text:
# How well do we know the electromagnetic form factors of the proton?

## I INTRODUCTION

The electromagnetic structure of the proton is described by the electric and magnetic form factors. Over the past several decades, a large number of experiments have measured elastic electron-proton scattering cross sections in order to extract the electric and magnetic form factors, $`G_{E_p}(Q^2)`$ and $`G_{M_p}(Q^2)`$ (where $`Q^2`$ is the four-momentum transfer squared), using the Rosenbluth technique Rosenbluth (1950). The electric and magnetic form factors have been extracted up to $`Q^27`$ GeV2 by direct Rosenbluth separations, and these measurements indicate approximate form factor scaling, i.e., $`\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}1`$ (where $`\mu _p`$ is the magnetic dipole moment of the proton), though with large uncertainties in $`G_{E_p}`$ at the highest $`Q^2`$ values Walker et al. (1994); Walker (1989).

More recently, elastic electron-proton polarization transfer measurements have been performed to obtain the ratio $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$. A low $`Q^2`$ measurement at MIT-Bates Milbrath et al. (1999, 1998) obtained values of $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ consistent with previous Rosenbluth separations. Later experiments at Jefferson Lab (JLab) extended these measurements up to $`Q^2=5.6`$ GeV2 Jones et al. (2000); Gayou et al. (2001, 2002), and show significant deviations from form factor scaling. They show a roughly linear decrease of the value of $`\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ from unity at low $`Q^2`$ to approximately 0.3 at $`Q^2=5.6`$ GeV2. Figure 1 shows the JLab polarization transfer measurements from refs. Jones et al. (2000); Gayou et al. (2002), along with a global Rosenbluth analysis of the cross section measurements Walker et al. (1994). While the polarization transfer technique allows much better measurements at high $`Q^2`$ values, there is a significant discrepancy even in the region where both techniques have comparable uncertainties.

When we combine the cross sections with polarization transfer measurements to extract the form factors (see Sect. III.6, or Ref. Brash et al. (2002)), we find that the values obtained for $`G_{E_p}`$ are significantly different, while $`G_{M_p}`$ differs only at the few percent level, compared to extractions that use only the cross sections. Clearly, it is necessary to understand the discrepancy in the extracted ratio before we can be confident in our knowledge of $`G_{E_p}`$ and, to a lesser extent, $`G_{M_p}`$. The Rosenbluth data is more sensitive to systematic uncertainties, and it has been suggested that the different Rosenbluth extractions are inconsistent, and thus unreliable. We will examine the consistency of the Rosenbluth measurements to test this suggestion. However, even if it is demonstrated that the cross sections going into the Rosenbluth extractions were incorrect, it would not completely solve the problem. The polarization measurements determine only the ratio of $`G_{E_p}`$ to $`G_{M_p}`$, and so reliable cross sections are still needed to extract the actual values of the form factors. Finally, if the discrepancy arises from a fundamental problem with either of these techniques, it may have implications for other measurements.

The goal of this analysis it to better understand the discrepancy between the Rosenbluth and polarization transfer results. We begin by demonstrating that the individual Rosenbluth measurements yield consistent results when analyzed independently, so that the normalization uncertainties between different measurements do not impact the result. We then perform a global analysis of the cross section measurements, and determine that the results cannot be made to agree with the polarization results by excluding an small set of measurements, or by making reasonable modifications to the relative normalization of the various experiments. The paper is organized as follows: In section II, we will review the two techniques and summarize the current measurements of the form factors. In section III, we present a new Rosenbluth analysis of the cross section measurements, and compare this to the polarization transfer results and examine possible scenarios that might explain the discrepancy between the techniques, such as problems with individual data sets or improper treatment of normalization uncertainties when combining cross sections from different experiments. In section IV we will discuss the results of the analysis and implications of the discrepancy between the two techniques. Finally, in section V, we summarize the results and discuss further tests that can be performed to help explain the disagreement between the techniques.

## II OVERVIEW OF FORM FACTOR MEASUREMENTS

We begin with a brief description of the Rosenbluth separation and recoil polarization techniques, focusing on the existing data and potential problems with the extraction techniques.

### II.1 Rosenbluth Technique

The unpolarized differential cross section for elastic scattering can be written in terms of the cross section for scattering from a point charge and the electric and magnetic form factors:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}\left[\frac{G_{E_p}^2+\tau G_{M_p}^2}{1+\tau }+2\tau G_{M_p}^2\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta _e/2)\right],$$
(1)
where $`\theta _e`$ is the electron scattering angle, and $`\tau =Q^2/4M_p^2`$. One can then define a reduced cross section,

$$\sigma _R\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\frac{ϵ(1+\tau )}{\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}}=\tau G_{M_p}^2(Q^2)+ϵG_{E_p}^2(Q^2),$$
(2)
where $`ϵ`$ is the longitudinal polarization of the virtual photon ($`ϵ^1=1+2(1+\tau )\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta _e/2)`$). At fixed $`Q^2`$, i.e., fixed $`\tau `$, the form factors are constant and $`\sigma _R`$ depends only on $`ϵ`$. A Rosenbluth, or longitudinal-transverse (L-T), separation involves measuring cross sections at several different beam energies while varying the scattering angle to keep $`Q^2`$ fixed while varying $`ϵ`$. $`G_{E_p}^2`$ can then be extracted from the slope of the reduced cross section versus $`ϵ`$, and $`\tau G_{M_p}^2`$ from the intercept. Note that because the $`G_{M_p}^2`$ term has a weighting of $`\tau /ϵ`$ with respect to the $`G_{E_p}^2`$ term, the relative contribution of the electric form factor is suppressed at high $`Q^2`$, even for $`ϵ=1`$.

