1 / 17

Photoproduction of the S (1385) resonance at LEPS

Photoproduction of the S (1385) resonance at LEPS. K. Hicks & D. Keller, Ohio U. LEPS Collaboration Meeting May 1, 2008. Motivation - 1. Very few data exist for the S (1385). It is an important part of the decuplet group. It is difficult to disentangle from the L (1405).

petra-vasquez
Download Presentation

Photoproduction of the S (1385) resonance at LEPS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Photoproduction of the S(1385) resonance at LEPS K. Hicks & D. Keller, Ohio U. LEPS Collaboration Meeting May 1, 2008

  2. Motivation - 1 • Very few data exist for the S(1385). • It is an important part of the decuplet group. • It is difficult to disentangle from the L(1405). • In order to study the shape of the L(1405), which is of controversial composition, it is useful to know more about the S(1385). • Some suggest the L(1405) is molecular. • Few question the 3-quark nature of S(1385).

  3. Motivation - 2 • A recent theoretical model by Oh, Ko and Nakayama is available to interpret data. • Reference: arXiv: 0712.4285. • Suggests that new resonances (predicted by Capstick & Roberts) help to fit the CLAS data. • The contribution from t-channel K* exchange is predicted to be negligible. (Is it surprising?) • The LEPS detector, at forward angles, is complementary to the large-angle CLAS data.

  4. Comparison to Data Note: CLAS data are preliminary (L. Guo et al.); the older data (pre-1970) are shown in red. Resonance strength is small—most strength is from t-channel.

  5. SPring-8 and LEPS The front end of the LEPS detector, showing the cryogenic target (left) followed by tracking chambers with the dipole magnet on the right. The 8 GeV stored electron beam facility in Japan, located about 100 km west of Osaka. It rings the top of the mountain.

  6. Data and Analysis • The desired reaction is: g n  K+p- X. • The target was liquid deuterium (LD2). • Both K+ and p- are detected at forward angles. • Use standard “clean-up” cuts to get clean PID • Use missing mass technique to isolate: • S- p- n (here, “X”=n). • S*-  p-L (here, “X”=L). • There is very little background: • gp  K+p- X+ (requires X to be positive). • gp  K+S*0  K+p0L (small, can be subtracted).

  7. MM(K+) v. MM(K+p-) Hydrogen target Deuterium target

  8. Cross Sections: ratio method • The LD2 data had normalization problems. • The beam flux is unreliable for part of the run. • The gn  K+S- cross sections are known: • H. Kohri et al., PRL 97, 082003 (2006). • LEPS acceptance calculations are reliable. • Have agreement with world data for LH2 data. • Let R = (NS*-/AccS*-) / (NS-/AccS-). • Then dsS*- = R (dsS-).

  9. Experimental and MC Ratios All plots are a function of the photon beam energy, from 1.5-2.4 GeV. In each case, the angular bin is, in order, cos(q) = 0.6-0.7, 0.7-0.8, 0.8-0.9, 0.9-1.0.

  10. Cross Section Compared to Theory LEPS: PRELIMINARY! Calculation by Oh, Ko, Nakayama Cross sections appear to be fairly flat in both Eg and qK.

  11. f-dependence: Data and MC Monte Carlo LD2 Data K+S- K+S- K+S*- K+S*- f (radians) f (radians)

  12. Polarization Dependence K+S- Solid = Pol 1 + Pol 2 Dashed = Pol 1 only Dotted = Pol 2 only K+S*- f (radians)

  13. Beam Asymmetry Ave. over all Eg and all q. K+S*- K+S- Kohri’s S- measured ave. Asym = +0.7 For the S*-, the Asym changes sign!

  14. Theory: Asym for S*0 From: Oh, Ko, Nakayama

  15. Summary • New cross sections for gn  K+S*- were presented for the first time. • There is very little background. • In general, the cross sections do not rise as rapidly at forward angles as predicted. • The OKY model may need to be adjusted • Beam asymmetry (for a single bin) is in good agreement for S-, new data for S*-.

  16. Questions • Is there a correction for beam flux in the two polarization states? • There seems to be a zero-offset in the Asym. • What is the dependence on f-acceptance for a given range of cos(q)? • The average over all q could skew the Asym.

  17. Sample fits to S*- peak

More Related