TY - JOUR
T1 - Elastic differential cross section of ep scattering fitted via the differential cross section of eq scatterings with cloud-covering effects
AU - Magallanes, Jingle B.
AU - Bornales, Jinky B.
AU - Luna-García, René
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Physical Society.
PY - 2021/3/24
Y1 - 2021/3/24
N2 - The angular-averaged differential cross section (dcs) of the elastic electron-proton (ep) scattering, covering Q2<1.0 GeV2, was fitted via a combined modified eq-scatterings where q is a point particle. The modifications represent the cloud-covering effects to q. An energy-decaying ratio (edr) was derived by inspecting the generated dcsep from the form factor data gathered at Mainz Microtron (A1-Collaboration) and Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Laboratory) when compared to the dcseq with modified relativistic recoil factor. The diminishing cloud layer, edr, has a decay rate of -2.8 for the datasets under investigation. The formulated spin bare mass (SBM) and spin effective mass (SEM) fitting models use the bare and effective u and d-quark masses, respectively, while spin with other criteria bare mass (SCBM) and spin with other criteria effective mass (SCEM) integrate other considerations. Three comparison methods were used and all of them favor the models with other additional considerations. SCEM was the most favored model in general.
AB - The angular-averaged differential cross section (dcs) of the elastic electron-proton (ep) scattering, covering Q2<1.0 GeV2, was fitted via a combined modified eq-scatterings where q is a point particle. The modifications represent the cloud-covering effects to q. An energy-decaying ratio (edr) was derived by inspecting the generated dcsep from the form factor data gathered at Mainz Microtron (A1-Collaboration) and Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Laboratory) when compared to the dcseq with modified relativistic recoil factor. The diminishing cloud layer, edr, has a decay rate of -2.8 for the datasets under investigation. The formulated spin bare mass (SBM) and spin effective mass (SEM) fitting models use the bare and effective u and d-quark masses, respectively, while spin with other criteria bare mass (SCBM) and spin with other criteria effective mass (SCEM) integrate other considerations. Three comparison methods were used and all of them favor the models with other additional considerations. SCEM was the most favored model in general.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85104255068&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.054032
DO - 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.054032
M3 - Artículo
AN - SCOPUS:85104255068
SN - 2470-0010
VL - 103
JO - Physical Review D
JF - Physical Review D
IS - 5
M1 - 054032
ER -