Because the electric form is extracted from the difference of reduced cross section measurements at various $`ϵ`$ values, the uncertainty in the extracted value of $`G_{E_p}^2(Q^2)`$ is roughly the uncertainty in that difference, magnified by factors of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ)^1`$ and $`(\tau G_{M_p}^2/G_{E_p}^2)`$. This enhancement of the experimental uncertainties can become quite large when the range of $`ϵ`$ values covered is small or when $`\tau `$ ($`=Q^2/4M_p^2`$) is large. This is especially important when one combines high-$`ϵ`$ data from one experiment with low-$`ϵ`$ data from another to extract the $`ϵ`$-dependence of the cross section. In this case, an error in the normalization between the data sets will lead to an error in $`G_{E_p}^2`$ for all $`Q^2`$ values where the data are combined. If $`\mu _pG_{E_p}=G_{M_p}`$, $`G_{E_p}`$ contributes at most 8.3% (4.3%) to the total cross section at $`Q^2=5(10)`$ GeV2, so a normalization difference of 1% between a high-$`ϵ`$ and low-$`ϵ`$ measurement would change the ratio $`\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ by 12% at $`Q^2=5`$ GeV2 and 23% at $`Q^2=10`$ GeV2, more if $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ<1`$. Therefore, it is vital that one properly account for the uncertainty in the relative normalization of the data sets when extracting the form factor ratios. The decreasing sensitivity to $`G_{E_p}`$ at large $`Q^2`$ values limits the range of applicability of Rosenbluth extractions; this was the original motivation for the polarization transfer measurements, whose sensitivity does not decrease as rapidly with $`Q^2`$.

### II.2 Recoil Polarization Technique

In polarized elastic electron-proton scattering, $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{p})`$, the longitudinal ($`P_l`$) and transverse ($`P_t`$) components of the recoil polarization are sensitive to different combinations of the electric and magnetic elastic form factors. The ratio of the form factors, $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$, can be directly related to the components of the recoil polarization Dombey (1969); Akheizer and Rekalo (1974); Arnold et al. (1981); Perdrisat et al. (1993):

$$\frac{G_{E_p}}{G_{M_p}}=\frac{P_t}{P_l}\frac{(E_e+E_e^{})\mathrm{tan}(\theta _e/2)}{2M_p},$$
(3)
where $`E_e`$ and $`E_e^{}`$ are the incoming and scattered electron energies, and $`P_l`$ and $`P_t`$ are the longitudinal and transverse components of the final proton polarization. Because $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ is proportional to the ratio of polarization components, the measurement does not require an accurate knowledge of the beam polarization or analyzing power of the recoil polarimeter. Estimates of radiative corrections indicate that the effects on the recoil polarizations are small and at least partially cancel in the ratio of the two polarization component Afanasev (2001).

Figure 2 shows the measured values of $`\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ from the MIT-Bates Milbrath et al. (1999, 1998) and JLab Jones et al. (2000); Gayou et al. (2001, 2002) experiments, both coincidence and single arm measurements, along with the linear fit of Ref. Gayou et al. (2002) to the data from Jones et al. (2000); Gayou et al. (2002):

$$\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}=10.13(Q^20.04),$$
(4)
with $`Q^2`$ in GeV2. Comparing the data to the fit, the total $`\chi ^2`$ is is 34.9 for 28 points, including statistical errors only. Assuming that the systematic uncertainties for each experiment are fully correlated, we can vary the systematic offset for each data set and the total $`\chi ^2`$ decreases to 33.6. If we allow the systematic offset to vary for each data set and refit the $`Q^2`$-dependence to all four data sets using the same two-parameter fit as above, i.e.,

$$\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}=1\alpha (Q^2Q_0^2),$$
(5)
for $`Q^2>Q_0^2`$, unity for $`Q^2<Q_0^2`$. We obtain $`\alpha =0.135\pm 0.008`$, $`Q_0^2=0.24\pm 0.08`$, and $`\chi ^2`$=28.1 for 26 degrees of freedom (dashed line in Fig. 2). The systematic offsets are small (consistent with zero) for all of the data sets except the low $`Q^2`$ JLab measurement Jones et al. (2000), which is increased by nearly the full (correlated) systematic uncertainty. This fit not only has a better $`\chi ^2`$, but also decreases the deviation from unity at very low $`Q^2`$ values, which improves the agreement with the very precise Rosenbluth results available below $`Q^2=1.0`$ GeV2.

