Recently, it was noted that absorptive corrections to the electromagnetic form factor in high-energy proton-proton scattering are important for the theoretical interpretation of the <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><a:msup><a:mi>p</a:mi><a:mo stretchy="false">↑</a:mo></a:msup><a:mi>p</a:mi></a:math> and <d:math xmlns:d="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><d:msup><d:mi>p</d:mi><d:mo stretchy="false">↑</d:mo></d:msup><d:mi>A</d:mi></d:math> analyzing power <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><g:mrow><g:msub><g:mrow><g:mi>A</g:mi></g:mrow><g:mrow><g:mi mathvariant="normal">N</g:mi></g:mrow></g:msub><g:mo stretchy="false">(</g:mo><g:mi>t</g:mi><g:mo stretchy="false">)</g:mo></g:mrow></g:math> measurements with the Hydrogen Jet Target polarimeter (HJET) at RHIC. Here, a concise expression for the absorptive correction was derived within the eikonal approach. The resulting analysis reveals a systematic bias, nearly independent of the beam energy, in the experimental determination of the real-to-imaginary ratio <l:math xmlns:l="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><l:mi>ρ</l:mi></l:math> when absorption effects are overlooked in the data analysis. Quantification of this bias, as <n:math xmlns:n="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><n:mrow><n:msup><n:mrow><n:mi>ρ</n:mi></n:mrow><n:mrow><n:mi>meas</n:mi></n:mrow></n:msup><n:mo>=</n:mo><n:mi>ρ</n:mi><n:mo>+</n:mo><n:mo stretchy="false">(</n:mo><n:mn>0.036</n:mn><n:mo>±</n:mo><n:mn>0.016</n:mn><n:msub><n:mrow><n:mo stretchy="false">)</n:mo></n:mrow><n:mrow><n:mi>bias</n:mi></n:mrow></n:msub></n:mrow></n:math>, was achieved using a Regge fit applied to available proton-proton measurements of <r:math xmlns:r="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><r:msup><r:mi>ρ</r:mi><r:mrow><r:mi>meas</r:mi></r:mrow></r:msup><r:mo stretchy="false">(</r:mo><r:mi>s</r:mi><r:mo stretchy="false">)</r:mo></r:math> and <v:math xmlns:v="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><v:msubsup><v:mi>σ</v:mi><v:mi>tot</v:mi><v:mrow><v:mi>meas</v:mi></v:mrow></v:msubsup><v:mo stretchy="false">(</v:mo><v:mi>s</v:mi><v:mo stretchy="false">)</v:mo></v:math>. Considering the potential impact of such an effect on the experimentally determined <z:math xmlns:z="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><z:msub><z:mi>A</z:mi><z:mi mathvariant="normal">N</z:mi></z:msub><z:mo stretchy="false">(</z:mo><z:mi>t</z:mi><z:mo stretchy="false">)</z:mo></z:math>, one may enhance consistency between the HJET and STAR measurements of the hadronic spin-flip amplitude. While the sign of the bias in the value of <eb:math xmlns:eb="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><eb:mi>ρ</eb:mi></eb:math> aligns with the anticipated effective increase in the proton charge radius in <gb:math xmlns:gb="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><gb:mi>p</gb:mi><gb:mi>p</gb:mi></gb:math> scattering due to absorption, it amplifies the observed discrepancy between <ib:math xmlns:ib="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><ib:msubsup><ib:mi>σ</ib:mi><ib:mi>tot</ib:mi><ib:mrow><ib:mi>meas</ib:mi></ib:mrow></ib:msubsup></ib:math> and <kb:math xmlns:kb="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><kb:msup><kb:mi>ρ</kb:mi><kb:mrow><kb:mi>meas</kb:mi></kb:mrow></kb:msup></kb:math> values at <mb:math xmlns:mb="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mb:msqrt><mb:mi>s</mb:mi></mb:msqrt><mb:mo>=</mb:mo><mb:mn>13</mb:mn><mb:mtext> </mb:mtext><mb:mtext> </mb:mtext><mb:mi>TeV</mb:mi></mb:math> as measured in the TOTEM experiment. Evaluation (using published TOTEM data) of the measured proton-proton <ob:math xmlns:ob="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><ob:mi>d</ob:mi><ob:mi>σ</ob:mi><ob:mo>/</ob:mo><ob:mi>d</ob:mi><ob:mi>t</ob:mi></ob:math> dependence on the absorptive corrections indicated that possible soft photon corrections to the hadronic amplitude slope may be essential for such data analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A. Poblaguev (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: