the curse of spin: lurching from one crisis to the …2008/02/06 · the curse of today may be the...
TRANSCRIPT
The Curse of Spin: Lurching from One Crisis
to the Next
Elliot Leader
Imperial College London
1
What do I mean by “CURSE” ?
The CURSE of today may be the BLESSING
of tomorrow
The curse of spin is its ability to demonstrate
the shortcomings of a theory and, in some
cases, to destroy it.
Spin dependent measurements have a scalpel
like ability to probe a theory, which may have
been able to fudge the results of ordinary e.g.
cross-section measurements.
Thus the path of spin is strewn with the wreck-
age of discarded theories. The positive aspect
is that better (hopefully) theories arise from
the debris.
2
What do I mean by “CURSE” ?
The CURSE of today may be the BLESSING
of tomorrow
The curse of spin is its ability to demonstrate
the shortcomings of a theory and, in some
cases, to destroy it.
Spin dependent measurements have a scalpel
like ability to probe a theory, which may have
been able to fudge the results of ordinary e.g.
cross-section measurements.
Thus the path of spin is strewn with the wreck-
age of discarded theories. The positive aspect
is that better (hopefully) theories arise from
the debris.
3
What do I mean by “CURSE” ?
The CURSE of today may be the BLESSING
of tomorrow
The curse of spin is its ability to demonstrate
the shortcomings of a theory and, in some
cases, to destroy it.
Spin dependent measurements have a scalpel
like ability to probe a theory, which may have
been able to fudge the results of ordinary e.g.
cross-section measurements.
Thus the path of spin is strewn with the wreck-
age of discarded theories. The positive aspect
is that better (hopefully) theories arise from
the debris.
4
What do I mean by “CURSE” ?
The CURSE of today may be the BLESSING
of tomorrow
The curse of spin is its ability to demonstrate
the shortcomings of a theory and, in some
cases, to destroy it.
Spin dependent measurements have a scalpel
like ability to probe a theory, which may have
been able to fudge the results of ordinary e.g.
cross-section measurements.
Thus the path of spin is strewn with the wreck-
age of discarded theories. The positive aspect
is that better (hopefully) theories arise from
the debris.
5
What do I mean by “CURSE” ?
The CURSE of today may be the BLESSING
of tomorrow
The curse of spin is its ability to demonstrate
the shortcomings of a theory and, in some
cases, to destroy it.
Spin dependent measurements have a scalpel
like ability to probe a theory, which may have
been able to fudge the results of ordinary e.g.
cross-section measurements.
Thus the path of spin is strewn with the wreck-
age of discarded theories. The positive aspect
is that better (hopefully) theories arise from
the debris.
6
Contents
1) The Ancient World (brief)
2) The Renaissance (the European Muon Col-
laboration experiment)
3) The Present (new problems)
7
THE ANCIENT WORLD
8
An example: Electroweak Theory
Weak interactions were supposed to involve S-
T coupling:
1 and i2[γµ, γν]
Eventually learned: V-A
γµ(1− γ5)
Role of spin in comparing rates for π → eν and
π → µν was crucial. Measurement of the Helic-
ity of the neutrino was also a vital experiment
in confirming this.
9
An example: Electroweak Theory
Weak interactions were supposed to involve S-
T coupling:
1 and i2[γµ, γν]
Eventually learned: V-A
γµ(1− γ5)
Role of spin in comparing rates for π → eν and
π → µν was crucial. Measurement of the Helic-
ity of the neutrino was also a vital experiment
in confirming this.
10
An example: Electroweak Theory
Weak interactions were supposed to involve S-
T coupling:
1 and i2[γµ, γν]
Eventually learned: V-A
γµ(1− γ5)
Role of spin in comparing rates for π → eν and
π → µν was crucial. Measurement of the Helic-
ity of the neutrino was also a vital experiment
in confirming this.
fig
11
Without this unification of Weak and Electro-
magnetic interactions would have been impos-
sible!
12
Another example: Regge Poles
Totally unexpected SHRINKING of diffraction
peaks in dσdt for elastic cross-sections
A(p1) + B(p2) → A(p3) + B(p4)
t = (p1 − p3)2
fig
13
Beautiful explanation by Theory of Complex
Angular Momentum: simplest version: Regge
Poles————–BUT
Total failure to predict POLARIZATIONS
14
Beautiful explanation by Theory of Complex
Angular Momentum: simplest version: Regge
Poles————–BUT
Total failure to predict POLARIZATIONS
15
Despite the important role played by spin-dependent
measurements, the subject has NOT attracted
a large following. WHY?