The main systematic uncertainties come from inelastic background processes and determination of the spin-precession, both of which have been carefully studied and accounted for in the JLab measurements. While this technique should be less sensitive to systematic uncertainties than the Rosenbluth extractions, the discrepancy appears at relatively low $`Q^2`$ values, where both techniques give equally precise results. Because almost all of the polarization transfer data comes from the same experimental setup, it is in principle possible that an unaccounted for systematic error could cause a false $`Q^2`$-dependence in the ratio. There are no known problems or inconsistencies in these measurements and this technique. At this time, there is no explanation for the different results obtained by the two techniques. If we do not understand this discrepancy, then it is difficult to know how to correctly combine the polarization transfer measurements with the cross section measurements in order to extract the individual form factors.

## III Reanalysis of the Rosenbluth Measurements

The global Rosenbluth analysis shown in Fig. 1 may disagree with the polarization transfer results for a variety of reasons: inclusion of bad data points or data sets in the fit, or improper constraints on the relative normalization of data sets. To better understand the discrepancy, we have performed a reanalysis of the Rosenbluth measurements. We will use this to look for errors or inconsistencies in the data sets and to test possible explanations for the discrepancy between the two techniques.

An initial analysis reproduced the results of the previous global fit Walker et al. (1994); Bosted (1994). At this point, several modifications were made to the data set for subsequent fits: radiative corrections were updated for some of the older measurements, certain experiments were subdivided into separate data sets, some normalization uncertainties were updated from those used by Walker Walker et al. (1994), several cross section measurements were updated with the final published results, and a set of data points were excluded. These modifications are described in detail in the following section.

### III.1 Data Selection

The global analysis presented here is similar to the one presented in Refs. Walker et al. (1994); Walker (1989). Table 1 shows the data sets included in the fit, along with a summary of the kinematics for each data set. The experiments included are, for the most part, the same as in the previous analysis. Two additional data sets with measurements in the relevant $`Q^2`$ region have been included Stein et al. (1975); Rock et al. (1992). For two of the experiments included in the previous fit, we use the final published cross sections Sill et al. (1993); Andivahis et al. (1994), which were not available at the time of the previous global analysis.

For each data set included in the fit, an overall normalization or scale uncertainty was determined, separate from the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. This normalization uncertainty is given in, or was estimated from, the original publication of the data. In most cases, we use the same scale uncertainty as in the previous global analysis. For six Bartel et al. (1966); Albrecht et al. (1966, 1967); Goitein et al. (1970); Price et al. (1971); Sill et al. (1993) of the sixteen experiments, the published uncertainties included the normalization uncertainties. In the previous fit, these uncertainties were double counted when an additional normalization uncertainty was added. For these experiments, we apply the same normalization uncertainty, but remove it from the published (total) uncertainties to obtain the point-to-point uncertainties.

Two of the experiments Bartel et al. (1973); Andivahis et al. (1994) included data taken with more than one detector. There will therefore be different normalization factor for the data taken in the different detectors. In Ref. Andivahis et al. (1994), these normalization factors were measured by taking data at identical kinematics for two $`Q^2`$ points. We split the experiment into two data sets, and fit the normalization factor for each one independently. This will allow the normalization factor to be determined from both these direct measurements and the comparison to the full data set. Because we do not apply the normalization factor determined from the original analysis, we add a 2% normalization uncertainty (in quadrature) to the 1.77% uncertainty quoted in the original analysis. While this may underestimate the uncertainty in the normalization, the result would tend to be a larger cross section for this low-$`ϵ`$ data set, which would lead to a smaller value for $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$. As will be shown, even with this possible bias towards lower values of $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$, the resulting ratio is clearly higher then the polarization transfer results. Similarly, the elastic cross sections in Ref. Bartel et al. (1973) include three different sets of data: electrons detected in a small angle spectrometer, electrons detected in a large angle spectrometer, and protons detected in the small angle spectrometer (corresponding to large angle electron scattering). We divide this experiment into three data sets, each with its own normalization factor. Finally, after an initial analysis, it was observed that the data from Ref. Goitein et al. (1970) was taken under very different conditions for forward and backward angles (see Sect. III.4), and so this experiment was also subdivided into two data sets. Thus, the 16 experiments yield a total of 20 independent data sets for this analysis.

The radiative corrections applied to several of the older experiments Janssens et al. (1966); Bartel et al. (1966); Albrecht et al. (1966, 1967); Litt et al. (1970); Goitein et al. (1970); Berger et al. (1971); Price et al. (1971); Bartel et al. (1973); Kirk et al. (1973) neglected higher order terms. For the combined analysis of old and new experiments, the Schwinger term and the additional corrections for vacuum polarization contributions from muon and quark loops have been included, following Eqns.(A5)-(A7) of Ref. Walker et al. (1994). These terms have very little $`ϵ`$-dependence, and so do not have a significant effect on direct extractions of $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ from a single data set. However, they can modify the $`Q^2`$-dependence at the 1–2% level, which has a small effect when determining the relative normalization of the data sets.

