Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

36
Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013

Transcript of Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

Page 1: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC

K. Hicks (Ohio U.)

Baryons2013 Conference

24 June 2013

Page 2: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

2

Physics of broad & overlapping resonances

Δ (1232)

Width: a few hundred MeV.

Resonances are highly overlapped   in energy except D(1232).

→Complex PWA is necessary

Width: ~10 keV to ~10 MeV

Each resonance peak is clearly separated.

N* : 1440, 1520, 1535, 1650, 1675, 1680, ...

D : 1600, 1620, 1700, 1750, 1900, …

From: H. Kamano, JAEA seminar

Page 3: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

3

Decuplet Assignments (PDG)

From p-scatt. database: all **** rated.

Lots of missing states! Lack of K-scatt. data or photoproduction data.

L=0

L=1

L=2

L=4

S

6/24/2013

Page 4: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

Octet Assignments (PDG)

L=0

L=0

L=1

L=2

Here, there are more assignments, but many have few-star ratings.

Mass hierarchy problem with L=1, S=3/2 !! 6/24/2013

Page 5: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

5

Capstick & Roberts (1993)

Even 20 years ago, this problem was known! (Note: just N PWA.)6/24/2013

Page 6: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

Experiment vs. Quark Model

6/24/2013 6

Source: PDG review

Page 7: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

7

Goals of this Physics• Understanding the spectrum of excited

states of the nucleon leads to a deeper understanding of non-perturbative QCD.

• Similarly, the spectrum of excited states of the hydrogen atom led to advances in QM.

• My working hypothesis:

• The constituent quark model is a failure for excited states of the nucleon.

• Perhaps the reason is that the CQM does not include effects of the meson-baryon cloud.

6/24/2013

Page 8: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

8

L(1405) Photoproduction at CLAS

If the L(1405) were a single 3-quark resonance, then all three decays should be symmetric.

However, if the resonance is dynamically generated, interference of poles with different isospin can occur

R. Schumacher, Thursday 9:00 talk

6/24/2013

Page 9: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

Drell-Yan: nucleon has pion cloud

From: P. Reimer, arXiv:0704.3621.

The Drell-Yan process measures the antiquark sea in the nucleon.

The results show that there is an asymmetry to the u* and d* sea in the proton.The nucleon has an admixture of qqq(qqbar).

6/24/2013 9

Page 10: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

10

NΔ Transition Form Factor (GM) from EBAC

In the relativistic QM framework, the bare-core contribution is well described by the three-quark component of the wavefunction at high Q2.

One third of G*M at low Q2 is due to contributions from meson–baryon (MB) dressing:

bare quark core

Meson-BaryonCloudEffect

The area of Q2<7.0 GeV2 is far from pQCD domain

B.Julia-Diaz et al., PRC 69, 035212 (2004)

6/24/2013

Page 11: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

11

Dynamical Coupled-Channels modelMB channels

pN->ppNReactionAmplitude

Resonance core

meson cloud

meson

baryon

Physical N*s will be a “mixture” of the two pictures:

bare resonancecore (from QM)

B*

ppN

6/24/2013

Page 12: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

12

Recent Lattice CalculationsN

ote:

Not

rea

l mas

s!

Reference: J. Dudek et al.,, arXiv:1201.2349

6/24/2013

Page 13: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

13

Projection of N* to SLJ

6/24/2013

Page 14: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

14

A Tale of Two Labs

• Jefferson Lab and J-PARC share a common interest: to understand QCD.

• The combination of high-quality hadronic data with double-polarization photoproduction data is more powerful than either one alone.

• Of course, other labs also share this interest.

• It is becoming clear that both hadronic and photoproduction data are needed due to coupled-channels effects that naturally link them together.

6/24/2013

Page 15: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

15

P11(1440) couplings from CLAS

N

N

Light front models:

I. Aznauryan

S. Capstickhybrid P11(1440)

Mesoncloudeffect

6/24/2013

Page 16: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

16

CLAS: e p → e' p + -

The BLUE dotted curve uses only the known resonances from the Particle Data Group.

The RED solid curve includes an extra resonance not seen from the PWA of N data alone.

6/24/2013

Page 17: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

CLAS: Partial Wave Analysis

A new P13

resonance, much lower in mass than the quark model prediction, is necessary to fit the data.6/24/2013

17

Page 18: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

18

Importance of N Decay

6/24/2013

Page 19: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

19

What data do we need?

• For almost 40 years, there have been no new measurements on (p,2p) in the nucleon resonance region.