Possibly two reasons:
1) Practical: Polarization measurements are
very difficult. Sources, acceleration, depolariz-
ing resonances etc etc
2) Pedagogical-psychological
Spin had a difficult birth: fine structure of hy-
drogen (spin-orbit coupling); Stern-Gerlach ex-
periment; “mysterious effects too complicated
to explain in an undergraduate text” etc etc
16
Despite the important role played by spin-dependent
measurements, the subject has NOT attracted
a large following. WHY?
Possibly two reasons:
1) Practical: Polarization measurements are
very difficult. Sources, acceleration, depolariz-
ing resonances etc etc
2) Pedagogical-psychological
Spin had a difficult birth: fine structure of hy-
drogen (spin-orbit coupling); Stern-Gerlach ex-
periment; “mysterious effects too complicated
to explain in an undergraduate text” etc etc
17
Despite the important role played by spin-dependent
measurements, the subject has NOT attracted
a large following. WHY?
Possibly two reasons:
1) Practical: Polarization measurements are
very difficult. Sources, acceleration, depolariz-
ing resonances etc etc
2) Pedagogical-psychological
Spin had a difficult birth: fine structure of hy-
drogen (spin-orbit coupling); Stern-Gerlach ex-
periment; “mysterious effects too complicated
to explain in an undergraduate text” etc etc
18
Despite the important role played by spin-dependent
measurements, the subject has NOT attracted
a large following. WHY?
Possibly two reasons:
1) Practical: Polarization measurements are
very difficult. Sources, acceleration, depolariz-
ing resonances etc etc
2) Pedagogical-psychological:
Spin had a difficult birth: fine structure of hy-
drogen (spin-orbit coupling); Stern-Gerlach ex-
periment; “mysterious effects too complicated
to explain in an undergraduate text” etc etc
19
Despite the important role played by spin-dependent
measurements, the subject has NOT attracted
a large following. WHY?
Possibly two reasons:
1) Practical: Polarization measurements are
very difficult. Sources, acceleration, depolariz-
ing resonances etc etc
2) Pedagogical-psychological:
Spin had a difficult birth: fine structure of hy-
drogen (spin-orbit coupling); Stern-Gerlach ex-
periment; “mysterious effects too complicated
to explain in an undergraduate text” etc etc
slides
20
THE RENAISSANCE
21
Deep Inelastic Scattering: a reminder
slide
22
lepton
nucleon
kk’
q
s
s’
S
XP
Deep Inelastic Scattering in the parton model
fig
23
Deep Inelastic Scattering in the parton model
Q2 ≡ −q2 = −(k − k′)2 ν ≡ ELab − E′Lab
x ≡ xBjorken = Q2
2Mν
24
The cross-sections are expressed in terms of
two (unpolarized) STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS:F1,2
In simple Parton Model: F1,2(x)
Including some aspects of QCD:F1,2(x, Q2)
Slow evolution in Q2
F1(x, Q2) =1
2
∑
flav
e2j [qj(x, Q2) + qj(x, Q2)]
A key ingredient: the UNPOLARIZED parton
number density q(x)
fig
25
The cross-sections are expressed in terms of
two (unpolarized) STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS:F1,2
In simple Parton Model: F1,2(x)
Including some aspects of QCD:F1,2(x, Q2)
Slow evolution in Q2
F1(x, Q2) =1
2
∑
flav
e2j [qj(x, Q2) + qj(x, Q2)]
A key ingredient: the UNPOLARIZED parton
number density q(x)
fig
26
Quite analogously, POLARIZED cross-section
expressed in terms of two spin-dependent STRUC-
TURE FUNCTIONS: g1,2
g1(x, Q2) =1
2
∑
flav
