The hadronic properties of the photon in high-energy interactions
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 790 publications
References 532 publications
Ratios of helicity amplitudes for exclusive $$\rho ^0$$ ρ 0 electroproduction on transversely polarized protons
Exclusive ρ 0 -meson electroproduction is studied by the HERMES experiment, using the 27.6 GeV longitudinally polarized electron/positron beam of HERA and a transversely polarized hydrogen target, in the kinematic region 1.0 GeV 2 < Q 2 < 7.0 GeV 2 , 3.0 GeV < W < 6.3 GeV, and −t < 0.4 GeV 2 . Using an unbinned maximum-likelihood method, 25 parameters are extracted. These determine the real and imaginary parts of the ratios of several helicity amplitudes describing ρ 0 -meson production by a virtual photon. The denominator of those ratios is the dominant amplitude, the nucleon-helicity-non-flip amplitude F 0 1 2 0 1 2 , which describes the production of a longitudinal ρ 0 -meson by a longitudinal virtual photon. The ratios of nucleon-helicity-nonflip amplitudes are found to be in good agreement with those from the previous HERMES analysis. The transverse target polarization allows for the first time the extraction of ratios of a number of nucleon-helicity-flip amplitudes to F 0 1 2 0 1 2 . Results obtained in a handbag approach based on generalized parton distributions taking into account the contribution from pion exchange are found to be in good agreement with these ratios. Within the model, the data favor a positive sign for the π − ρ transition form factor. By also exploiting the longitudinal beam polarization, a total of 71 ρ 0 spin-density matrix elements is determined from the extracted 25 parameters, in contrast to only 53 elements as directly determined in earlier analyses.
Ratios of helicity amplitudes for exclusive $$\rho ^0$$ ρ 0 electroproduction on transversely polarized protons
Exclusive ρ 0 -meson electroproduction is studied by the HERMES experiment, using the 27.6 GeV longitudinally polarized electron/positron beam of HERA and a transversely polarized hydrogen target, in the kinematic region 1.0 GeV 2 < Q 2 < 7.0 GeV 2 , 3.0 GeV < W < 6.3 GeV, and −t < 0.4 GeV 2 . Using an unbinned maximum-likelihood method, 25 parameters are extracted. These determine the real and imaginary parts of the ratios of several helicity amplitudes describing ρ 0 -meson production by a virtual photon. The denominator of those ratios is the dominant amplitude, the nucleon-helicity-non-flip amplitude F 0 1 2 0 1 2 , which describes the production of a longitudinal ρ 0 -meson by a longitudinal virtual photon. The ratios of nucleon-helicity-nonflip amplitudes are found to be in good agreement with those from the previous HERMES analysis. The transverse target polarization allows for the first time the extraction of ratios of a number of nucleon-helicity-flip amplitudes to F 0 1 2 0 1 2 . Results obtained in a handbag approach based on generalized parton distributions taking into account the contribution from pion exchange are found to be in good agreement with these ratios. Within the model, the data favor a positive sign for the π − ρ transition form factor. By also exploiting the longitudinal beam polarization, a total of 71 ρ 0 spin-density matrix elements is determined from the extracted 25 parameters, in contrast to only 53 elements as directly determined in earlier analyses.
