1. Λ hypernuclea r spectroscop y at Jefferson Lab The 3 rd Korea-Japan on Nuclear and Hadron Physics at J-PARC, at Inha University in Korea 2014/3/20 – 2014/3/21 Graduate school of Science, Tohoku Univ. Toshiyuki Gogami

2. Contents

4. Spectroscopic experiment by the (e,e’K + ) reaction p n γ*γ* Λ K+K+ e-e- e + p ➝ e’ + K + + Λ target nucleus ~ 1990’s The (K -,π - ), (π +,K + ) reactions Energy resolution ~ a few MeV n  Λ e’-Spectrometer K + -Spectrometer p e’ p K+ Missing Mass M HY 2000~ The (e,e’K + ) reaction Energy resolution sub-MeV p  Λ High intensity (~10 14 Hz) Small emittance (2 μm ・ mrad) Small energy spread (ΔE/E < 10 -4 )

5. Spectroscopic experiment by the (e,e’K + ) reaction p n γ*γ* Λ K+K+ e-e- e + p ➝ e’ + K + + Λ target nucleus ~ 1990’s The (K -,π - ), (π +,K + ) reactions Energy resolution ~ a few MeV n  Λ e’-Spectrometer K + -Spectrometer p e’ p K+ Missing Mass M HY 2000~ The (e,e’K + ) reaction Energy resolution sub-MeV p  Λ High intensity (~10 14 Hz) Small emittance (2 μm ・ mrad) Small energy spread (ΔE/E < 10 -4 )

6. Physics motivation for JLab E05-115

8. 7 Λ He hyprenucleus +

9. CSB interaction test in A=7 iso-triplet comparison Counts B Λ [MeV] H.Tamura et al., PRL 84, 5963 (2000)

10. CSB interaction test in A=7 iso-triplet comparison S.N.Nakamura et al., PRL 110, 012502 (2013)

11. 7 Λ He in JLab E05-115 S.N.Nakamura et al., PRL 110, 012502 (2013) JLab E05-115 Small systematic error Observation of the excited state

12. Experimental setup Pre-chicane beam line Δp/p ~ 2 × 10 -4 θ e’ = 6.5 ± 5.0 [degree] θ K = 5.7 ± 4.6 [degree]

13. Experimental setup

15. Contents

16. Absolute energy scale calibration with Λ and Σ 0 Missing mass Backward transfer matrix

17. Absolute energy scale calibration with Λ and Σ 0 Missing mass Backward transfer matrix Tune ITERATION

18. Λ, Σ 0 comparison 4 MeV (FWHM) 1.6 MeV (FWHM) ~ 0.5 MeV (FWHM) for 12 Λ B

19. Λ, Σ 0 comparison 4 MeV (FWHM) 1.6 MeV (FWHM) ~ 0.5 MeV (FWHM) for 12 Λ B

20. Systematic error estimation for binding energy ( TOSCA + Geant4 )

21. Systematic error estimation for binding energy Realistic  S/N  Yields  Energy straggling in target  Beam raster  Spectrometer acceptance  Detector resolution

22. Systematic error estimation for binding energy Realistic  S/N  Yields  Energy straggling in target  Beam raster  Spectrometer acceptance  Detector resolution

23. Systematic error estimation for binding energy Realistic  S/N  Yields  Energy straggling in target  Beam raster  Spectrometer acceptance  Detector resolution

24. Contents

25. Definition of differential cross section

26. 12 C(e,e’K + ) 12 Λ B spectrum

27. (FWHM: 0.5 MeV)

28. 12 Λ C and 12 Λ B comparison (FWHM: 0.5 MeV) H.Hotch et al., PRC64, 044302 (2001) (FWHM: 1.4 MeV) D.J.Millener, NPA691, 93 (2001) T.Motoba et al., PTP suppl. 185, 224 (2012) A.Matsumura, Doctor’s thesis (2009) JLab E01-011 KEK E369 JLab E05-115 Calc. ① ① ② ③ ③ ② (π +,K + ) reaction

29. 12 Λ B comparison Experime nt θ γK Lab [degree]-B Λ [MeV]Cross section [nb/sr]Extracted value from Motoba-san’s prediction E05-1156.8-11.38 ± 0.02 ± sys. error97.8 ± 3.6 ± 11.575 E01-0115.8-11.40 ± 0.01 ± 0.04101 ± 4.2 (+ 38 – 31)85 E89-0090-11.52 ± 0.35140 ± 17 ± 18120 Emulsion-11.37 ± 0.06N/A- Experim ent θ γK Lab [degree]-B Λ [MeV]Cross section [nb/sr]Extracted value from Motoba-san’s prediction E05-1156.8-0.43 ± 0.03 ± sys. error84.1 ± 3.3 ± 9.985 E01-0115.8-0.41 ± 0.01 ± 0.1394 ± 4.0 ±3596 E89-009-0.49 ± 0.16N/A-

30. Results for 7 Li(e,e’K + ) 7 Λ He (FWHM: 1.3 MeV)

31. Results of 7 Λ He S.N.Nakamura et al., PRL 110, 012502 (2013)

32. Results of 7 Λ He S.N.Nakamura et al., PRL 110, 012502 (2013) E Λ (3/2 +,5/2 + ) [MeV] E.Hiyama et al., PRC 80, 054321 (2009) 1.70 M.Sotona et al., PTP 117 (1994) 1.79

33. Summary

34. Outlook Systematic error Fitting to the histogram 52 Λ V

35. Backup

36. 12 C(e,e’K + ) 12 Λ B spectrum Virtual photon flux Efficiencies Acceptance

37. Λ binding energy for 12 C(e,e’K + ) 12 Λ B Peak- B Λ [MeV]N[nb/sr] 1 2 3 4 5 6 (FWHM: 500 keV) Click to see previous results

38. 12 Λ B comparison Experime nt θ γK Lab [degree]-B Λ [MeV]Cross section [nb/sr]Extracted value from Motoba-san’s prediction E05-1156.8-11.38 ± 0.02 ± sys. error97.8 ± 3.6 ± 11.575 E01-0115.8-11.40 ± 0.01 ± 0.04101 ± 4.2 (+ 38 – 31)85 E89-0090-11.52 ± 0.35140 ± 17 ± 18120 Emulsion-11.37 ± 0.06N/A Experim ent θ γK Lab [degree]-B Λ [MeV]Cross section [nb/sr]Extracted value from Motoba-san’s prediction E05-1156.8-0.43 ± 0.03 ± sys. error84.1 ± 3.3 ± 9.985 E01-0115.8-0.41 ± 0.01 ± 0.1394 ± 4.0 ±3596 E89-009-0.49 ± 0.16N/A

39. 10 B(e,e’K + ) 10 Λ Be spectrum Virtual photon flux Efficiencies Acceptance

40. Λ binding energy for 10 B(e,e’K + ) 10 Λ Be Peak- B Λ [MeV]N[nb/sr] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (1)T.Cantiwell et al., NPA236 (1974) 445-456 (2)M.Juric et al., NPB52 (1973) 1-30 (FWHM: 780 keV)

41. Λ binding energy for 10 B(e,e’K + ) 10 Λ Be (FWHM: 780 keV) -8.84 without CSB -8.76 with CSB Hiyama’s calc. Motoba’s calc. Peak- B Λ [MeV]N[nb/sr] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

42. 7 Li(e,e’K + ) 7 Λ He spectrum Virtual photon flux Efficiencies Acceptance

43. Missing mass spectra  9 Be(e,e’K + ) 9 Λ Li  52 Cr(e,e’K + ) 52 Λ V

44. 9 Be(e,e’K + ) 9 Λ Li spectrum Virtual photon flux Efficiencies Acceptance

45. 9 Be(e,e’K + ) 9 Λ Li spectrum

46. M.Sotona and S.Frullani, PTP supplement No.117 (1994)

47. 9 Be(e,e’K + ) 9 Λ Li spectrum rough comparison J.J.LeRose et al., NPA804(2008)116-124 F.Cusanno et al., NPA835(2010)129-135 Hall-A Hall-C

48. Missing mass spectrum of 52 Cr (e,e’K + ) 52 Λ V Accidental background sΛ (?)sΛ (?)

49. Missing mass spectrum of 52 Cr (e,e’K + ) 52 Λ V Accidental background

50. Missing mass spectrum of 52 Cr (e,e’K + ) 52 Λ V Accidental background

51. Summary and Outlook Summary Status of spectra Outlook Blind analysis  systematic error for binding energy D’s thesis

53. Energy scale calibration x, x’, y, y‘ @ RP p, x’, y’ @ Target Missing mass Inverse transfer matrix p : Λ, Σ 0 and 12 Λ B-s xp and yp : Λ and Σ 0 LOOP Tune ITERATION Matrix selection Widths of Λ, Σ 0, 12 Λ B-s Matrix selection Widths of Λ, Σ 0, 12 Λ B-s Create new ROOT files Next LOOP

55. Li Virtual photon flux Efficiencies Acceptance

56. Λ binding energy for 7 Li(e,e’K + ) 7 Λ He (FWHM: 1300 keV) -5.36 without CSB -5.16 with CSB Hiyama’s calc. Peak- B Λ [MeV]N[nb/sr] 1 2 S.N.Nakamura et al., PRL 110, 012502 (2013)

57. Λ binding energy for 7 Li(e,e’K + ) 7 Λ He (331 mg/cm2) (FWHM: 1300 keV) -5.36 without CSB -5.16 with CSB Hiyama’s calc. Peak- B Λ [MeV]N[nb/sr] 1 2

58. Motivation for the blind analysis K + momentum e’ momentum Tuning Linearity Systematic error E e =2.344 GeV

59. Flow chart of blind analysis Compare Blind

60. Systematic error for binding energy With distorted matricesWith optimized matrices

61. Experimental setup Data summary

62. CSB interaction test in A=7 iso-triplet comparison

63. S.N.Nakamura et al., PRL 110, 012502 (2013)

64. Data summary Target ([mg/cm 2 ])Hypernucleus Hyperon Nominal beam current [A] Run time [h]Total incident charge [C] (Number of incident e - ) CH 2 (450)Λ, Σ 0, 12 Λ B2.039 H 2 O (500)Λ, Σ 0, 12 Λ N2.521 7 Li (208) 7 Λ He3542 9 Be (188) 9 Λ Li4039 10 B (56) 10 Λ Be4045 12 C (88) 12 Λ B20, 3555 52 Cr (154) 52 Λ V7.5230

65. Data summary