The Scattering of Polarized Electrons from Polarized 3He: First Experiments and Implications for the Measurement of GEn

  • A. M. Bernstein
Part of the Few-Body Systems book series (FEWBODY, volume 6)


The fact that the neutron is not an elementary particle was discovered long ago when the magnetic moment was measured and found not to be equal to the Dirac value of zero. Subsequent quasi-elastic electron deuteron scattering data showed that the neutron magnetic form factor was not point like.1 This internal structure can be explained as due to the presence of (at least) up and down quarks. If the up and down quark wave functions have the same radial dependence the charge form factor of the neutron G E n (q2) = 0; if they are not equal then G E n ≠ 0. We do not have much accurate data for G E n , but the measurement of the charge RMS radius from thermal neutron electron scattering2 demonstrates that the up and down quark wave functions are not equal. This has been explained by the tensor part of the color hyperfine interaction3,4 causing the up and down quark wave functions to differ.4,5 A measurement of G E n (q2) would provide a test of nucleon models.6


Form Factor Final State Interaction Target Polarization Charge Form Factor Kinematic Regime 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Hofstadter, R., Rev. Mod. Phys. 28, 214 (1956)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hofstadter, R., Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 7, 231 (1957).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [2]
    The slope of GEn (q2) as q2 → 0 was measured by Krohn, V. E. et al. Phys. Rev. d8 1305 (1973)Google Scholar
  4. Koester, L. et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1021 (1976).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [3]
    Glashow, S. L., Physica A96, 27 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [4]
    Isgur, N., Karl, G., and Koniuk, R., Phys. Rev. D25, 239 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [5]
    Isgur, N., Karl, G. and Sprung, D. W. L., Phys. Rev. D23, 163 (1981)ADSGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlitz, R., Ellis, S. D. and Savit, R., Phys. Lett. 64B, 85 (1976).Google Scholar
  9. [6]
    Meissner, U. G., Phys. Rep. 161, 213 (1988)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Theberge, S., Miller, G. A. and Thomas, A. W., Can. J. Phys. 60, 59 (1982).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [7]
    Donnelly, T. W., and Raskin, A. S., Ann. Phys. 169, 247 (1986).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [8]
    Arenhovel, H., Phys. Lett. B206, 187 (1988)Google Scholar
  13. Tomusiak, E. L. and Arenhovel, H., Phys. Lett. B206, 187 (1988).Google Scholar
  14. [9]
    Blankleider, B. and Woloshyn, R., Phys. Rev. C29, 538 (1984).ADSGoogle Scholar
  15. [10]
    Bates experiment 85–05 Madey, R. and Kowalski, S, spokesmen.Google Scholar
  16. [11]
    Bates experiment 88–02, Milner, R. G. and McKeown, R. D., spokesmen; Bates experiment 88–10, Chupp, T. E. and Bernstein, A. M., spokesmen.Google Scholar
  17. [12]
    Otten, E., private communication.Google Scholar
  18. [13]
    Milner, R. G., McKeown, R. D. and Woodward, C. E., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A274, 56 (1989).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [14]
    Chupp, T. E., Loveman, R. A., Thompson, A. K., Bernstein, A. M. and Tieger, D. R., to be published and Chupp, T. E., Wagshul, M. E., Coulter, K. P., McDonald, A. B. and Happer, W., Phys. Rev.. C36, 2224 (1987).Google Scholar
  20. [15]
    Friar, J. L., Gibson, B. R., Payne, G. L., Bernstein, A. M. and Chupp, T. E., Phys. Rev. C42, 2310 (1990).ADSGoogle Scholar
  21. [16]
    Thompson, A. K., Ph.D. Thesis, MIT, August 1991 (unpublished); Thompson, A. K., et al., to be published. The group was Thompson, A. K., Chupp, T. E., Bernstein, A. M., Tieger, D. R., Dodson, G., Dow, K. A., Farkhondeh, M., Fong, W., Kim, J. Y., Loveman, R. A., Richardson, J. M., Schmieden, H., Yates, T. C. Wagshul, M. E., Zumbro, J. D., Dodge, G. E. and deAngelis, D. J.Google Scholar
  22. [17]
    Jones-Woodward, C. E., et al., Phys. Rev. C44, R571 (1991)ADSGoogle Scholar
  23. [17]
    Jones-Woodward, C. E., et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 698 (1990).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [18]
    Sick, I., in Nuclear Physics with Electron Scattering, in the “Liber Amicorum” meeting for C. de Vries, NIKHEF (1989).Google Scholar
  25. [19]
    van Meijgard, E. and Tjon, J. A., Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 3011 (1986)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tjon, J. A., private communication.Google Scholar
  27. [20]
    Dow, K. et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1706 (1988).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [21]
    Galster S. et al, Nucl. Phys. B32, 221 (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [22]
    Bates experiment 88–25, Bernstein, A. M. Chupp, T. E., McKeown, R. D. and Milner, R. G., spokesmen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. M. Bernstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Physics Department and Laboratory for Nuclear ScienceMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations