shield the W
1 m
-1 m
High Resolution Spectrometers
Pure, Thin
208
Pb
Lead 5State
Target
2.6 MeV
DETECTOR footprint
Momentum
(GeV/c)
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
25
Lead / Diamond Target
Diamond
• Three bays
• Lead (0.5 mm)
sandwiched by
diamond (0.15 mm)
• Liquid He cooling (30 Watts)
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
LEAD
Performance of Lead / Diamond Targets
melted
NOT
melted
Last 4 days at 70 uA
melted
Targets with thin diamond
backing (4.5 % background)
degraded fastest.
Thick diamond (8%) ran well and
did not melt at 70 uA.
Solution: Run with 10 targets.
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Beam-Normal Asymmetry in elastic electron
scattering
i.e. spin transverse to scattering plane



   
AT  
 S e  ( k e  k 'e )

 
Possible systematic if small
transverse spin component
New results PREX
208
12
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
AT > 0 means
+

S
x

k
-
z
Pb: AT   0.13  0.19  0.36 ppm
C : AT   6.52  0.36  0.35 ppm
• Small AT for
• AT for
y
12C
208Pb
is a big (but pleasant) surprise.
qualitatively consistent with 4He and available
calculations (1) Afanasev ; (2) Gorchtein & Horowitz
Systematic Errors
Error Source
Absolute (ppm)
Relative ( % )
0.0071
1.1
Beam Asymmetries (2) 0.0072
1.1
Detector Linearity
0.0071
1.1
BCM Linearity
0.0010
0.2
Rescattering
0.0001
0
Transverse Polarization
0.0012
0.2
Q2 (1)
0.0028
0.4
Target Thickness
0.0005
0.1
0.0025
0.4
Inelastic States
0
0
TOTAL
0.0130
2.0
Polarization (1)
12C
Asymmetry (2)
(1) Normalization Correction applied
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
(2) Nonzero correction (the rest assumed zero)
PREX
Physics Result
APV
R L

R L

0.6571  0.0604(stat)  0.0130(syst )
ppm
9.2 %
2.0 %
at
Q2 = 0.00906 GeV2
 Statistics limited ( 9% )
 Systematic error goal achieved ! (2%)
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
PREX Asymmetry
ppm
(Pe x A)
(blinded, raw)
Slug ~ 1 day
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
PREX Physics Interpretation
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Asymmetry leads to RN
Establishing a neutron skin at 95% CL
Neutron Skin = RN - RP = 0.34 + 0.15 - 0.17 fm
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Shufang Ban, C.J. Horowitz, R. Michaels arXiv:1010.3246 [nucl-th]
Future ?
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
PREX – II
Proposal
Future ?
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Other
Nuclei ?
RN
Shape Dependence ?
Surface
thickness
Parity Violating Electron Scattering
Measurements of Neutron Densities
Shufang Ban, C.J. Horowitz, R. Michaels
arXiv:1010.3246 [nucl-th]
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
RN
Surface
thickness
PREX : Summary
• Fundamental Nuclear Physics with
many applications
• Achieved a 9% stat. error in Asymmetry
(original goal : 3 %)
• Systematic Error Goals Achieved !!
• Significant time-losses due to O-Ring problem
and radiation damage
• Proposal for PREX-II in preparation
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Extra Slides
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Corrections to the Asymmetry are
Mostly Negligible
• Coulomb Distortions ~20% = the biggest correction.
• Transverse Asymmetry (to be measured)
• Strangeness
• Electric Form Factor of Neutron
• Parity Admixtures
• Dispersion Corrections
• Meson Exchange Currents
• Shape Dependence
• Isospin Corrections
• Radiative Corrections
• Excited States
• Target Impurities
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
Horowitz, et.al. PRC 63 025501
Optimum Kinematics for Lead Parity:
<A> = 0.5 ppm.
E = 1 GeV if
Accuracy in Asy 3%
Fig. of merit
Min. error in R n
maximize:
1 month run
1% in R
PAVI 09
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
n
(2 months x
100 uA
 0.5% if no
systematics)
Neutron Star Crust vs
Pb Neutron Skin
Liquid/Solid Transition Density
C.J. Horowitz, J. Piekarawicz
Liquid
FP
Neutron
Star
208Pb
Solid
• Thicker neutron skin in Pb means energy rises rapidly with
density  Quickly favors uniform phase.
• Thick skin in Pb  low transition density in star.
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011
TM1
PREX: pins down the symmetry energy
E
 N Z 
  av  a 4 

A
 A 
( R.J. Furnstahl )
2
 as / A
1/ 3
 ...
(1 parameter)
energy cost for unequal #
protons & neutrons
PREX
error
bar
( 1 )
208
Actually, it’s the
density dependence of
a4 that we pin down.
Pb
PREX
R. Michaels, Jlab
UGM, June, 2011