For some of the older experiments, there are further improvements that could be made to the radiative corrections, but there is not always enough information provided to recalculate the corrections using more modern prescriptions. For these experiments we included only the terms mentioned above, which were not included in the earlier radiative corrections, and assume that the stated uncertainties for the radiative correction procedures are adequate to allow for the generally small differences in the older corrections. For a few of the earliest experiments, the quoted uncertainties for the radiative corrections were unrealistically small: total uncertainties of $`<`$1% or small normalization uncertainties only. To verify that this underestimate of the radiative correction uncertainties does not influence the final results, we included a 1.5% point-to-point and a 1.5% normalization uncertainty for radiative corrections and repeated the global fits presented in the following sections. In most cases, this error was small or negligible compared to the other errors quoted, though for three experiments Janssens et al. (1966); Litt et al. (1970); Goitein et al. (1970), the 1.5% uncertainty had a noticeable impact on either the scale or point-to-point uncertainties. The additional uncertainties did not noticeably change the result of any of the fits: the extracted value of $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ changed by less than 1% for all of the fits discussed in the later sections. Note that the results presented in this paper do not apply this additional uncertainty.

Finally, we excluded the small angle data from Ref. Walker et al. (1994). In our initial analysis, we saw a clear deviation of this small-angle ($`<15^{}`$) data from our global fits, with or without the inclusion of the polarization transfer data (see Sect. III.4 or Fig. 7). The deviation is due to a correction determined to be necessary for small scattering angles in the analysis of NE11 Andivahis et al. (1994) that was not applied to the earlier Walker data Lung and Keppel . Because there is an identified error in this data, and because it is not straightforward to apply this correction to the published results, these small angle data ($`\theta <20^{}`$) are excluded from the analysis.

### III.2 Consistency Checks - Single Experiment Extractions

We start by considering the values of $`\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ from published Rosenbluth extractions of the form factors Litt et al. (1970); Berger et al. (1971); Price et al. (1971); Bartel et al. (1973); Walker et al. (1994); Andivahis et al. (1994) (Fig. 3). These are the same experiments shown in Ref. Jones et al. (2000), where the scatter is used to illustrate the difficulty of extracting $`G_{E_p}`$ from Rosenbluth separations at high $`Q^2`$. The data have been divided into five bins in $`Q^2`$: 0–0.5 GeV2, and 1 GeV2 bins above 0.5 GeV2. The solid line shows the weighted average of all measurements in a given bin while the dotted lines show the one standard deviation range for each bin. As there is little $`Q^2`$ variation, averaging the values in small $`Q^2`$ bins should give a reasonable measure of the consistency of the data sets. While the average of these extractions is in good agreement with the global analysis, there is a large scatter in the extracted ratios for $`Q^2>2`$ GeV2. For these measurements, $`\chi ^2=50.6`$ for 40 degrees of freedom (45 data points minus 5 fit parameters, the mean values in each of the 5 $`Q^2`$ bins), yielding a $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom, $`\chi _\nu ^2`$, of 1.26 (13% confidence level (CL)). The agreement is worse for the higher $`Q^2`$ data: $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.63`$ for 17 degrees of freedom excluding data below $`Q^2=1.5`$ GeV2 (4.9% CL). The extent of the scatter has been used to argue that the Rosenbluth extractions do not give reproducible results. The question of the consistency of the data sets must be addressed before we can draw meaningful conclusions from a global analysis.

While single experiment extractions avoid uncertainties arising from the relative normalization between different experiments, it should be noted that most of the form factor ratios shown in Fig. 3 do not correspond to single experiment extractions. Three of these six extractions Litt et al. (1970); Berger et al. (1971); Price et al. (1971) combine new cross section measurements with cross sections from one or more older experiments. In the extraction by Litt Litt et al. (1970) the new data are combined with results from three other experiments. While they give estimates of the effect of a small change in normalization, the quoted extractions of $`G_{E_p}`$ and $`G_{M_p}`$ ignore the normalization uncertainties. The extractions of Berger Berger et al. (1971) and Price Price et al. (1971) determine normalization factors between their data and previous experiments by comparing the cross sections from the different kinematics to the cross sections calculated assuming the dipole form for both $`G_{E_p}`$ and $`G_{M_p}`$, in effect assuming that form factor scaling is valid when determining the relative normalization factors. They do not apply any uncertainty associated with the determination of these normalization factors.

