Precision Determination of the Neutral Weak Form Factor of $^{48}$Ca
Authors:
D. Adhikari,
H. Albataineh,
D. Androic,
K. A. Aniol,
D. S. Armstrong,
T. Averett,
C. Ayerbe Gayoso,
S. K. Barcus,
V. Bellini,
R. S. Beminiwattha,
J. F. Benesch,
H. Bhatt,
D. Bhatta Pathak,
D. Bhetuwal,
B. Blaikie,
J. Boyd,
Q. Campagna,
A. Camsonne,
G. D. Cates,
Y. Chen,
C. Clarke,
J. C. Cornejo,
S. Covrig Dusa,
M. M. Dalton,
P. Datta
, et al. (77 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
We report a precise measurement of the parity-violating asymmetry $A_{\rm PV}$ in the elastic scattering of longitudinally polarized electrons from $^{48}{\rm Ca}$. We measure $A_{\rm PV} =2668\pm 106\ {\rm (stat)}\pm 40\ {\rm (syst)}$ parts per billion, leading to an extraction of the neutral weak form factor $F_{\rm W} (q=0.8733$ fm…
▽ More
We report a precise measurement of the parity-violating asymmetry $A_{\rm PV}$ in the elastic scattering of longitudinally polarized electrons from $^{48}{\rm Ca}$. We measure $A_{\rm PV} =2668\pm 106\ {\rm (stat)}\pm 40\ {\rm (syst)}$ parts per billion, leading to an extraction of the neutral weak form factor $F_{\rm W} (q=0.8733$ fm$^{-1}) = 0.1304 \pm 0.0052 \ {\rm (stat)}\pm 0.0020\ {\rm (syst)}$ and the charge minus the weak form factor $F_{\rm ch} - F_{\rm W} = 0.0277\pm 0.0055$. The resulting neutron skin thickness $R_n-R_p=0.121 \pm 0.026\ {\rm (exp)} \pm 0.024\ {\rm (model)}$~fm is relatively thin yet consistent with many model calculations. The combined CREX and PREX results will have implications for future energy density functional calculations and on the density dependence of the symmetry energy of nuclear matter.
△ Less
Submitted 16 June, 2022; v1 submitted 23 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
How Analytic Choices Can Affect the Extraction of Electromagnetic Form Factors from Elastic Electron Scattering Cross Section Data
Authors:
Scott K. Barcus,
Douglas W. Higinbotham,
Randall E. McClellan
Abstract:
Scientists often try to incorporate prior knowledge into their regression algorithms, such as a particular analytic behavior or a known value at a kinematic endpoint. Unfortunately, there is often no unique way to make use of this prior knowledge, and thus, different analytic choices can lead to very different regression results from the same set of data. To illustrate this point in the context of…
▽ More
Scientists often try to incorporate prior knowledge into their regression algorithms, such as a particular analytic behavior or a known value at a kinematic endpoint. Unfortunately, there is often no unique way to make use of this prior knowledge, and thus, different analytic choices can lead to very different regression results from the same set of data. To illustrate this point in the context of the proton electromagnetic form factors, we use the Mainz elastic data with its 1422 cross section points and 31 normalization parameters. Starting with a complex unbound non-linear regression, we will show how the addition of a single theory-motivated constraint removes an oscillation from the magnetic form factor and shifts the extracted proton charge radius. We then repeat both regressions using the same algorithm, but with a rebinned version of the Mainz dataset. These examples illustrate how analytic choices, such as the function that is being used or even the binning of the data, can dramatically affect the results of a complex regression. These results also demonstrate why it is critical when using regression algorithms to have either a physical model in mind or a firm mathematical basis
△ Less
Submitted 25 June, 2020; v1 submitted 21 February, 2019;
originally announced February 2019.