In the period following World War II, there was a rapid development of particle physics. With the construction of synchrotrons and the development of detector technology, many new particles were discovered and the systematics of their interactions investigated. The invention of the bubble chamber played an especially important role in uncovering the rich array of hadrons that were discovered in this period. In 1961 Murray Gell‐Mann [1] and Yuval Ne'eman [2] independently introduced a classification scheme, based on SU(3) symmetry, which placed hadrons into families on the basis of spin and parity. Like the periodic table for the elements, this scheme was predictive as well as descriptive, and various hadrons, such as the Ω—, were predicted within this framework and were later discovered. In 1964 Gell‐Mann [3] and George Zweig [4] independently proposed quarks as the building blocks of hadrons as a way of generating the SU(3) classification scheme. When the quark model was first proposed, it postulated three types of quarks: up (u), down (d), and strange (s), with charges 2/3, —1/3, and —1/3 respectively. Each of these was hypothesized to be a spin1/2 particle. In this model the nucleon (and all other baryons) is made up of three quarks, and each meson consists of a quark and an antiquark. For example, as the proton and neutron both have ero strangeness, they are (u,u,d) and (d,d,u) systems respectively. Though the quark model provided the best available tool for understanding the properties of the hadrons that had been discovered at the time, the model was thought by many to be merely a mathematical representation of some deeper dynamics, but one of heuristic value. Among the reasons for this assessment were the following:free quarks had not been found though they had been sought in numerous accelerator and cosmic ray investigations and in searches in the terrestrial environment; there was a deep suspicion about the validity of their fractional charge assignments; and some of the baryon states constructed on the basis of the quark model violated the Pauli exclusion principle. Despite these difficulties there were a small number of theorists who continued to apply the model to explain a wide range of hadronic phenomena. The theory of hadron structure that was most widely accepted at the time was the bootstrap model, an approach based on S‐Matrix theory. This model, sometimes referred to as “nuclear democracy,” was based on the idea that there were no fundamental particles and that all hadrons are made up of one another. This picture was consistent with the low momentum transfer scattering seen in hadron‐hadron interactions and with the observed “soft” electromagnetic form factors of the proton and neutron; however, it could not provide the comprehensive description of multiplet structures that was given by the quark model. Inelastic electron‐nucleon scattering results, and later those from neutrino‐scattering, played a pivotal role in resolving this dilemma by firmly establishing the quark model. These ex...
In the period following World War II, there was a rapid development of particle physics. With the construction of synchrotrons and the development of detector technology, many new particles were discovered and the systematics of their interactions investigated. The invention of the bubble chamber played an especially important role in uncovering the rich array of hadrons that were discovered in this period.In 1961 Murray Gell‐Mann [1] and Yuval Ne'eman [2] independently introduced a classification scheme, based on SU(3) symmetry, which placed hadrons into families on the basis of spin and parity. Like the periodic table for the elements, this scheme was predictive as well as descriptive, and various hadrons, such as the Ω—, were predicted within this framework and were later discovered.In 1964 Gell‐Mann [3] and George Zweig [4] independently proposed quarks as the building blocks of hadrons as a way of generating the SU(3) classification scheme. When the quark model was first proposed, it postulated three types of quarks: up (u), down (d), and strange (s), with charges 2/3, —1/3, and —1/3 respectively. Each of these was hypothesized to be a spin1/2 particle. In this model the nucleon (and all other baryons) is made up of three quarks, and each meson consists of a quark and an antiquark. For example, as the proton and neutron both have ero strangeness, they are (u,u,d) and (d,d,u) systems respectively.Though the quark model provided the best available tool for understanding the properties of the hadrons that had been discovered at the time, the model was thought by many to be merely a mathematical representation of some deeper dynamics, but one of heuristic value. Among the reasons for this assessment were the following:free quarks had not been found though they had been sought in numerous accelerator and cosmic ray investigations and in searches in the terrestrial environment; there was a deep suspicion about the validity of their fractional charge assignments; and some of the baryon states constructed on the basis of the quark model violated the Pauli exclusion principle. Despite these difficulties there were a small number of theorists who continued to apply the model to explain a wide range of hadronic phenomena.The theory of hadron structure that was most widely accepted at the time was the bootstrap model, an approach based on S‐Matrix theory. This model, sometimes referred to as “nuclear democracy,” was based on the idea that there were no fundamental particles and that all hadrons are made up of one another. This picture was consistent with the low momentum transfer scattering seen in hadron‐hadron interactions and with the observed “soft” electromagnetic form factors of the proton and neutron; however, it could not provide the comprehensive description of multiplet structures that was given by the quark model.Inelastic electron‐nucleon scattering results, and later those from neutrino‐scattering, played a pivotal role in resolving this dilemma by firmly establishing the quark model. These experiments demonstrated that the proton and neutron are composite structures made up of point‐like spin 1/2 constituents, with fractional charges consistent with those of quarks.More detailed descriptions of the deep inelastic program and its results are given in the written versions of the 1990 Nobel Lectures in Physics of Richard Taylor [5], Henry Kendall [6], and the author [7].
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Contact Info
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