Two of the six extractions Bartel et al. (1973); Andivahis et al. (1994) use data from single experiments, but use different detectors to measure the large and small angle scattering. Bartel Bartel et al. (1973) does not determine a normalization factor, but quotes a 1.5% relative uncertainty between the small angle and large angle spectrometer data. Andivahis Andivahis et al. (1994) determined the relative normalization factor using data taken at identical kinematics for the SLAC 1.6 GeV and 8 GeV spectrometers. Unlike the cases where a normalization factor between two different experiments is determined, no assumption about the $`ϵ`$-dependence goes into the determination. The uncertainty on the determination of the normalization factor was applied to the 1.6 GeV spectrometer which provided a single, low-$`ϵ`$ point for each $`Q^2`$ value measured. However, the uncertainty related to the normalization (0.7% for Andivahis, 1.5% for Bartel) is common to all points, and will have an effect on $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ that increases approximately linearly with $`Q^2`$ (for $`Q^2>2`$ GeV2). For the Andivahis measurement, this is roughly one-half the size of the total error, and so the entire data set could move up or down by roughly half of the total uncertainty shown in the figure. For the Bartel data, the high-$`Q^2`$ points all shift up or down by two-thirds of the total error due to a one-sigma shift in the normalization factor.

Only one of the experiments Walker et al. (1994) used a single detector for both small and large angle scattering, and is therefore free from normalization uncertainties. However, this is the experiment for which there was a correction for the small angle scattering that was not included in the analysis (Sect. III.1).

To study the consistency of the Rosenbluth measurements without the additional uncertainty caused by combining different experiments, one must examine only those experiments where an adequate range of $`ϵ`$ was covered with a single detector in a single experiment. Five of the data sets from Table 1 cover an adequate range in $`ϵ`$ to perform a single experiment L-T separation Walker et al. (1994); Litt et al. (1970); Berger et al. (1971); Andivahis et al. (1994); Janssens et al. (1966) . For these experiments, we have used only the cross section results from the primary measurement, with the updated radiative corrections as discussed in Sect. III.1.

Table 2 shows the values of $`G_{E_p}/G_{\mathrm{dipole}}`$, $`G_{M_p}/G_{\mathrm{dipole}}`$, and $`\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ from the reanalysis of the experiments that had adequate $`ϵ`$ coverage. Higher order terms in the radiative corrections have been applied to those experiments which did not include these terms, as discussed in Section III.1.

The form factors from the single experiment extractions are given in Table 2, and the form factor ratios are plotted in Figure 4. The total $`\chi ^2`$ is 18.2 for 25 degrees of freedom (d.o.f.). If the data below $`Q^2=1.5`$ GeV2 are excluded, $`\chi ^2=10.3`$ for 9 d.o.f. (33% CL). So, while the published extractions of the form factors from the different experiments have large scatter and yield somewhat inconsistent results, it is in part a result of the treatment of normalization factors in these extractions. The raw cross sections do not show this inconsistency, and the true single experiment extractions are consistent, and agree well with the global Rosenbluth analysis. Table 3 shows the $`\chi ^2`$ value for each of these data sets compared to the new global fit to the cross section data (Fig. 5), and the polarization transfer parameterization of Ref. Gayou et al. (2002), i.e., Eqn. 4. Every data set except Janssens, which is limited to $`Q^2<1`$ GeV2), is in significantly better agreement with the global Rosenbluth analysis.

We could include more data sets if we also used experiments where the forward and backward angle data are taken with different detectors, but where the normalization uncertainty is taken into account. If the Bartel and full Andivahis data sets are included, the results are still consistent ($`\chi ^2`$=17.4 for 15 d.o.f. for $`Q^2>1.5`$ GeV2), and the average form factor ratio is again slightly below unity for the intermediate $`Q^2`$ values. However, because the uncertainty related to the normalization is common to all $`Q^2`$ values, the Bartel data does not strongly favor either scaling or the polarization transfer result, and the reduction in the error for Andivahis when both spectrometers are combined is largely offset by the introduction of the correlated error.

Because of the reduced data set and limited $`ϵ`$ range caused by examining only single experiment extractions, the uncertainties are larger than for a global analysis. However, this data set should be free from the additional systematics related to the cross-experiment normalization. The extracted form factor ratio is slightly below scaling, in good agreement with the previous global analysis and in significant disagreement with the JLab polarization transfer results. In the next stage, we perform a global analysis of all of the cross section measurements to obtain the most precise result, and to test possible explanations of the discrepancy between the Rosenbluth and polarization measurements.

### III.3 Fitting Procedure and Results

For the global fits to the cross section data, the form factors are parameterized using the same form as Refs. Bosted (1994); Brash et al. (2002):

$$G_E(q),G_M(q)/\mu _p=1/[1+p_1q+p_2q^2\mathrm{}+p_Nq^N],$$
(6)
where $`q=\sqrt{Q^2}`$, and $`N`$ varies between 4 and 8; N=5 is adequate for a good fit. Because we wish to focus on the discrepancy at intermediate $`Q^2`$ values, we exclude data below $`Q^2=0.6`$ GeV2, where the two techniques are in good agreement, and above $`Q^2=8`$ GeV2, where the data do not allow for a Rosenbluth separation. Several parameterizations were tried, and this form was chosen because it provides enough flexibility to fit the $`Q^2`$-dependence of the form factors. This parameterization has odd powers of q, and so will not have the correct $`Q^20`$ behavior, but this is not relevant for this analysis, as we are focusing on the intermediate $`Q^2`$ range.