e2j [∆qj(x, Q2) + ∆qj(x, Q2)]
The key ingredient here is the polarized quark
density
fig
27
Quite analogously, POLARIZED cross-section
expressed in terms of two spin-dependent STRUC-
TURE FUNCTIONS: g1,2
g1(x, Q2) =1
2
∑
flav
e2j [∆qj(x, Q2) + ∆qj(x, Q2)]
The key ingredient here is the polarized quark
density
fig
28
THE EMC EXPERIMENT OF 1988
Notation:
∆q =∫
dx∆q(x) (1)
Important flavour combinations :
a3 = ∆u + ∆u−∆d−∆d (2)
= 1.267± 0.0035
a8 = ∆u + ∆u + ∆d−∆d− 2(∆s + ∆s) (3)
= 0.585± 0.025
∆Σ =∑
f
(∆qf + ∆qf) (4)
29
THE EMC EXPERIMENT OF 1988
Notation:
∆q =∫
dx∆q(x)
Important flavour combinations :
a3 = ∆u + ∆u−∆d−∆d (5)
= 1.267± 0.0035
a8 = ∆u + ∆u + ∆d + ∆d− 2(∆s + ∆s) (6)
= 0.585± 0.025
∆Σ =∑
f
(∆qf + ∆qf) (7)
30
THE EMC EXPERIMENT OF 1988
Notation:
∆q =∫
dx∆q(x)
Important flavour combinations :
a3 = ∆u + ∆u−∆d−∆d
= 1.267± 0.0035
a8 = ∆u + ∆u + ∆d + ∆d− 2(∆s + ∆s)
= 0.585± 0.025
∆Σ =∑
f
(∆qf + ∆qf)
Note that ∆Σ = a8 + 3(∆s + ∆s)
31
THE EMC EXPERIMENT OF 1988
Notation:
∆q =∫
dx∆q(x)
Important flavour combinations :
a3 = ∆u + ∆u−∆d−∆d
= 1.267± 0.0035
a8 = ∆u + ∆u + ∆d + ∆d− 2(∆s + ∆s)
= 0.585± 0.025
∆Σ =∑
f
(∆qf + ∆qf)
Note that ∆Σ = a8 + 3(∆s + ∆s)
32
Ellis -Jaffe Theory: safe to ignore ∆s + ∆s
=⇒∆Σ ' a8 ' 0.59
Now EMC measurement of
Γp1 =
∫dxg
p1(x)
=1
12
[a3 +
1
3(a8 + 4a0)
]
=⇒ aEMC0 ' 0
But in naive parton model a0 = ∆Σ Moreover,since
∆Σ = 2Squarksz (8)
EMC seems to imply Squarksz = 0
and there appears to be a crisis in the partonmodel: where, oh where, is the proton’s spin?[Anselmino and L, Z.Phys. C41,(1988) 239 ]
33
Ellis -Jaffe Theory: safe to ignore ∆s + ∆s
=⇒∆Σ ' a8 ' 0.59
Now EMC measurement of
Γp1 =
∫dxg
p1(x)
=1
12
[a3 +
1
3(a8 + 4a0)
]
=⇒ aEMC0 ' 0
But in naive parton model a0 = ∆Σ Moreover,
since
∆Σ = 2Squarksz (9)
EMC seems to imply Squarksz = 0
and there appears to be a crisis in the parton
model: where, oh where, is the proton’s spin?
[Anselmino and L, Z.Phys. C41,(1988) 239 ]
34
Ellis -Jaffe Theory: safe to ignore ∆s + ∆s
=⇒∆Σ ' a8 ' 0.59
Now EMC measurement of
Γp1 =
∫dxg
p1(x)
=1
12
[a3 +
1
3(a8 + 4a0)
]
=⇒ aEMC0 ' 0
But in naive parton model a0 = ∆Σ
∴ Gross contradiction with Ellis-Jaffe Theory
Moreover, since
∆Σ = 2Squarksz (10)
EMC seems to imply Squarksz = 0
and there appears to be a crisis in the partonmodel: where, oh where, is the proton’s spin?[Anselmino and L, Z.Phys. C41,(1988) 239 ]
35
Ellis -Jaffe Theory: safe to ignore ∆s + ∆s
=⇒∆Σ ' a8 ' 0.59
Now EMC measurement of
Γp1 =
∫dxg
p1(x)
=1
12
[a3 +
1
3(a8 + 4a0)
]
=⇒ aEMC0 ' 0
But in naive parton model a0 = ∆Σ
∴ Gross contradiction with Ellis-Jaffe Theory
Moreover, since
∆Σ = 2Squarksz
EMC seems to imply Squarksz = 0
and there appears to be ’A crisis in the partonmodel: where, oh where, is the proton’s spin?’[Anselmino and L, Z.Phys. C41,(1988) 239]
36
Resolution (??)of the crisis : The Anomalous
Gluon Contribution
The Operator Product Expansion has no gluon
operator contributing to the first moment of
g1, but Feynman diagram approach yields re-
sult:
a0 = ∆Σ− ?αs(Q2)
2π∆G(Q2) (1)
1
Resolution (??)of the crisis : The Anomalous
Gluon Contribution
The Operator Product Expansion has no gluon
operator contributing to the first moment of
g1, but Feynman diagram approach yields re-
sult:
a0 = ∆Σ− 3αs(Q2)
2π∆G(Q2) (2)
2
a0 = ∆Σ− 3αs(Q2)
2π∆G(Q2)
It was thus hoped that one could have a rea-
sonable ∆Σ ' 0.6 and still obtain a very small
a0.
