1 / 16

High Luminosity Hall Mini-Review

High Luminosity Hall Mini-Review. Review A/C spectrometer configurations MAD + HRS, SHMS + HMS, MAD + HMS, SHMS + HRS Four example experiments 1) Pion form factor 2) Hadron form factors to highest possible Q 2 3) Flavor decomposition in SIDIS

liang
Télécharger la présentation

High Luminosity Hall Mini-Review

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. High Luminosity Hall Mini-Review • Review A/C spectrometer configurations MAD + HRS, SHMS + HMS, MAD + HMS, SHMS + HRS • Four example experiments 1) Pion form factor 2) Hadron form factors to highest possible Q2 3) Flavor decomposition in SIDIS 4) Few body form factors • Mini-Review in Jan. 4-5. Committee: R. Holt (chair), H. Blok, S. Rock

  2. MAD/HRS/HMS/SHMS Summary MAD HRS SHMS HMS Central P(GeV) 1~8 0.4~4.3 2.5~11 0.4~7.3 P acceptance (%) -20~+40 +-5 -15~+25 +-10 P resolution (%) 0.1 0.01 <0.2 0.10~0.15 Angle range (O) 5~90 6~135 5.5~25 10.5~90 Y acceptance (cm) 50 10 50 10 H acceptance (mr) +-38 +-30 +-18 +-32 V acceptance (mr) +-190 +-60 +-50 +-85 Solid Angle (msr) 6-24 6 2 or 4 8.1 H resolution (mr) 0.3~0.4 0.1 2~4 0.8 V resolution (mr) 0.7~1 0.3 1~2 1 Y resolution (cm) 0.4~0.7 0.2 0.2~0.6 0.3

  3. Pion Form Factor • Team Rob Feuerbach, Paul Ulmer (Hall A) Dave Gaskell, Garth Huber (Hall C) • Pion Form Factor extraction: for fixed Q2, W, measure sL in a range of –t, then extrapolate to pion pole (t=mp2) need L/T separation, and minimize sTT, sLT contributions • Kinematics Q2 ~ 1- 6 GeV2, at W ~ 3.3 GeV measure sL for –t from –tmin to ~3*(-tmin) • HRS/HMS for e, MAD/SHMS for p, small angle crucial • Rate high, systematic uncertainties more important

  4. Kinematicsand Rate • SHMS setups Will optimize for MAD settings • 50uA, 8cm target • Rate fast ~0.4 -16.2 h/pt 10000 events

  5. Pion Form Factor Summary • rate high, statistical uncertain not dominating • HRS/HMS for e: a factor of 2 in rate (not that important) • noQuad MAD or normal tune noQuad MAD better p coverage, but limited –t range • Point-to-point angle offsets might be a problem? • Systematic uncertainty with angle/momentum variations to be done  MAD/HRS and SHMS/HMS no big difference?

  6. Hadron Form Factors at High Q2 • Team: Ron Gilman, Doug Higinbotham (Hall A) Dipangkar Dutta, Mark Jones (Hall C) • Experiments: GEp, (CT, N-D) • MAD with FPP for p + calorimeter for e • Compare with HMS/SHMS for p + calorimeter for e

  7. GEp Status • RG estimate for MAD + calorimeter • Kinematic/rate: limitation Q2=15 GeV2, MAD@ 12.4o, 9 GeV/c for p Rate ~ 1 Hz • Statistical uncertainty similar to HMS/SHMS + calorimeter option (within a factor of 2)

  8. GEp Systematic Uncertainties • Estimated with 1st order matrix elements/resolutions • Q2=12 GeV2, 12o: dR ~ 0.01 dp ~ 0.07%, dq ~0.6 mr, dj ~ 0.5 mr, dy ~ 4.6 mm • Q2=14 GeV2, dR ~ 0.05 • Reality could be larger  significantly smaller than statistical uncertainties

  9. Flavor decomposition in SIDIS • Team Xiaodong Jiang, Jian-ping Chen (Hall A) Donal Day, Antje Bruell (Hall C) • SIDIS: (e,e’p+/-) and (e,e’K+/-) • Unpolarized: on H and D  dbar/ubar (systematics) • Longitudinally polarized: NH3, LiD and 3He (statistics)  Du, Dd, Dubar, Ddbar, Ds=Dsbar (LO) or: Duv, Ddv, Ddbar-Dubar (NLO)

  10. Kinematics and Comparison • Kinematics: x: 0.07 – 0.65 (~0.4 for sea), Q2: 1.2 – 4.4 GeV2 z ~ 0.5, W > 2 GeV, W’ > 1.5 GeV  e: 10-15o, 2-6 GeV/c (MAD/HMS) p/K: 6-10o, 3-4 GeV/c (HRS/SHMS) good PID required • Unpolarized: relative systematic: p/d, pi+/pi- • Polarized: measuring A1Np+/-, A1NK+/-, Ds, and/or ratios • Simulation is on going MAD+HRS slightly better than HMS+SHMS for polarized?

  11. Few Body Form Factors • Team Javier Gomez, Makis Petratos (Hall A) Betsy Beise, Ingo Sick (Hall C) • Earlier projections of form factor A(Q2) with MAD + calorimeter deuteron: Q2 up to 10 GeV2 3He: Q2 up to 5.7 GeV2 • No new information from the team  MAD + calorimeter better than HMS + calorimeter by a factor of 2?

  12. Summary • Four groups of experiments  MAD/HRS/SHMS/HMS • Pion Form Factor: Rate fast, systematic more important NoQuad MAD+HRS similar to HMS/SHMS? • GEp (CT, N->D): Statistic more important? MAD+HRS similar to HMS+SHMS? • Flavor decomposition in SIDIS: dbar/ubar: systematics dominating, similar? Du, Du, Dubar, Ddbar, Ds, statistic dominating, MAD+HRS better? • A(Q2) for D and 3He: statistic dominating, MAD+calorimeter better?

More Related