In addition to the $`2N`$ parameters for the form factors, we also fit a normalization factor for each of the data sets. After partitioning the data sets for experiments that make multiple independent measurements, there are 20 normalization constants for the 16 experiments, as described in Sect. III.1. The fit parameters are allowed to vary, in order to minimize the $`\chi _\sigma ^2`$, the total $`\chi ^2`$ for the fit to the cross section data:

$$\chi _\sigma ^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_\sigma }{}}\frac{(\sigma _i\sigma _{\mathrm{fit}})^2}{(d\sigma _i)^2}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{exp}}}{}}\frac{(\eta _j1)^2}{(d\eta _j)^2},$$
(7)
where $`\sigma _i`$ and $`d\sigma _i`$ are the cross section and error for each of the $`N_\sigma `$ data points, $`\eta _j`$ is the fitted normalization factor for the $`j`$th data set, and $`d\eta _j`$ is the normalization uncertainty for that data set. From the fit, we obtain the values of the fit parameters, $`p_i`$ (Eqn. 6), for both the electric and magnetic form factors, as well as the normalization factors for each of the 20 data sets. Figure 5 shows the result of our global fit along with the fit of Bosted Bosted (1994) to the previous global analysis and the fit to the polarization transfer data. While the modifications described in Sect. III.1 do decrease the $`\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ for $`Q^2>2`$ GeV2, the new fit still gives a result that is well above the polarization transfer result at these momentum transfers. The $`\chi ^2`$ value for this fit , obtained from Eqn. 7, is 162.0 for 198 d.o.f. (i.e., $`\chi _\nu ^2=0.818`$).

In order to estimate the uncertainty of the fit as a function of $`Q^2`$, we perform direct L-T separations wherever there are enough data points in a small range of $`Q^2`$. The normalization factors from the global fit are used to scale each data set, and the $`Q^2`$-dependence of the fit is used to scale each point to the central $`Q^2`$ value. Figure 6 shows the extracted ratios and uncertainties from these direct L-T separations at 26 $`Q^2`$ points up to 6 GeV2 (15 above $`Q^2`$=0.6 GeV2). These $`Q^2`$ values are selected by requiring that five or more $`ϵ`$ values are in each $`Q^2`$ bin, that the $`ϵ`$-range of the data is at least 0.6, and that the correction required to scale the data points to the central $`Q^2`$ value never exceeds 2%. Due to this constraint on the correction, the resulting form factor ratio is independent of the model used to scale the cross sections for any reasonable model of the form factors.

To bring the data into agreement with the polarization transfer measurements, there would have to be a significant $`ϵ`$-dependent error in the cross sections. Assuming that all of the data sets have such an error, and that it is linear in $`ϵ`$, it would have to introduce an $`ϵ`$-dependence of 5–6%, nearly independent of $`Q^2`$, for $`Q^2>1.0`$ GeV2. This error would have to be even larger if it affected only some of the data sets, or if all of the uncertainty came at very large or very small values of $`ϵ`$, e.g., if the error only occurred at very small angles or very low energies. In addition, a repeat of the above fit, excluding data at high ($`ϵ>0.8`$) or low ($`ϵ<0.3`$) values of $`ϵ`$ did not have significant impact on the overall fit, changing the extracted values of $`G_{E_p}`$ by $`<`$5% for $`Q^2`$ values below 4 GeV2. At higher $`Q^2`$ values, the cuts on $`ϵ`$ led to larger changes in $`G_{E_p}`$, but the reduction in the $`ϵ`$ range did not allow for a precise extraction of $`G_{E_p}`$, and the changes were small compared to the final uncertainty.

### III.4 Consistency Checks

As a first check of the consistency of the data sets, we examine the contribution to the total $`\chi ^2`$ coming from each data set. No data set had an excessively large $`\chi ^2`$ value, only five of the data sets have $`\chi _\nu ^2>1`$ and all five of these have reasonable confidence levels (none below 10%). In addition, no individual cross section value had excessively large ($`>3\sigma `$) deviations from the fit. However, the fact that the fit gives such a low $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ value, combined with the fact that most of the individual data sets have $`\chi _\nu ^2<1`$, indicates that several data sets may have overly conservative estimates for the uncertainties. Therefore, the total $`\chi ^2`$ value of the global fits cannot be viewed as an absolute measure of goodness of fit, and we will focus on the change in $`\chi ^2`$ between different fits when using the same data sets as a measure of the $`\mathrm{𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒}`$ goodness of fit.

While these statistical measures help us locate individual data sets that are inconsistent with the bulk of the data, they are not always enough to detect systematic errors in the data, especially when the error estimates are somewhat conservative. It is quite possible that these statistical measures will overlook systematic errors which are small compared to the individual uncertainties, but still large enough to modify the small $`ϵ`$-dependence extracted. Thus, we would also like to look for any systematic trends in the data sets which might modify the result.

For each data set we compare the measured cross sections to the fit and look for systematic deviations from the global fit as a function of $`Q^2`$, $`\theta `$, $`E_e^{}`$ or $`ϵ`$. A systematic $`ϵ`$-dependence of just 1–2% may not show up in the total $`\chi ^2`$ of the data set (especially if the errors are overly conservative or are noticeably larger than 1–2%), but could lead to a noticeable change in the electric form factor at high $`Q^2`$ values. In the preliminary version of the global fit, it was observed that the Walker data Walker et al. (1994) showed a clear deviation from the global fit at small angles (Fig. 7), even though the $`\chi ^2`$ value for this data set was quite reasonable. The data below 20 was then removed from later fits.

Similarly, the Goitein data Goitein et al. (1970) showed a systematic deviation from the initial global fit. The ratio of cross section from this data set to that obtained from the global fit was systematically higher by $`>5`$% for the higher $`Q^2`$ values. The original publication listed several differences in the larger $`Q^2`$ data: different collimation, additional cuts, and several corrections which were negligible for the low $`Q^2`$ data were quite large for these points. Because of the difference in running conditions between low and high $`Q^2`$, it was decided to break up this data set into two subsets, each with its own normalization factor, and to increase the normalization uncertainty from 2.8% to 3.8% for the large $`Q^2`$ data due to the larger and less well understood corrections for this data set. The high $`Q^2`$ data could also have been excluded altogether, but while the conditions for this subset of the data were different, there was no clear evidence of any specific problem.

As another check for systematic trends in the data, we examine the direct L-T separations performed at several values of $`Q^2`$. For the separations shown in Fig. 6, we plot the cross sections versus $`ϵ`$ to look for systematic deviations from the expected linearity and to look for data sets which have systematic differences in their $`ϵ`$-dependence. After separating the Goitein data into a two subsets the only data set which stands out is the data from Janssens Janssens et al. (1966), which has some deviations from a linear $`ϵ`$-dependence. Sometimes the higher $`ϵ`$ points are above the extracted (linear) $`ϵ`$-dependence, sometimes they are below, and sometimes they just show non-statistical scatter. Because there are no systematic trends to these deviations, and because there was no indication of problems in the original publication, we do not exclude this data set from the analysis. The effects of excluding specific data sets was tested separately, and the results are presented in the following section.

### III.5 Bad Data Sets?

Because most of the high $`Q^2`$ Rosenbluth data comes from a limited set of experiments, it is possible that a single data set may have an error that strongly biases the global analysis. The global fit described in Sect. III.3 was repeated 20 times, with a different data set excluded each time. The exclusion of a single data set generally had little effect on the global fit, although there were a few data sets whose exclusion lead to a noticeable increase (up to $`10`$% for $`Q^2>2`$ GeV2) or a noticeable decrease in $`\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ (from 5% to 15% for $`3<Q^2<5`$ GeV2). Even excluding two or three data sets together generally had little effect on the result. The three data sets whose exclusion lead to the greatest decrease in the ratio were identified, and the fit was repeated with all three excluded. Figure 8 shows the result of the full global fit, and the global fit with all three of these data sets removed. There is little change for $`Q^2<3`$ GeV2, where both techniques have high precision, while there is a significant decrease for $`Q^2>3`$ GeV2, where the ratio is constrained by a very limited set of experiments and is very poorly constrained when the three data sets are removed. Also, while the ratio at large $`Q^2`$ is significantly decreased, it is still well above the polarization transfer result.

### III.6 Consistency of Global Fit and Polarization Transfer Results

The new global fit is clearly in disagreement with the polarization transfer results, and shows no indications of inconsistency between the data sets or bias due to inclusion of erroneous results. One remaining possibility is that it is the fitting procedure itself, rather than the data, that leads to this discrepancy. While we include the relative normalization factors for the experiments in the analysis and obtain best-fit values for the normalizations, it is possible that a small change in the normalization factors for some or all of the experiments would significantly improve the agreement with the polarization transfer data without dramatically increasing the overall $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit.

To test this possibility, we performed a constrained fit, using the same data as in the previous fit, but fitting only $`G_{M_p}`$ and the normalization factors, while fixing the ratio $`\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ to the fit of the polarization transfer data (Eqn. 4). The extracted magnetic form factor is roughly 2% higher over the entire $`Q^2`$ range ($`Q^2>1`$ GeV2), due to the reduction in strength from the electric contribution. The constrained fit has 5 more degrees of freedom (the parameters that were used to fit $`G_{E_p}`$) while the total $`\chi ^2`$ for the fit increases by 40.2 (from $`\chi ^2`$=162.0 for 198 d.o.f. to $`\chi ^2`$=202.2 for 203 d.o.f.).

Even though the normalization factors are adjusted in order to best reproduce the polarization transfer results, the direct L-T separation using these normalization factors is systematically high for all $`Q^2`$ values, as seen in figure 9. So not only is this fit significantly worse, the normalization factors derived from constraining the $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ ratio to match polarization transfer data still do not fully explain the magnitude of the falloff of $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$. The effect is only slightly less using the combined fit to all four recoil polarization data sets. With the ratio forced to $`\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}=10.135(Q^20.24)`$ (Eqn. 5), the total $`\chi ^2`$ is 197.3, an increase of 35.3 in the total $`\chi ^2`$, with 5 extra degrees of freedom.

