# Difference between revisions of "January 30, 2014 - Special Theory Meeting"

From Ciswikidb

Line 34: | Line 34: | ||

: Is the biggest uncertainty in the theoretical calculations radiative corrections? Can a sound theoretical calculation be made that calculates this contribution with relative accuracy of ~30%? | : Is the biggest uncertainty in the theoretical calculations radiative corrections? Can a sound theoretical calculation be made that calculates this contribution with relative accuracy of ~30%? | ||

− | ; Question #3 ( | + | ; Question #3 (Joe 1/15/2014) |

− | : | + | : Although we will pester the theorists about the precision on the Sherman function calculation, also the cross-section and spin transfer functions are derived from the same F & G functions. In particular, all four are relevant for our GEANT4 simulations. Are the uncertainties for the latter functions similar or are there any arguments why they would be larger or smaller? We need to understand the uncertainties that are folded into the physics for the target thickness simulation. |

− | ; | + | ; Question #4 (Joe 1/15/2014) |

+ | : What would be the most interesting or useful measurements we could attempt to help appreciate or validate theory calculations? |

## Revision as of 22:19, 15 January 2014

## Contents

### Special Theory Meeting

## Meeting Logistics

- Thursday, January 30th 9am EST
- JLAB Meeting Room TBD
- Remote call-in information TBD

## BACKGROUND FOR THEORISTS

- OUR EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
- To precisely measure scattering asymmetry of spin polarized electrons from thin pure Z foils
- Accessible energy range is about 3 to 8 MeV
- Targets on hand are gold, silver, copper foils of varying thickness, but can install others readily
- Measure polarimeter systematics with goal <0.5%

- OUR SIMULATION PROGRAM
- Build GEANT4 model of polarimeter and benchmark detector response against measurement
- Implement physics (cross-section, Sherman function, spin transfer functions) provided by theory
- Develop ab initio simulation dependence of asymmetry on target thickness (multiple scattering, radiation effects, etc) to measurement
- By calibrating model to experimental data predict zero-thickness asymmetry with high precision <1%

- DESIRED THEORY PROGRAM
- Provide physics tables for simulation (cross-section, Sherman function, spin transfer functions)
- Describe theoretical basis, corrections, uncertainties
- Advise which measurements may be best tests on leading corrections or limit absolute knowledge of physics
- Consider calculation to improve uncertainty in physics below 1%

## Questions (Please follow format shown)

- Question #1 (Joe 1/13/2014)
- Coulomb screening is a leading effect for electron energies <1 MeV, and finite nuclear size is a leading effect for energies >10MeV (when DeBrogile wavelength is comparable to nuclear radius). Although our polarimeter is optimized for 5MeV we can operate with beam energies typically from about 3-8 MeV. What is the size of the uncertainty on the corrections in this energy range and for Z we use such as gold, silver, copper? Are we sensitive enough in this region to perform a test on the uncertainty of the physics calculations, e.g. using suitable Z or extending the energy reach?

- Question #2 (Joe 1/15/2014)
- Is the biggest uncertainty in the theoretical calculations radiative corrections? Can a sound theoretical calculation be made that calculates this contribution with relative accuracy of ~30%?

- Question #3 (Joe 1/15/2014)
- Although we will pester the theorists about the precision on the Sherman function calculation, also the cross-section and spin transfer functions are derived from the same F & G functions. In particular, all four are relevant for our GEANT4 simulations. Are the uncertainties for the latter functions similar or are there any arguments why they would be larger or smaller? We need to understand the uncertainties that are folded into the physics for the target thickness simulation.

- Question #4 (Joe 1/15/2014)
- What would be the most interesting or useful measurements we could attempt to help appreciate or validate theory calculations?