But even with present day estimates a0 ≈ 0.2
this requires
∆G ' 1.7 at Q2 = 1GeV 2
Is this acceptable? What do we know about
∆G?
39
a0 = ∆Σ− 3αs(Q2)
2π∆G(Q2)
It was thus hoped that one could have a rea-
sonable ∆Σ ' 0.6 and still obtain a very small
a0.
But even with present day estimates a0 ≈ 0.2
this requires
∆G ' 1.7 at Q2 = 1GeV 2
Is this acceptable? What do we know about
∆G?
40
a0 = ∆Σ− 3αs(Q2)
2π∆G(Q2)
It was thus hoped that one could have a rea-
sonable ∆Σ ' 0.6 and still obtain a very small
a0.
But even with present day estimates a0 ≈ 0.2
this requires
∆G ' 1.7 at Q2 = 1GeV 2
Is this acceptable? What do we know about
∆G?
41
THE PRESENT
ATTEMPTS TO MEASURE ∆G
There are three ways to access ∆G(x) :
(1) Polarized Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS)—
parametrize polarized quark and gluon densi-
ties and fit data on g1(x, Q2).
Main role of gluon is in EVOLUTION with Q2,
but range of Q2 is very limited so determination
of ∆G(x) is imprecise.
Figure 3 shows world results on ∆G(x)
42
THE PRESENT
ATTEMPTS TO MEASURE ∆G
There are three ways to access ∆G(x) :
(1) Polarized Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS)—
parametrize polarized quark and gluon densi-
ties and fit data on g1(x, Q2).
Main role of gluon is in EVOLUTION with Q2,
but range of Q2 is very limited so determination
of ∆G(x) is imprecise.
Figure 3 shows world results on ∆G(x)
43
THE PRESENT
ATTEMPTS TO MEASURE ∆G
There are three ways to access ∆G(x) :
(1) Polarized Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS)—
parametrize polarized quark and gluon densi-
ties and fit data on g1(x, Q2).
Main role of gluon is in EVOLUTION with Q2,
but range of Q2 is very limited so determination
of ∆G(x) is imprecise.
Figure 3 shows world results on ∆G(x)
44
THE PRESENT
ATTEMPTS TO MEASURE ∆G
There are three ways to access ∆G(x) :
(1) Polarized Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS)—
parametrize polarized quark and gluon densi-
ties and fit data on g1(x, Q2).
Main role of gluon is in EVOLUTION with Q2,
but range of Q2 is very limited so determination
of ∆G(x) is imprecise.
fig world results on ∆G(x)
45
0.01 0.1 10.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8 x G BB2 AAC03 GRSV LSS'05 (Set 1)
Q2 = 4 GeV2
X
This is a test.
1
Typically one has ∆G ≈ 0.29±0.32 much smaller
than the desired 1.7 !
(2) cc production in DIS. Requires high energy
lepton beam: COMPASS at CERN.
Given that the nucleon has no INTRINSIC charm,
the cc are produced via ’gluon-photon fusion’.
Figure 4.
46
Typically one has ∆G ≈ 0.29±0.32 much smaller
than the desired 1.7 !
(2) cc production in DIS. Requires high energy
lepton beam: COMPASS at CERN.
Given that the nucleon has no INTRINSIC charm,
the cc are produced via ’gluon-photon fusion’.
Figure 4.
47
Typically one has ∆G ≈ 0.29±0.32 much smaller
than the desired 1.7 !
(2) cc production in DIS. Requires high energy
lepton beam: COMPASS at CERN.
Given that the nucleon has no INTRINSIC charm,
the cc are produced via ’gluon-photon fusion’.
fig
48
Detecting BOTH charmed particles would be
an absolutely clean signal for the mechanism!
But the intensity is too low—-factor of 30 in
rate lost in detecting second charmed meson—
- so rely on single charm production. Also on
back-to-back jets—much less clean.
Figure shows some of the COMPASS results
49
Suggests very small ∆G compatible with result
quoted above
(3) ALL with polarized protons: uniquely at
RHIC.
