The goal is to establish a method for measuring the polarization of a GeV-scale photon beam in a plane-polarization basis. The method should be based upon a process with a large physics asymmetry, for which the theoretical uncertainties on the asymmetry are small. Atomic pair production has a large asymmetry but its theoretical calculation is complicated by the dominance of the low-q2 part of the cross section where the nuclear charge is partially screened by atomic electrons. This can be taken into account by using the atomic form-factor, but that assumes that the scattering is elastic and fails to take into account atomic excitations that take place during the scattering process. One way to avoid the complications of atomic physics is to select the kinematics of pair production from a free electron and then detect the recoil electron in the final state. If the recoil electron is detected with sufficient momentum then the final-state interactions will be weak, and the process can be calculated from QED.
To our knowledge, so far no complete QED calculation of this process that takes polarization into account has been published. We undertake to carry out a numerical calculation ourselves, at tree level QED, and publish the results. As a check, we want to compare our results with published results that should be good approximations for some range of kinematics.
From my notes taken during our conversation at YerPhI on November 14, I understand the kinematics you are using to describe triplet production as follows. A basic accounting of degrees of freedom shows that for a 3-particle final state, 9 momentum components and 4 constraints from conservation of momentum leaves 5 independent kinematical variables. Your choice is as follows.
|E+ = E-||= 500 MeV|
|θ+ = θ-||= 7.5 mr|
You are right I have an extra shift in the Phi axis by 90 degrees. The reason is that I used Delta Phi = Phi_e+ - Phi_e- in calculations and pass it as axis value. So, we can say that our kinematics results coincide.
I've seen your web site shared with Sergey and have two remarks:
It surprises me to hear you say that complete results for the triplet were presented at the Hall B workshop, because I attended that workshop and I distinctly remember Maximon saying that the triplet cross section had never been done properly. I have written him an email to try to find out if that situation has changed, and I will update you on what I learn. Meanwhile I have searched the web and found a couple more references [3,4] that also refer to complete calculations, although the authors themselves are more interested in experimental details than in the theoretical results.
With regard to experimental resolutions, we are not yet at the point of being able to propose specific kinematics for the measurement, but from what I have seen so far the cross section is not very sensitive to the exact energy of the forward pair. The same is not true of the recoil. The recoil is low-energy and so it sets the scale for the q2 of the process, whereas the energy of the pair is weakly dependent on m2. To be more quantitative we need to compare some specific kinematics.
To compare our differential cross section results, we need to agree on what we use for the differential measure. What I am using is shown in the formula below.
where p+ and p- refer to the forward e+ and e- pair, while p and p' refer to the target and recoil system and k is the momentum of the incident photon. Using this for the differential measure, I plot my cross section in units of mb/MeV2 as a function of φ+ = φ- in Fig. 1.
|||"Workshop on Polarized Photon Polarimetry", W.J. Briscoe, M. Khandaker, and B. Wojtsekhowski, CLAS-NOTE 98-018 (1998) pdf|
|||"Exact Evaluation of Triplet Photoproduction", I. Endo and T. Kobayashi, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A328 (1993) 517-521.|
|||"Measuring Linear Polarization of Real Photons", Y.P. Peresunko, V.F. Bodyshev and E.A. Vinokurov, Fizika B8 (1999) 101-106. pdf|
|||"Triplet Production by Linearly Polarized Photons", I.V. Akushevich, H. Anlauf, E.A. Kuraev, P.G. Ratcliffe and B.G. Shaikhatdenov, (1999) 1-13. pdf|