4.7 Article

I - Experimental investigation of transverse spin asymmetries in μ-p SIDIS processes: Collins asymmetries

期刊

PHYSICS LETTERS B
卷 717, 期 4-5, 页码 376-382

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.09.055

关键词

-

资金

  1. DFG Research Training Group Programme 1102
  2. German Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung
  3. Czech Republic MEYS [ME492, LA242]
  4. SAIL (CSR), Govt. of India
  5. CERN-RFBR [08-02-91009]
  6. Portuguese FCT - Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia
  7. COMPETE
  8. QREN [CERN/FP/109323/2009, CERN/FP/116376/2010, CERN/FP/123600/2011]
  9. MEXT
  10. JSPS [18002006, 20540299, 18540281]
  11. Daiko Foundation
  12. Yamada Foundation
  13. DFG
  14. Israel Science Foundation
  15. Polish NCN [DEC-2011/01/M/ST2/02350]
  16. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [20540299, 18540281, 18002006] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The COMPASS Collaboration at CERN has measured the transverse spin azimuthal asymmetry of charged hadrons produced in semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering using a 160 GeV mu(+) beam and a transversely polarised NH3 target. The Collins asymmetry of the proton was extracted in the Bjorken x range 0.003 < x < 0.7. These new precise measurements confirm previous measurements from the COMPASS and HERMES Collaborations, which exhibit a definite effect in the valence quark region. The asymmetries for negative and positive hadrons are similar in magnitude and opposite in sign. They are compatible with model calculations in which the u-quark transversity is opposite in sign and somewhat larger than the d-quark transversity distribution function. The asymmetry is extracted as a function of Bjorken x, the relative hadron energy z and the hadron transverse momentum p(T)(h). The high statistics and quality of the data also allow for more detailed investigations of the dependence on the kinematic variables. These studies confirm the leading-twist nature of the Collins asymmetry. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据