2015
DOI: 10.1103/physrevc.91.065203
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Flavor decomposition of the nucleon electromagnetic form factors at lowQ2

Abstract: Background The spatial distribution of charge and magnetization within the proton is encoded in the elastic form factors.These have been precisely measured in elastic electron scattering, and the combination of proton and neutron form factors allows for the separation of the up-and down-quark contributions.Purpose In this work, we extract the proton and neutron form factors from world's data with an emphasis on precise new data covering the low-momentum region, which is sensitive to the large-scale structure o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
22
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 109 publications
(145 reference statements)
2
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For Q 2 above 3-4 GeV 2 , an ε-dependent correction of approximately 5% could explain the observed discrepancy [13,14,17,40]. At Q 2 < 2 GeV 2 the discrepancy is smaller and provides a less sensitive constraint on TPE contributions [41], though it is consistent with a few % correction.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 57%
“…For Q 2 above 3-4 GeV 2 , an ε-dependent correction of approximately 5% could explain the observed discrepancy [13,14,17,40]. At Q 2 < 2 GeV 2 the discrepancy is smaller and provides a less sensitive constraint on TPE contributions [41], though it is consistent with a few % correction.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 57%
“…[10] is in best agreement with the data , however it tends toward overestimating the data. Phenomenological extractions of TPE contributions in this Q 2 range [11] tend to predict somewhat larger effects than the hadronic calculation, but such extractions are not as much reliable at these Q 2 values, where the discrepancy between Rosenbluth and polarization results is not clear.…”
Section: Preliminary Results and Conclusionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…[66,68] yielded χ 2 ν > 1.80. I also determined the values of (G p E (Q 2 )) 2 using the improved parametrization of the ratio R and its associated uncertainty [52]. The values of (G p E /G D (Q 2 )) 2 and (G p M /µ p G D (Q 2 )) 2 along with the fit results for the TPE amplitudes coefficients are included in the online Supplemental Material [62].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%