Several reactions:
~p + ~p −→ π0 + X
~p + ~p −→ Jet + X
Dominant partonic reactions:
~g + ~g −→ g + g : dominates at smaller p2T
~g + ~q −→ g + q: dominates at larger p2T
Nice test: PQCD describes cross-sections quite
well.Figure 6
50
Suggests very small ∆G compatible with result
quoted above
(3) ALL with polarized protons: uniquely at
RHIC.
Several reactions:
~p + ~p −→ π0 + X (needs Fragmentation Func-
tions)
~p + ~p −→ Jet + X
Dominant partonic reactions:
~g + ~g −→ g + g : dominates at smaller p2T
~g + ~q −→ g + q: dominates at larger p2T
Nice test: PQCD describes cross-sections quite
well.Figure 6
51
Suggests very small ∆G compatible with result
quoted above
(3) ALL with polarized protons: uniquely at
RHIC.
Several reactions:
~p + ~p −→ π0 + X (needs Fragmentation Func-
tions)
~p + ~p −→ Jet + X
Dominant partonic reactions:
~g + ~g −→ g + g : dominates at smaller p2T
~g + ~q −→ g + q: dominates at larger p2T
Nice test: PQCD describes cross-sections quite
well.Figure 6
52
Suggests very small ∆G compatible with result
quoted above
(3) ALL with polarized protons: uniquely at
RHIC.
Several reactions:
~p + ~p −→ π0 + X (needs Fragmentation Func-
tions)
~p + ~p −→ Jet + X
Dominant partonic reactions:
~g + ~g −→ g + g : dominates at smaller p2T
~g + ~q −→ g + q: dominates at larger p2T
Nice test: PQCD describes cross-sections quite
well. Fig
53
Results: ALL is SMALL!
Fig
54
¨
45.0
7.2 1
≈
=∫ −
P
pbLdt
Consistent with ZERO gluon polarization
THE SPIN CRISIS
IS STILL WITH US !
55
Consistent with ZERO gluon polarization
THE SPIN CRISIS
IS STILL WITH US !
56
Expect more definite statement on ALL very
soon: much improved accuracy
fig
57
TRANSVERSE SINGLE-SPIN
ASYMMETRIES
Hadronic reactions like
p↑ + p → π + X
p↑ : transversely polarized proton
Asymmetry under reversal of direction of po-
larisation
AN ≡ dσ↑ − dσ↓
dσ↑ + dσ↓
Partonic mechanism:
fig
58
TRANSVERSE SINGLE-SPIN
ASYMMETRIES
Hadronic reactions like
p↑ + p → π + X
p↑ : transversely polarized proton
Asymmetry under reversal of direction of po-
larisation
AN ≡ dσ↑ − dσ↓
dσ↑ + dσ↓
Partonic mechanism:
fig
59
TRANSVERSE SINGLE-SPIN
ASYMMETRIES
Hadronic reactions like
p↑ + p → π + X
p↑ : transversely polarized proton
Asymmetry under reversal of direction of po-
larisation
AN ≡ dσ↑ − dσ↓
dσ↑ + dσ↓
Partonic mechanism:
fig
60
In collinear Parton Model AN ≈ 0
To get an idea of the size, at the parton level
aN = αsmq√
sf(θ∗)
where f(θ∗) is of order 1
Gives asymmetries of a fraction of a percent
The data strogly contradicts this!
fig
1
In collinear Parton Model AN ≈ 0
To get an idea of the size, at parton level
aN = αsmq√
sf(θ∗)
where f(θ∗) is of order 1
Gives asymmetries of a fraction of a percent
The data strogly contradicts this!
fig
2
In collinear Parton Model AN ≈ 0
To get an idea of the size, at parton level
aN = αsmq√
sf(θ∗)
where f(θ∗) is of order 1
Gives asymmetries of a fraction of a percent
The data strongly contradicts this!
fig
3
In collinear Parton Model AN ≈ 0
To get an idea of the size, at parton level
aN = αsmq√
sf(θ∗)
where f(θ∗) is of order 1
Gives asymmetries of a fraction of a percent
THE DATA STRONGLY CONTRADICT THIS!
fig
4
How to extricate QCD from this mess???
1) Include intrinsic transverse momentum kT
of partons.
Conceptually no problem; but makes serious
calculations horrendous
2) Invent new SOFT mechanisms—-beyond
the parton model
SIVERS: Number density of quarks with mo-
mentum xP +kT depends on polarization P of
parent hadron
A + B P · (xP × kT
65
How to extricate QCD from this mess???
1) Include intrinsic transverse momentum kT
of partons.
Conceptually no problem; but makes serious
calculations horrendous.
2) Invent new SOFT mechanisms—-beyond
the parton model
SIVERS: Number density of quarks with mo-
mentum xP +kT depends on polarization P of
parent hadron
A + B P · (xP × kT
66
How to extricate QCD from this mess???
1) Include intrinsic transverse momentum kT
of partons.
Conceptually no problem; but makes serious
calculations horrendous.
2) Invent new SOFT mechanisms—-beyond
the parton model
SIVERS: Number density of quarks with mo-
mentum xP +kT depends on polarization P of
parent hadron
A + B P · (xP × kT
67
How to extricate QCD from this mess???
1) Include intrinsic transverse momentum kT
of partons.
Conceptually no problem; but makes serious
calculations horrendous.
2) Invent new SOFT mechanisms—-beyond
the parton model
a) SIVERS: Number density of quarks with mo-
mentum xP + kT depends on polarization P
of parent hadron:
A + B P · (xP × kT
68
How to extricate QCD from this mess???
1) Include intrinsic transverse momentum kT
of partons.
Conceptually no problem; but makes serious
calculations horrendous.
2) Invent new SOFT mechanisms—-beyond
the parton model
a) SIVERS: Number density of quarks with mo-
mentum xP +kT depends on polarization P of
parent hadron:
q(x, kT ) = A + BS P ·(xP × kT )
69
BUT can show this violates Parity and Time
Reversal invariance IF
hadron → quark + X
is treated as an independent reaction——-as
it is in the parton model.
To avoid this need INITIAL or FINAL state
interactions, thereby spoiling UNIVERSALITY
of parton model.
b) COLLINS: In fragmentation of quark of mo-
mentum p into hadron allow hadron to have
intrinsic transverse momentum kT relative to
quark.
Number density of hadrons with momentum1zp + kT depends on polarization P of frag-
menting quark.
70
BUT can show this violates Parity and Time
Reversal invariance IF
hadron → quark + X
is treated as an independent reaction——-as
it is in the parton model.
To avoid this need INITIAL or FINAL state
interactions, thereby spoiling UNIVERSALITY
of parton model.
b) COLLINS: In fragmentation of quark of mo-
mentum p into hadron allow hadron to have
intrinsic transverse momentum kT relative to
quark.
Number density of hadrons with momentum1zp + kT depends on polarization P of frag-
menting quark.
71
BUT can show this violates Parity and Time
Reversal invariance IF
hadron → quark + X
is treated as an independent reaction——-as
it is in the parton model.
To avoid this need INITIAL or FINAL state
interactions, thereby spoiling UNIVERSALITY
of parton model.
b) COLLINS: In fragmentation of quark of mo-
mentum p into hadron allow hadron to have
intrinsic transverse momentum kT relative to
quark.
Number density of hadrons with momentum1zp + kT depends on polarization P of frag-
menting quark.
72
BUT can show this violates Parity and Time
Reversal invariance IF
hadron → quark + X
is treated as an independent reaction——-as
it is in the parton model.
To avoid this need INITIAL or FINAL state
interactions, thereby spoiling UNIVERSALITY
of parton model.
b) COLLINS: In fragmentation of quark of mo-
mentum p into hadron allow hadron to have
intrinsic transverse momentum kT relative to
quark.
Number density of hadrons with momentum
Ph = 1zp + kT depends on polarization P of
fragmenting quark.
73
D(z, Ph) = A + BC P·(p× Ph)
Again, vanishes if fragmentation q → hadron+
X is treated as an independent reaction, as it
is in the parton model.
So again lose universality.
Can’t calculate BS or BC so need to introduce
new functions phenomenologically. Ugly!
74
D(z, Ph) = A + BC P·(p× Ph)
Again, vanishes if fragmentation
q → hadron + X
is treated as an independent reaction, as it is
in the parton model.
So again lose universality.
Can’t calculate BS or BC so need to introduce
new functions phenomenologically. Ugly!
75
D(z, Ph) = A + BC P·(p× Ph)
Again, vanishes if fragmentation
q → hadron + X
is treated as an independent reaction, as it is
in the parton model.
So again lose universality.
Moreover, can’t calculate BS or BC so need to
introduce new functions phenomenologically,
for each flavour of quark and antiquark. Ugly!
76
D(z, Ph) = A + BC P·(p× Ph)
Again, vanishes if fragmentation
q → hadron + X
is treated as an independent reaction, as it is
in the parton model.
So again lose universality.
