4.5 Article

Understanding the systematic differences in extractions of the proton electric form factors at low Q2

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW C
Volume 106, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.065505

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics
  2. [DE-FG02-03ER41231]
  3. [DE-AC05-06OR23177]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study reveals systematic differences in the values of proton's electric form factors in the low-Q2 region extracted by different experimental and theoretical groups. By utilizing an analytically well-behaved rational function and re-analyzing the electron-proton scattering data, the study shows that the apparent discrepancy can be resolved.
Systematic differences exist between values of the proton's electric form factors in the low -Q2 region extracted by different experimental and theoretical groups, though they are all making use of basically the same electron -proton scattering data. To try to understand the source of these differences, we make use of the analytically well-behaved rational (N = 1, M = 1) function, a predictive function that can be reasonably used for extrapolations at Q2 -> 0. First, we test how well this deceptively simple two-parameter function describes the extremely complex and state-of-the-art dispersively improved chiral effective field theory calculations. Second, we carry out a complete re-analysis of the 34 sets of electron-proton elastic scattering cross-section data of the Mainz A1 Collaboration with its unconstrained 31 normalization parameters up to Q2 = 0.5 (GeV/c)2. We find that subtle shifts in the normalization parameters can result in relatively large changes in the extracted physical qualities. In conclusion, we show that by simply using a well-behaved analytic function, the apparent discrepancy between recent form-factor extractions can be resolved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available