Presentation on theme: "High Luminosity Hall Mini-Review Review A/C spectrometer configurations MAD + HRS, SHMS + HMS, MAD + HMS, SHMS + HRS Four example experiments 1) Pion form."— Presentation transcript:
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 4) Few body form factors Mini-Review in Jan Committee: R. Holt (chair), H. Blok, S. Rock
MAD/HRS/HMS/SHMS Summary MAD HRS SHMS HMS Central P(GeV) 1~8 0.4~ ~11 0.4~7.3 P acceptance (%) -20~ ~ P resolution (%) < ~0.15 Angle range ( O ) 5~90 6~ ~ ~90 Y acceptance (cm) H acceptance (mr) V acceptance (mr) Solid Angle (msr) or H resolution (mr) 0.3~ ~4 0.8 V resolution (mr) 0.7~ ~2 1 Y resolution (cm) 0.4~ ~
Pion Form Factor Team Rob Feuerbach, Paul Ulmer (Hall A) Dave Gaskell, Garth Huber (Hall C) Pion Form Factor extraction: for fixed Q 2, W, measure L in a range of –t, then extrapolate to pion pole (t=m 2 ) need L/T separation, and minimize TT, LT contributions Kinematics Q 2 ~ 1- 6 GeV 2, at W ~ 3.3 GeV measure L for –t from –t min to ~3*(-t min ) HRS/HMS for e, MAD/SHMS for small angle crucial Rate high, systematic uncertainties more important
Kinematics and Rate SHMS setups Will optimize for MAD settings 50uA, 8cm target Rate fast ~ h/pt events
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?
Hadron Form Factors at High Q 2 Team: Ron Gilman, Doug Higinbotham (Hall A) Dipangkar Dutta, Mark Jones (Hall C) Experiments: G E p, (CT, N- D with FPP for p + calorimeter for e Compare with HMS/SHMS for p + calorimeter for e
G E p Status RG estimate for MAD + calorimeter Kinematic/rate: limitation Q 2 =15 GeV 2, 12.4 o, 9 GeV/c for p Rate ~ 1 Hz Statistical uncertainty similar to HMS/SHMS + calorimeter option (within a factor of 2)
G E p Systematic Uncertainties Estimated with 1 st order matrix elements/resolutions Q 2 =12 GeV 2, 12 o : dR ~ 0.01 dp ~ 0.07%, d ~0.6 mr, d ~ 0.5 mr, dy ~ 4.6 mm Q 2 =14 GeV 2, dR ~ 0.05 Reality could be larger significantly smaller than statistical uncertainties
Flavor decomposition in SIDIS Team Xiaodong Jiang, Jian-ping Chen (Hall A) Donal Day, Antje Bruell (Hall C) SIDIS: (e,ep +/- ) and (e,eK +/- ) Unpolarized: on H and D d bar /u bar (systematics) Longitudinally polarized: NH 3, LiD and 3 He (statistics) u, d, u bar, d bar, s= s bar (LO) or: u v, d v, d bar - u bar (NLO)
Kinematics and Comparison Kinematics: x: 0.07 – 0.65 (~0.4 for sea), Q 2 : 1.2 – 4.4 GeV 2 z ~ 0.5, W > 2 GeV, W > 1.5 GeV e: o, 2-6 GeV/c (MAD/HMS) /K: 6-10 o, 3-4 GeV/c (HRS/SHMS) good PID required Unpolarized: relative systematic: p/d, pi+/pi- Polarized: measuring A 1N +/-, A 1N K+/-,, and/or ratios Simulation is on going MAD+HRS slightly better than HMS+SHMS for polarized?
Few Body Form Factors Team Javier Gomez, Makis Petratos (Hall A) Betsy Beise, Ingo Sick (Hall C) Earlier projections of form factor A(Q 2 ) with MAD + calorimeter deuteron: Q 2 up to 10 GeV 2 3 He: Q 2 up to 5.7 GeV 2 No new information from the team MAD + calorimeter better than HMS + calorimeter by a factor of 2?
Summary Four groups of experiments MAD/HRS/SHMS/HMS Pion Form Factor: Rate fast, systematic more important NoQuad MAD+HRS similar to HMS/SHMS? G E p (CT, N-> ) : Statistic more important? MAD+HRS similar to HMS+SHMS? Flavor decomposition in SIDIS: d bar /u bar : systematics dominating, similar? u, u, u bar, dbar, s, statistic dominating, MAD+HRS better? A(Q 2 ) for D and 3 He: statistic dominating, MAD+calorimeter better?