arie bodek, univ. of rochester1 hi arie this is a sketch of the talk, i worked on it after kevin...

Arie Bodek, Univ. of Rochester 1

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 .

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 usedTile page Vector and Axial Form Factors Applied to Neutrino Quasi-Elastic Scattering.

http://www.pas.rochester/~hbudd/nuint04/gif/


Vector and Axial Form Factors Applied to Neutrino

Quasi-Elastic Scattering

Howard BuddUniversity of Rochester

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~bodek/nuint04-howard.ppt

Talk Given in NUINT04, ITALY March 2004


new page

page 25

* new page

page 26

* *

*


They implemented

The Llewellyn-Smith

Formalism for NUMI

Non zero


Fp important for

Muon neutrinos only at

Very Low Energy

Q2=-q2

UPDATE: Replace by

GEV= GE

P-GEN

gA,MA need to

Be updated

UPATE: Replace by GM

V = GMP-GM

N

From C.H. Llewellyn Smith (SLAC). SLAC-PUB-0958 Phys.Rept.3:261,1972


2 new page Stated we determine BBA-form factors From paper Figure 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

.


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.)


Neutron GMN is negative Neutron (GM

N / GM

N dipole )

At low Q2 Our Ratio to Dipole similar to that nucl-ex/0107016 G. Kubon, et alPhys.Lett. B524 (2002) 26-32

Neutron (GMN

/ GMN

dipole )


Neutron GEN is positive New

Polarization data gives Precise non

zero GEN hep-ph/0202183(2002)

Neutron, GEN

is positive -

Imagine N=P+pion cloud

Neutron (GEN

/ GEP

dipole )

Krutov

(GEN)2

show_gen_new.pict

Galster fit Gen


new page

showing the function and the number would be nice On page 4 of our paper


new pageThis 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.


Type in their d/dQ2 histogram. Fit with our best

Knowledge of their parameters : Get MA=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

MA=1.090+-0.05 or MA= -0.028. So all their

Values for MA. should be reduced by 0.028


Using these data we get MA to update to for latest ga+form factors.(note different experiments have different neutrino energySpectra, 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 --> MA = -0.047

(I.e. results need to be reduced by 0.047)

for different experiments can get MA from -0.025 to -0.060

Miller did not use pure dipole (but did use Gen=0)


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


*new pageWe agree with their calculationKit_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

datathan their fit valueKit_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


new page We agree with the calculation of Barish et alBarish_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 differentBarish_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


*new pageEven though Miller is an updated version of

Barish we don't quite agree with their calculationMiller_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


*new pagepage 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 pageand give the new value of neutrino ma=1.00

.


Hep-ph/0107088 (2001)

For updated MA expt. need to be reanalyzed with new gA, and GEN

Probably more correct to use 1.00+-0.021=MA Difference

In Ma between

Electroproduction

And neutrino

Is understoodMA from neutrino expt. No theory corrections needed

1.11=MA

-0.026-0.028

1.026+-0.021=MA averageFrom

Neutrino

quasielasticFrom charged

Pion

electroproduction


*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


*new page, probably need 2 pages for thisThe cross section plotselas_JhaKJhaJ_nu_tsush_g.gifelas_JhaKJhaJ_nu_2GeV_tsush_g.gifelas_JhaKJhaJ_nub_tsush_g.gif


effect of form factors on CS

Baker_d0dd_110_JhaKJhaJ_105.gif 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.


*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


*new page

Instead of calculating MA, we want to extract the form factors. These plots show the

contributionsof the form factors to the CS.

This is d(dsigma/dq)/dff % change in the cross section vs % change

in the form factorsddsigma_dq_dff_nu.gif - d(dsigma/dq**)/dff

nu FF_contribution_nu.gif - form factor

contribution neutrinoby setting the form factor 0The 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.


*new pageWe 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


*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.


*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


*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.


• 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 174K • f_a_dipole.gif 11-Mar-2004 18:45 215K • f_a_dipole_mod.gif 11-Mar-2004 18:45 174K • f_a_log_mod.gif 11-Mar-2004 18:45 174K • f_a_polar_mod.gif 11-Mar-2004 18:45 174K • sigma_JhaKJhaJ_minerva.gif 11-Mar-2004 18:45 188K

http://web.pas.rochester.edu/~hbudd/nuint04/gif/f_a_cross_sect_mod.gif

http://web.pas.rochester.edu/~hbudd/nuint04/gif/f_a_dipole.gif

http://web.pas.rochester.edu/~hbudd/nuint04/gif/f_a_dipole_mod.gif

http://web.pas.rochester.edu/~hbudd/nuint04/gif/f_a_log_mod.gif

http://web.pas.rochester.edu/~hbudd/nuint04/gif/f_a_polar_mod.gif

http://web.pas.rochester.edu/~hbudd/nuint04/gif/sigma_JhaKJhaJ_minerva.gif


• All your figures now follow as saftete measure. Delete• All after you make sure that you got everything that you wanted

arie bodek, univ. of rochester1 hi arie this is a sketch of the talk, i worked on it after kevin...

Documents

g e p g e n g

page arie

arie bodek

new page page

n dipole slide

negativeneutron g

rochester11 neutron

rochester10 neutron