Moreover, can’t calculate BS or BC so need to
introduce new functions phenomenologically,
for each flavour of quark and antiquark. Ugly!
77
THE LATEST PROBLEM
1
One of the oldest and supposedly best under-
stood reactions:
electron + proton(p) → electron + proton(p′)
Measurement of the ELECTROMAGNETIC FORM
FACTORS OF THE PROTON
As always, assume ONE PHOTON Exchange
fig
78
One of the oldest and supposedly best under-
stood reactions:
electron + proton(p) → electron + proton(p′)
Measurement of the ELECTROMAGNETIC FORM
FACTORS OF THE PROTON
As always, assume ONE PHOTON Exchange
fig
79
proton
electron
The photon-proton vertex is given by:
u(p′)[γµF em1 (q2) +
iσµνqν
2MκF em
2 (q2)]u(p)
q = p′ − p κ = anomalous magnetic mo-
ment
F1,2 Dirac em form factors. Sachs more con-
venient: GE = F1+ κq2
4M2F2 GM = F1+κF2
80
The photon-proton vertex is given by:
u(p′)[γµF em1 (Q2) +
iσµνqν
2MκF em
2 (Q2)]u(p)
q = p′− p κ = anomalous magnetic moment
Q2 = −q2
F1,2 Dirac em form factors. Sachs more con-
venient: GE = F1 − κτF2 GM = F1 + κF2
τ = Q2
4M2
GE(0) = 1
GM(0) = total magnetic moment(µ) = 2.79
81
Diff. cross-section in the LAB: ROSENBLUTH
dσ
dΩ=
( dσ
dΩ
)′Mott
[G2
E + τG2M
1 + τ
+ 2τG2M tan2(θ/2)
]
Both GE and GM drop with increasing Q2
Long standing experimental assertion that
GM(Q2) ≈ µGE(Q2)
82
Diff. cross-section in the LAB: ROSENBLUTH
dσ
dΩ=
( dσ
dΩ
)′Mott
[G2
E + τG2M
1 + τ
+ 2τG2M tan2(θ/2)
]
Both GE and GM drop with increasing Q2
Long standing experimental assertion that
GM(Q2) ≈ µGE(Q2)
fig
83
New cross-section measurements are consis-
tent with this:
fig
84
HOWEVER
A totally new kind of measurement: Polariza-tion transfer to the proton from a longitudi-nally polarized electron colliding with an unpo-larized target:
LONGITUDINAL polarization of the recoil pro-ton:
PL ∝[E + E′
M
] √τ(1 + τ)G2
M tan2(θ/2)
TRANSVERSE (in scattering plane) polariza-tion of the recoil proton:
P ∝ −2√
τ(1 + τ)GE GM tan(θ/2)
fig
85
HOWEVER
A totally new kind of measurement: Polariza-tion transfer to the proton from a longitudi-nally polarized electron colliding with an unpo-larized target:
LONGITUDINAL polarization of the recoil pro-ton:
PL ∝[E + E′
M
] √τ(1 + τ)G2
M tan2(θ/2)
TRANSVERSE (in scattering plane) polariza-tion of the recoil proton:
P ∝ −2√
τ(1 + τ)GE GM tan(θ/2)
fig
86
HOWEVER
A totally new kind of measurement: Polariza-tion transfer to the proton from a longitudi-nally polarized electron colliding with an unpo-larized target:
LONGITUDINAL polarization of the recoil pro-ton:
PL ∝[E + E′
M
] √τ(1 + τ)G2
M tan2(θ/2)
TRANSVERSE (in scattering plane) polariza-tion of the recoil proton:
PT ∝ −2√
τ(1 + τ)GE GM tan(θ/2)
fig
87
What’s wrong?!? Possibly two-photon exchange.
But expected to be negligible: extra factor of
α = 1/137 i.e. ≤ 1 % effect
Size consistent with comparison of electron-
proton with positron-proton
Exact calculation would require evaluation of
Feynman graph:
fig
88
What’s wrong?!? Possibly two-photon exchange.
But expected to be negligible: extra factor of
α = 1/137 i.e. ≤ 1 % effect
Size consistent with comparison of electron-
proton with positron-proton
Exact calculation would require evaluation of
Feynman graph:
fig
89
What’s wrong?!? Possibly two-photon exchange.
But expected to be negligible: extra factor of
α = 1/137 i.e. ≤ 1 % effect
Size consistent with comparison of electron-
proton with positron-proton
Exact calculation would require evaluation of
Feynman graph:
fig
90
Not possible. Can do approximate calculation
of simplest two photon graph:
fig
91
Surprisingly, seems to help!
