1. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester1 Hi Arie This is a sketch of the talk, I worked on it after Kevin left. I look at neutrino-CIPANP2003.ppt so some of it is from that. I'm supposed to try to finish this minerva qe stuff today, so I'm have to start working on that again. ( maybe this weekend.) From that some of the plots at the end will be replaced. I might replace some of the plots later on. We can discuss it. I'm at 8616 right now. The gif files in www.pas.rochester/~hbudd/nuint04/gif/ I have a script which created the files so it was fast. When I tried to do it in pdf the program "convert" complained about some of the files. I don't know why so I didn't do pdf. I could put postscript files in a directory If you want.www.pas.rochester/~hbudd/nuint04/gif/ Note things could be added later, but THe idea was to try to get to the time limit no discussion of FP. Note some of the initial trans slides the formula's I think this could be more cleanly created in tex using your paper from the CIPANP2003. It wouldn't take much work. (One would want to include a b and c. In this way some of the extraneous stuff could be left out. I, however, can't do it now, maybe later. Outline of the talk * new page ( indicates the plot exist but is not used Tile page Vector and Axial Form Factors Applied to Neutrino Quasi-Elastic Scattering.

2. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester2 Vector and Axial Form Factors Applied to Neutrino Quasi-Elastic Scattering Howard Budd University of Rochester http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~bodek/nuint04-howard.ppt Talk Given in NUINT04, ITALY March 2004

3. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester3

4. 4

5. 5 new page page 25 * new page page 26 *

6. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester6 They implemented The Llewellyn-Smith Formalism for NUMI Non zero

7. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester7 Fp important for Muon neutrinos only at Very Low Energy Q 2 =-q 2 UPDATE: Replace by G E V = G E P -G E N g A,M A need to Be updated UPATE: Replace by G M V = G M P -G M N From C.H. Llewellyn Smith (SLAC). SLAC-PUB-0958 Phys.Rept.3:261,1972

8. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester8 2 new page Stated we determine BBA-form factors From paper Figure 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

9. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester9 If there is space in these 2 pages maybe we can also show the plots not divided by dipole, as you have shown in your talk on page 27 and 29 (see next two slides – Arie) (note the cross section ratio plot and cross section plot will be shown after ma is determined.)

10. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester10 Neutron G M N is negativeNeutron (G M N / G M N dipole ) At low Q2 Our Ratio to Dipole similar to that nucl-ex/0107016 G. Kubon, et al Phys.Lett. B524 (2002) 26-32 Neutron (G M N / G M N dipole )

11. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester11 Neutron G E N is positive New Polarization data gives Precise non zero G E N hep-ph/0202183(2002) Neutron, G E N is positive - Imagine N=P+pion cloud Neutron (G E N / G E P dipole ) Krutov (G E N ) 2 show_gen_new.pict Galster fit Gen

12. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester12 new page showing the function and the number would be nice On page 4 of our paper

13. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester13 new page This is pages 33 34 35 (see next three page – Arie) We get their flux from their papers. We calculate dsigma/dq2 with their assumptions. We compare their curve to our curve calculated with the same assumptions. We agree with their calculation. We then use their dsigma/dq2 data and calculate ma with their assumptions and with BB-2003 We agree with their value of ma. The difference in fit value between using their assumptions and our assumptions is del_ma and neutrino value of MA should be reduced by this amount.

14. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester14 Type in their d  /dQ2 histogram. Fit with our best Knowledge of their parameters : Get M A =1.118+-0.05 (A different central value, but they do event likelihood fit And we do not have their the event, just the histogram. If we put is best knowledge of form factors, then we get M A =1.090+-0.05 or  M A = -0.028. So all their Values for M A. should be reduced by 0.028

15. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester15 Using these data we get  M A to update to for latest ga+form factors. (note different experiments have different neutrino energy Spectra, different fit region, different targets, so each experiment requires its own study). A Pure Dipole analysis, with ga=1.23 (Shape analysis) - if redone with best know form factors -->  M A = -0.047 (I.e. results need to be reduced by 0.047) for different experiments can get  M A from -0.025 to -0.060 Miller did not use pure dipole (but did use Gen=0)

16. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester16

17. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester17 Baker_81_ma107_nor100.gif- $Q^2$ distribution from Baker The dotted curve is their calculation taken from their $Q^2$ distribution histogram. The dashed curve is our calculation using their assumptions. * M_A * updated M_A * updated M_A * Delta M_A * Delta M_A * (published) * old params. * new params. * new--old * BBA-2003-- Dipole Baker * 1.07 pm 0.06 *1.079 pm 0.056 * 1.055 pm 0.055 * -0.024 * -0.049

18. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester18 *new page We agree with their calculation Kit_83_ma105_nor95.gif $Q^2$ distribution from Kitagaki The dotted curve is their calculation taken from their $Q^2$ distribution histogram. The dashed curve is our calculation using their assumptions. However, we disagree with their fit value, Our fit value seem to be in better agreement with the data than their fit value Kit_83_o0oo_105_119_100.gif $Q^2$ distribution from Kitagaki The dash curve is our calculation using our fit value of $M_A$=1.19 GeV. The solid curve is our calculation using their fit value of $M_A$=1.05 GeV. M_A * updated M_A * updated M_A * Delta M_A * Delta M_A (published) * old params. * new params. * new--old * BBA-2003--Dipole 1.05_{-0.16}^{+0.12}*1.194_{-0.11}^{+0.10}*1.175_{- 0.11}^{+0.10} * -0.019 * -0.050

19. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester19 new page We agree with the calculation of Barish et al Barish_77_ma95_nor100.gif $Q^2$ distribution from Barish The dotted curve is their calculation taken from their $Q^2$ distribution histogram. The dashed curve is our calculation using their assumptions. However, our fit value is a little different Barish_77_o0oo_107_101_100.gif $Q^2$ distribution from Barish The dash curve is our calculation using our fit value of $M_A$=1.075 GeV. The solid curve is our calculation using their fit value of $M_A$=1.01 GeV. * M_A * updated M_A * updated M_A * Delta M_A * Delta M_A * (published) * old params. * new params. * new--old * BBA-2003--Dipole Barish * 1.01 pm 0.09 *1.075 pm 0.10 * 1.049 pm 0.099 * -0.026 * -0.046

20. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester20 *new page Even though Miller is an updated version of Barish we don't quite agree with their calculation Miller_83_ma100_nor97.gif $Q^2$ distribution from Miller The dotted curve is their calculation taken from their $Q^2$ distribution histogram. The dashed curve is our calculation using their assumptions. However, the shape of our curves agree using our best fit value. Miller_82_o0oo_105_119_100.gif $Q^2$ distribution from Miller The dotted curve is their calculation using their fit value of $M_A$=1.05 GeV. The dash curve is our calculation using our fit value of $M_A$=1.117 GeV. * M_A * updated M_A * updated M_A * Delta M_A * Delta M_A * (published) * old params. * new params. * new--old * BBA-2003--Dipole Miller * 1.05 pm 0.05 *1.117 pm 0.055 * 1.090 pm 0.055 * -0.027 * -0.046

21. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester21 *new page page 37 THis is your slide "axial structure of the nucleon“ See next slide - Arie and put in table 3 from our paper hopefully on the same page and give the new value of neutrino ma=1.00.

22. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester22 Hep-ph/0107088 (2001) For updated M A expt. need to be reanalyzed with new g A, and G E N Probably more correct to use 1.00+-0.021=M A Difference In Ma between Electroproduction And neutrino Is understood M A from neutrino expt. No theory corrections needed 1.11=M A -0.026 -0.028 1.026+-0.021=M A average From Neutrino quasielastic From charged Pion electroproduction

23. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester23 *new page The next plots show the nuclear corrections for nuclear correction uses NUANCE calculation based on Fermi gas model for Carbon. Include Pauli Blocking, Fermi motion and 25 MeV binding energy Nov 24 16:48 NukeFermiGasC12EBind25.gif nuclear corrections Nuclear binding on nucleon form factors as modeled by Tsushima et al Model valid for Q**2 < 1 and binding effects on form factors expected to be small at high Q2. Sep 28 17:02 Tsushima_ff_g.gif ( could not find this put instead Tsushima_ff_dipole.gif - Arie ) Oct 1 10:16 Tsushima_ff_file_g.gif - gep,gen,gmp,gmn

24. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester24 *new page, probably need 2 pages for this The cross section plots elas_JhaKJhaJ_nu_tsush_g.gif elas_JhaKJhaJ_nu_2GeV_tsush_g.gif elas_JhaKJhaJ_nub_tsush_g.gif

25. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester25 effect of form factors on CS Baker_d0dd_110_JhaKJhaJ_105.gi f A comparison of the $Q^2$ distribution using 2 different sets of form factors. The data are from Baker The dotted curve uses Dipole Form Factors with $M_A$=1.10 GeV. The dashed curve uses BBA-2003 Form Factors with $M_A$=1.05 GeV. r_JhaKJhaJ_ma100_D0DD_ma105.gif SHows the effect of using the correct form factors and corrected value of ma on the cross section.

26. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester26 *new page This plot is the ratio of BBA with ma=1 vs dipole with ma=1.11 as shown on 38. But I would cut out the right had plot and put in the plot below to replace it r_JhaKJhaJ_ma100_D0DD_ma111.gif

27. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester27 *new page Instead of calculating MA, we want to extract the form factors. These plots show the contributions of the form factors to the CS. This is d(dsigma/dq)/dff % change in the cross section vs % change in the form factors ddsigma_dq_dff_nu.gif - d(dsigma/dq**)/dff nu FF_contribution_nu.gif - form factor contribution neutrino by setting the form factor 0 The plots show that FA is a major component of the cross section. Also shows that the difference between GEP between the CS data and polarizaition data will have no effect on the cross section.

28. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester28 *new page We solve for fa by writing the cross section as a(q2)*fa(q2)**2 + b(q2)*fa(q2) + c(q2) if dsig/dq2(q2) is the measured cross section we have a(q2)*fa(q2)**2 + b(q2)*fa(q2) + c(q2) - dsig/dq2(q2) =0 over a bin q1 to q2 we integrate this equation over a bin we bin center the quadratic term and linear term seperately and we can pull fa(q2)**2 and fa(q2) out of the integral. We can then solve for fa(q2) * Shows calculated value of F_A for the previous experiments. f_a_lin.gif - f_a data and minerva - linear f_a_log.gif - f_a data and minerva - log

29. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester29 *new page MINERvA will be extracting ma from data. Showing MINERvA expected errors f_a_polar.gif - gep polarization/dipole, fa errors, fa data f_a_cross_sect.gif - gep cs/dipole, fa errors, fa data We show GEP polarization/dipole and gep cs/dipole with the expected MINERvA errors SHows that we can measure FA to deterimine if it deviates from a dipole as much as GEN.

30. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester30 *new page Do we get new information from anti-neutrinos For neutrinos any error or non understood effect gets put in FA. Do we have a handle on that? FF_contribution_nub.gif - form factor contribution anti-neutrino ddsigma_dq_dff_nub.gif - d(dsigma/dq**)/dff nub These plots show that for q2 > 3 the cross section becomes insensitive to fa

31. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester31 *new page f_a_dipole_mod_nub.gif - f_a/dipole nub f_a_reduced_nub_010_percent.gif- reduce f_a by.1 (10%) amount of reduction of CS The plot shows that at q2=3.2 GeV the cross section is determined only from data from electron scattering experiment.

32. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester32 Next are 6 figures from your Web site that you did not tell me where to put f_a_cross_sect_mod.gif 11-Mar-2004 18:45 174Kf_a_cross_sect_mod.gif f_a_dipole.gif 11-Mar-2004 18:45 215Kf_a_dipole.gif f_a_dipole_mod.gif 11-Mar-2004 18:45 174Kf_a_dipole_mod.gif f_a_log_mod.gif 11-Mar-2004 18:45 174Kf_a_log_mod.gif f_a_polar_mod.gif 11-Mar-2004 18:45 174Kf_a_polar_mod.gif sigma_JhaKJhaJ_minerva.gif 11-Mar-2004 18:45 188Ksigma_JhaKJhaJ_minerva.gif

33. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester33

34. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester34

35. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester35 All your figures now follow as saftete measure. Delete All after you make sure that you got everything that you wanted

36. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester36

37. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester37

38. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester38

39. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester39

40. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester40

41. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester41

42. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester42

43. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester43

44. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester44

45. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester45

46. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester46

47. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester47

48. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester48

49. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester49

50. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester50

51. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester51

52. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester52

53. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester53

54. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester54

55. Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester55