D Gaskell

Electron Polarimetry at JLabDave GaskellJefferson Lab: 

Electron Polarimetry at JLab Dave Gaskell Jefferson Lab Workshop on Precision Electron Beam Polarimetry for the Electron Ion Collider August 23-24 University of Michigan JLab electron polarimeter overview Some focus on Hall C Møller Cross-polarimeter comparisons

Polarized Electrons at Jefferson Lab: 

Polarized Electrons at Jefferson Lab Polarized electrons generated “at the source” using Superlattice GaAs photocathode Electrons polarized in the plane of the accelerator  spin direction precesses as beam circulates (up to 5 times) through machine Spin direction manipulated at source using Wien filter to get long. Polarization in Halls JLab now routinely provides electron beam polarizations >80% to experimental halls

JLab Polarimetry Techniques: 

JLab Polarimetry Techniques Three different processes used to measure electron beam polarization at JLab Møller scattering: , atomic electrons in Fe (or Fe-alloy) polarized using by external magnetic field Compton scattering: , laser photons scatter from electron beam Mott scattering: , spin-orbit coupling of electron spin with (large Z) target nucleus Each has advantages and disadvantages in JLab environment

5 MeV Mott Polarimeter: 

5 MeV Mott Polarimeter Mott polarimeter located in the 5 MeV region of the CEBAF injector Target must be thin, large Z material  1 mm Au foil Asymmetry maximized near 172o, given by S(q) is the Sherman function  must be calculated from e-nucleus cross section Knowledge of Sherman function dominant systematic uncertainty ~ 1.0%

Compton Polarimetry at JLab: 

Compton Polarimetry at JLab Two main challenges for Compton polarimetry at JLab Low beam currents (~100 mA) Measurements can take on the order of hours Makes systematic studies difficult Relatively small asymmetries Smaller asymmetries lead to harder-to-control systematics Strong dependence of asymmetry on Eg is a challenge  Understanding of detector response crucial

Hall A Compton Polarimeter: 

Hall A Compton Polarimeter Hall A Compton polarimeter uses high gain Fabry-Perot cavity to create ~ 1 kW of laser power in IR (1064 nm) Detects both scattered electron and backscattered g  2 independent measurements, coincidences used to calibrate g detector Systematic errors quoted at 1% level for recent HAPPEx experiments @ 3 GeV [PRL 98 (2007) 032301] Upgrade in progress to achieve same (or better?) precision at ~ 1GeV IR  Green laser Increase segmentation of electron detector

Møller Polarimetry at JLab: 

Møller Polarimetry at JLab Møller polarimetry benefits from large long. asymmetry  -7/9 Asymmetry independent of energy Relatively slowly varying near qcm=90o Large asymmetry diluted by need to use iron foils to create polarized electrons Pe ~ 8% Rates are large, so rapid measurements are easy Need to use Fe or Fe-alloy foils means measurement must be destructive Making measurements at high beam currents challenging -7/9

Hall A Møller Polarimeter: 

Hall A Møller Polarimeter Target =supermendeur foil, polarized in-plane Low field applied (240 G) Tilted 20o relative to beam direction Target polarization known to ~ 2%  this will improve Large acceptance of detectors mitigates potentially large systematic unc. from Levchuk effect (atomic Fermi motion of bound electrons) Large acceptance also leads to large rates dead time corrections cannot be ignored, but are tractable

Hall B Møller Polarimeter: 

Hall B Møller Polarimeter Hall B Møller uses similar target design as Hall A  Fe alloy in weak magnetic field Two-quadrupole system rather than QQQD Detector acceptance not as large – Levchuk effect corrections important Dominant systematics [NIM A 503 (2003) 513] Target polarization ~ 1.4% Levchuk effect ~ 0.8%

Hall C Møller Polarimeter: 

Hall C Møller Polarimeter 2 quadrupole optics maintains constant tune at detector plane “Moderate” (compared to Hall A) acceptance mitigates Levchuk effect  still a non-trivial source of uncertainty Target = pure Fe foil, brute-force polarized out of plane with 3-4 T superconducting magnet Total systematic uncertainty = 0.47% [NIM A 462 (2001) 382]

Hall C Møller Target: 

Hall C Møller Target Fe-alloy, in plane polarized targets typically result is systematic errors of 2-3% Require careful measurement magnetization of foil Pure Fe saturated in 4 T field Spin polarization well known  0.25% Temperature dependence well known No need to directly measure foil polarization

Hall C Møller Acceptance: 

Hall C Møller Acceptance Møller events Detectors Optics designed to maintain similar acceptance at detectors independent of beam energy Collimators in front of Pb:Glass detectors define acceptance One slightly larger to reduce sensitivity to Levchuk effect

Hall C Møller Systematics (I): 

Hall C Møller Systematics (I) Systematic error budget from NIM article Idealized?

Hall C Møller during G0 Forward Angle: 

Hall C Møller during G0 Forward Angle Each dashed line corresponds to an “event” that may have impacted the polarization in machine ?

Hall C Møller Systematics (II): 

Hall C Møller Systematics (II) Systematic error budget from G0 Forward Angle expt.

JLab Polarimeter Roundup: 

JLab Polarimeter Roundup

Spin Dance 2000: 

Spin Dance 2000 In July 2000, a multi-hall “Spin Dance” was performed at JLab Wien filter in the injector was varied from -110o to 110o, thus varying degree of longitudinal polarization in each hall Purpose was 2-fold Allow precise cross-comparison of JLab polarimeters Extract measurement of beam energy using spin precession through machine Results can be found in: Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 7, 042802 (2004)

Spin Dance 2000 Data: 

Spin Dance 2000 Data Pmeas cos(hWien + f)

Polarization Results: 

Polarization Results Results shown include statistical errors only some amplification to account for non-sinusoidal behavior Statistically significant disagreement Even including systematic errors, discrepancy still significant Systematics shown: Mott Møller C 1% Compton Møller B 1.6% Møller A 3%

Reduced Data Set: 

Reduced Data Set Hall A, B Møllers sensitive to transverse components of beam polarization Normally – these components eliminated via measurements with foil tilt reversed, but some systematic effects may remain Fit was redone with data only within 20% of total polarization

Polarization Results – Reduced Data Set: 

Polarization Results – Reduced Data Set Agreement improves, but still statistically significant deviations  when systematics included, discrepancy less significant closed circles = full data set open circles = reduced data set Further study in Hall A suggests measured foil polarization too big by 1-1.5%

Spin Dance 200X? : 

Spin Dance 200X? Since Spin Dance 2000, there has not been another full-blown, cross-hall, polarimeter comparison Dedicated time for these measurements difficult to obtain – beam time is precious and there is enormous pressure to complete as much of the physics program as possible There are sometimes opportunities for multi-hall comparisons, but usually only when experiments are using polarized beam and polarimeters are already commissioned Experiments in the next few years require 1% polarimetry (PRex, QWeak)  this may be an excellent opportunity to push for further studies In particular, Hall A Møller implementing Hall C style target Systematics due to target polarization identical Comparison (if done carefully) would isolate instrumental effects

Additional Cross-Hall Comparisons: 

Additional Cross-Hall Comparisons During G0 Backangle, performed “mini-spin dance” to ensure purely longitudinal polarization in Hall C Hall A Compton was also online use, so they participated as well Relatively good agreement between Hall C Møller and Mott and between Hall C Møller and Compton Hall A results are “online” only even though I show 1% syst.  Compton takes significant offline analysis

Comparisons During Fall 2006: 

Comparisons During Fall 2006 Hall A Møller (+2% sys.) Hall C Møller (stat only) Hall B Møller (stat only) Mott (stat only) Fall 2006, CEBAF was at “magic energy” allows longitudinal polarization to all halls for some passes During this period A, B, C agreement quite good  some unexplained variation in B measurements

Hall C Møller and Mott Discrepancy: 

Hall C Møller and Mott Discrepancy Historically, Hall C Møller and Mott have agreed to 1.5-2% Measurements made during G0 Backangle indicate this difference has grown  4%! Not clear who is the culprit: Hall C Møller operating at very low energy (687 MeV), systematics may be different Mott Polarimeter P = 82.76 +/- 0.11% +/- 1% P = 86.04 +/- 0.07% +/- 1(?)% Hall C Møller

Summary: 

Summary JLab has a variety of techniques and polarimeters to measure electron beam polarization  each has their own strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages Cross comparisons are crucial for testing systematics of each device Unfortunately, such tests are difficult to schedule Precision goals of a particular experiment often drive the amount of time devoted to systematic studies Globally, JLab polarimeters “agree” at the few % level At the edge of quoted systematics Agreement time dependent? Since 2000 spin dance, comparisons have occurred opportunistically  this is not ideal! Future plans Spin dance 200X? This will be crucial for experiments like PREX and QWeak Direct Hall A/Hall C Møller comparison after A upgrades to saturated foil target

Application to EIC: 

Application to EIC At JLab, proving precision at 1% level extremely difficult Comparisons of different techniques with different systematics go a long way to making a strong case that polarimetry is understood At EIC, 0.5% goal may be tractable, but multiple techniques would be very helpful to make a stronger case Clearly, Compton polarimetry will play a big role at EIC, but relatively speaking, electron beam energy still rather modest  0.5% may be challenging Other techniques should also be used, whether at the electron beam source, in the ring, or at the IP