Mainly affects Rosenbluth extraction and sug-
gests polarization results for GE/GM are cor-
rect!
i.e. GE/GM decreasing fairly rapidly with in-
creasing Q2
What about famous prediction of perturbative
QCD:
GE/GM → constant as Q2 →∞ ?????
92
Surprisingly, seems to help!
Mainly affects Rosenbluth extraction and sug-
gests polarization results for GE/GM are cor-
rect!
i.e. GE/GM decreasing fairly rapidly with in-
creasing Q2
What about famous prediction of perturbative
QCD:
GE/GM → constant as Q2 →∞ ?????
93
Surprisingly, seems to help!
Mainly affects Rosenbluth extraction and sug-
gests polarization results for GE/GM are cor-
rect!
i.e. GE/GM decreasing fairly rapidly with in-
creasing Q2
What about famous prediction of perturbative
QCD:
GE/GM → constant as Q2 →∞ ?????
94
Surprisingly, seems to help!
Mainly affects Rosenbluth extraction and sug-
gests polarization results for GE/GM are cor-
rect!
i.e. GE/GM decreasing fairly rapidly with in-
creasing Q2
What about famous prediction of perturbative
QCD:
GE/GM → constant as Q2 →∞ ?????
95
SUMMARY
1) I have tried to give you an idea of the dra-matic role spin-dependent measurements haveplayed, both historically and in the present, inexposing weaknesses in theories and inspiringnew theories
2) Regarding the present we are still left withthree puzzles:
(a) We don’t know how the spin of the nucleonis built up from the angular momentum of itsconstituents
(b) We don’t know how to explain the hugetransverse single-spin asymmetries at a funda-mental level i.e. not relying on additional phe-nomenologically determined functions
(c) We are facing the realization that what isarguably the best-understood of all reactionsi.e. electron-proton elastic scattering, has, infact, been significantly misunderstood
96
SUMMARY
1) I have tried to give you an idea of the dra-matic role spin-dependent measurements haveplayed, both historically and in the present, inexposing weaknesses in theories and inspiringnew theories
2) Regarding the present we are still left withthree puzzles:
(a) We don’t know how the spin of the nucleonis built up from the angular momentum of itsconstituents
(b) We don’t know how to explain the hugetransverse single-spin asymmetries at a funda-mental level i.e. not relying on additional phe-nomenologically determined functions
(c) We are facing the realization that what isarguably the best-understood of all reactionsi.e. electron-proton elastic scattering, has, infact, been significantly misunderstood
97
SUMMARY
1) I have tried to give you an idea of the dra-matic role spin-dependent measurements haveplayed, both historically and in the present, inexposing weaknesses in theories and inspiringnew theories
2) Regarding the present we are still left withthree puzzles:
(a) We don’t know how the spin of the nucleonis built up from the angular momentum of itsconstituents
(b) We don’t know how to explain the hugetransverse single-spin asymmetries at a funda-mental level i.e. not relying on additional phe-nomenologically determined functions
(c) We are facing the realization that what isarguably the best-understood of all reactionsi.e. electron-proton elastic scattering, has, infact, been significantly misunderstood
98
SUMMARY
1) I have tried to give you an idea of the dra-matic role spin-dependent measurements haveplayed, both historically and in the present, inexposing weaknesses in theories and inspiringnew theories
2) Regarding the present we are still left withthree puzzles:
(a) We don’t know how the spin of the nucleonis built up from the angular momentum of itsconstituents
(b) We don’t know how to explain the hugetransverse single-spin asymmetries at a funda-mental level i.e. not relying on additional phe-nomenologically determined functions
(c) We are facing the realization that what isarguably the best-understood of all reactionsi.e. electron-proton elastic scattering, has, infact, been significantly misunderstood
99
SUMMARY
1) I have tried to give you an idea of the dra-matic role spin-dependent measurements haveplayed, both historically and in the present, inexposing weaknesses in theories and inspiringnew theories
2) Regarding the present we are still left withthree puzzles:
(a) We don’t know how the spin of the nucleonis built up from the angular momentum of itsconstituents
(b) We don’t know how to explain the hugetransverse single-spin asymmetries at a funda-mental level i.e. not relying on additional phe-nomenologically determined functions
(c) We are facing the realization that what isarguably the best-understood of all reactionsi.e. electron-proton elastic scattering, has, infact, been significantly misunderstood
100