• For many years, elastic pN was good enough

• With precise new data on gN pN, ppN at Jefferson Lab, Bonn and elsewhere, along with theory advances, it becomes clear that hadronic-beam data is also needed to properly interpret the photoproduction data.

6/24/2013

Page 20: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

20

p-N Total Cross Sections

6/24/2013

Page 21: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

21

ppN Total Cross Sections

Kamano et al., PRC 79, 025206 (2009).

Dashed line: no channel coupling.

6/24/2013

Page 22: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

22

The Primary Source of (,2)

6/24/2013

Page 23: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

Complete (p,2p) DatabaseM. Manley, Phys. Rev. D 30, 904 (1984).

Total number of events!6/24/201323

Page 24: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

24

Mass Projections

Note: the normalization of these data is not known. The total cross sections were used to set the vertical scale.

The solid curves are the full calculation using only pN elastic data. The other curves do not include some coupled-channels effects.

6/24/2013

Page 25: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

25

S31F37

F35

P31

P33D33

D35

S31

F37

F35

P31

P33

D33

D35

PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY

6/24/2013

Page 26: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

26

TCS

M(π+ n)

M(π+ π+)

TCS

M(π0 p) M(π+ p)

M(π+ π0)

Current model

Refit F37 PWAkeeping N* πΔ off

PRELIMINARY

W W

6/24/2013

Page 27: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

27

J-PARC Experiment

6/24/2013

Page 28: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

28

K1.8 beamline with TPC

6/24/2013

Page 29: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

Experimental SetupHyp-TPC Spectrometer

Hyp-TPC

p- beam

Superconducting HelmholtzDipole magnet

Measure (p,2p) in large acceptance TPC p-p→p+p-n, p0p-p p+p→p0p+p, p+p+n

p+- beam ~ 1M/spill (p=0.6-2.0 GeV/c)Liquid-proton targetTrigger: Two charged particles in hodoscope

Hodoscope

6/24/2013 29

Page 30: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

Hyp-TPC– P-10 gas – H-target in TPC– Gating grid wires– 3-layer GEM

• Good performance at high beam rates

– Pad size • 2.5 x 9~13 mm : 30 layers• 5045 pads in total• p/K/p PID with

dE/dx vs p

p- beam

~600

Gating Grid

GEMPad plane

Target holder

500φ50φ

B=1Tp-

p+E=180V/cm

n

P-10 gas

Liquid H target

ionization

Electrondrift

6/24/2013 30

Page 31: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

TPC prototype test results• Beam test at RCNP (Nov.2011)

Position resolution (B=0)sx=0.40mm sy= 0.55mm

Hit position distortion <0.1mm

Field wires

Drift field

Chargedparticle

e

20cm

ExpectedDp/p=1-3% (p,p)

6/24/2013 31

Page 32: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

Expected statistics

Total (p,2p) cross section : ~2 mbPion beam rate : ~106 (per 6 second spill)5cm thick Liquid Hydrogen targetTPC acceptance of 50%Result: 200 events / spill

Energy coverage: W=1.50 – 2.15 GeV26 energy bins(W=0.025)20 angle bins10K events / binResult: 24M events in 45 shifts (2 months)

6/24/2013 32

Page 33: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

Status of R&D

• TPC development– 1st prototype successful to confirm basic performance

at high beam rate– Design for real size 2nd prototype going on with

electronics development

Other R&D specially for P45• Liquid hydrogen target

– to fit TPC target hole of ~ 5cm cylinder• Trigger hodoscopes

– Optimize segmentation

6/24/2013 33

Page 34: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

34

General Summary

The N* spectrum is a long-standing problem.

Today, we know that dynamical coupled-channels calculations are needed.

→ Coupled channels requires hadronic data.

→ Many N* states couple to 2 decay.

My opinion: without quality (,2) data, it is difficult to see how the N* spectrum can be extracted with PWA techniques.

6/24/2013

Page 35: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

35

Backup slides

6/24/2013

Page 36: Baryon Spectroscopy at Jlab and J-PARC K. Hicks (Ohio U.) Baryons2013 Conference 24 June 2013.

36

Additional final state: KY data

• Data for KL and KS come for free

• Cross sections are smaller, but the final state is two-body, so less data are needed.

• These final states have two charged particles and hence will be part of the trigger.

• Data on p+p K+S+ are especially useful

• Only isospin 3/2 contributes: D resonances.

• Is the D(1600) the I=3/2 partner of the Roper?

6/24/2013