[b1_ana] Axx

Fri Apr 26 17:49:40 EDT 2013

Hi Oscar,

I don't think anyone is really putting method ahead of physics quantity. The thing is that the issue of needing negative tensor polarization hasn't conclusively gone away (yet) and doesn't really seem to. It is more of the idea that this would spur the much needed r&d, as well as also generating a new program if physics with such a target.

My question is if there is anything precluding us from mentioning both methods, like for instance, having Dustin's suggested route in an appendix for an alternative. That way we could cover our bases. 

The issue I worry about with the 2 cup design is the possible contribution to the downstream cup from the upstream cup. I don't know if switching back and forth can alleviate this. I'm sure COMPASS had  some way to correct for this, and I'm willing to look into it if that's what we choose over the single cup.

Narbe

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

----- Reply message -----
From: "O. A. Rondon" <or at virginia.edu>
To: "Dustin Keller" <dustin at jlab.org>
Cc: "b1_ana at jlab.org" <b1_ana at jlab.org>
Subject: [b1_ana] Axx
Date: Fri, Apr 26, 2013 2:57 pm

Hi,

As I pointed out in my message about Axx, the Np and Nu have to be
coincidence e'p events for them to be associated to Axx or Azz.  And the
coincidence events have to be correlated quasielastic e-p. In such case,
Np, Nu are related to rates from the m=+/-1, 0 states, because only then
Axx is a well defined analyzing power or asymmetry. But it does not work
for DIS, and may not even work for high Q^2 q.e.

If Np, Nu are inclusive events, and we are dealing with ND3,or even LiD,
then we are back, at best, to my method's eq. (19). Feel free to plug in
the detailed expressions and see how things propagate. Keep in mind that
a factor related to the time dependent detector efficiency needs to be
included in all the equations. Such factor is common for the upstream -
downstream difference (data taken simultaneously) but not for the
same-cup one (different periods).

I think one thing that may be ambiguous is what is the emphasis of the
proposal, namely to study a physics quantity by the most accessible
means, or to use the measurement to advance existing techniques, which
is a perfectly valid and worthy goal, but I must say I'm more interested
in the quantity than in the technique.

Cheers,

Oscar

Dustin Keller wrote:
> Hi,
> Getting 20% uncertainty using hole burning for negative tensor 
> polarization down to 5% seems a bit of a stretch to me especially given 
> the small single people are interested in for b1.  But I'm glad to help in 
> anyway I can to try to get it through.
> 
> We really should consider the form of
> Azz=(2/Pzz)(N^p-N^u)/N^u
> it get the uncertainty from 20% to 10%, a much better starting point.
> 
> dustin
> 
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Karl Slifer wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> While it would be easier to run with only positive Pzz, there is no
>> technical or theoretical reason that I know of that prevents us from using
>> negative pol.  This will require target development to achieve large
>> negative as well as positive tensor polarizations, along with careful study
>> of the systematics in extracting these values.  I thought we all agreed on
>> this yesterday....And I also see no technical or theoretical reason (other
>> than it is difficult and will require R&D) which limits the enhanced tensor
>> polarization to 10%.  I believe Don, Chris, Josh would all agree with this,
>> atleast they all did when I talked to them within the last 6 months.
>>
>> So to be clear, I believe we can propose an experiment where we enhance the
>> m=0 population (via rf saturation or by using two independent microwave
>> sources) and measure N_0 unpolarized electrons inclusively scattered while
>> in this state, and then we deplete the m=0 state to obtain a positive
>> polarization and measure N_1 unpolarized electrons scattered while in this
>> state.  Then we form the asymmetry (with appropriate numerical factors).
>> The Pzz will not be the maximal positive or negative value in either state,
>> but we can correct for this by the relative Pzz in each state.    One
>> significant concern is that this introduces time dependent systematics
>> since it will likely require some time to switch between the two states.
>> This has to be studied, but I do not see it as a fundamental limitation.
>>
>> After careful study of the systematics, its possible that the cross section
>> difference method may well turn out to be the best way to do the
>> experiment, but I suspect we will struggle mightily to convince a very
>> skeptical PAC in 30 mins that we really can control all the systematic
>> effects to the level needed for a cross section measurement.
>>
>> With this in mind, I think it is reasonable to aim for conditional approval
>> based on demonstration of the target performance to the level needed (+-20%
>> tensor pol with about 5% relative uncertainty).  I believe we can defend
>> these as reasonable goals, although we should get something in the way of a
>> support statement from Don or Chris.  And I believe conditional approval is
>> a highly desirable state, since the target groups will not be able to
>> commit serious R&D to this without an approved experiment for motivation.
>> In addition, it opens the door to attract more theory support and start
>> consideration of several other possible experiments.
>>
>> my few further cents,
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Karl J. Slifer
>> Assistant Professor
>> University of New Hampshire
>> Telephone : 603-722-0695
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Dustin Keller <dustin at jlab.org> wrote:
>>
>>> As I mentioned in the meeting using the notation Axx can be
>>> mis-leading especially in the case of DIS where azimuthal
>>> control is not obvious.  However the relationship for
>>> sigma^{+/-} for m=+1,-1 is sigma^{+/-}=sigma^u(1+(1/2)AzzPzz).
>>> If you believe that then Axx=Azz, and the conclusion is the same.
>>> If you call it Axx or Azz in either case you just measure the
>>> ratio of polarized and unpolarized cross sections.  This will lead
>>> to a target tensor polarization of about 10%.  There are certainly
>>> other systematic concerns but this is the best we can do target wise.
>>>
>>> dustin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> b1_ana mailing list
>>> b1_ana at jlab.org
>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> b1_ana mailing list
> b1_ana at jlab.org
> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
> 

_______________________________________________
b1_ana mailing list
b1_ana at jlab.org
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/b1_ana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/b1_ana/attachments/20130426/50b715ed/attachment-0001.html 