Because of the conservative error estimates on some of the data sets, the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ is still less than one, even after this noticeable increase. Therefore, the absolute value of $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ cannot be directly used to measure goodness of fit. To get an idea of the relative goodness of fit, one can scale the overall uncertainties on the cross sections such that $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ for the unconstrained fit is approximately one. This means reducing the cross section uncertainties by a factor of 0.905, leading to $`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1 for the unconstrained fit to the cross section data, $`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.22 (1.9% CL) for the fit constrained to Eqn. 4, and $`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.19 (3.5% CL) for the fit constrained to Eqn. 5. Assuming that the unconstrained fit should yield $`\chi _\nu ^2=1`$ is arbitrary, but it is a reasonable staring point since we expect $`\chi _\nu ^21`$ if the estimated uncertainties are correct and if our fitting function can accurately reproduce the data. One would expect $`\chi ^2`$ to be even higher, and the confidence levels for the constrained fits to be even lower, if the fitting function does not adequately reproduce the data or if there are any inconsistencies in the cross sections. So it is likely that these confidence levels are upper limits of the consistency between the cross section data and the parameterizations of the polarization transfer data.

Forcing the fit to match the parameterization of the polarization transfer data gives too much weight to polarization data, as it neglects the uncertainties in the polarization measurements. To avoid this, we also performed a combined fit, treating the cross section and polarization transfer measurements on an equal footing. We repeated the procedure described in Section III.3, but with the inclusion of the polarization transfer ratios as additional data points, and with a systematic offset included for each data set Jones et al. (2000); Gayou et al. (2001, 2002), as in the fit from section II.2 (Eqn. 5). The $`\chi ^2`$ for this combined fit is the contribution from the cross section measurements (Eqn. 7) plus the additional contribution from the polarization transfer ratio measurements:

$$\chi ^2=\chi _\sigma ^2+\underset{k=1}{\overset{N_R}{}}\frac{(R_kR_{\mathrm{fit}})^2}{(dR_{\mathrm{stat}})^2}+\underset{l=1}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{exp}}}{}}\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }_l)^2}{(dR_{\mathrm{sys}})^2}$$
(8)
where $`R=\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$, $`dR_{\mathrm{stat}}`$ and $`dR_{\mathrm{sys}}`$ are the statistical and systematic uncertainties in $`R`$, $`N_R`$ is the total number of polarization transfer measurements of $`R`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$ is the offset for each data set, and $`N_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ is the number of polarization transfer data sets. Because the polarization transfer data are included in the fit, the normalization factors for the cross section measurements are adjusted to give consistency between different cross section data sets, as well as consistency with the polarization measurements of $`\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$, much as they are in the constrained fit.

The ratio of $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ for this combined fit is systematically higher then the polarization transfer results (Fig. 10). As with the constrained fit, the direct L-T separations using the normalization factors from this global fit are systematically higher than the actual ratio obtained in the fit, and the quality of fit is significantly reduced when the polarization transfer data is included: $`\chi ^2=215.8`$ for 218 d.o.f., an increase in $`\chi ^2`$ of 53.8 for the additional 20 data points.

While the combined fit to cross section and polarization transfer data yields a ratio that is close to the polarization measurements, this does not imply that the data sets are yielding consistent results, just that the polarization transfer results dominate the fit. The goodness of fit is significantly worse when the polarization transfer data is added to the cross section measurements. Because of the conservative errors, it is difficult to estimate the relative goodness-of-fit for the combined fit. We can scale the uncertainties by a factor of 0.905 to force $`\chi _\nu ^2=1`$ for the fit to cross sections, yielding $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.21`$ (1.9% CL) for the combined fit to the cross sections and polarization transfer. However, as discussed for the constrained fit, this is likely to be an upper limit on the consistency of the two fits. The comparison of single experiments L-T separations to the polarization transfer fit, $`\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}=10.13(Q^20.04)`$, yields a confidence level of 0.006% (Table 3). To take into account the uncertainties of the polarization transfer measurements, we compare the single experiment L-T separations to the fit with the slope parameter decreased by one sigma, i.e., $`\mu _pG_{E_p}/G_{M_p}=10.125(Q^20.04)`$ Brash et al. (2002). This gives $`\chi ^2=57.8`$ for 25 degrees of freedom, or a 0.02% confidence level.

We can also use a recently-proposed test to determine the consistency of the data from the two techniques, following the prescription of Refs. Maltoni and Schwetz (2003); Maltoni et al. (2002). They define a test called the “parameter goodness-of-fit” (PG) measure, which is designed test the consistency of independent data sets sharing a common set of parameters. This approach is significantly less sensitive to over- or underestimates of the uncertainties of the individual data sets. The corresponding $`\chi ^2`$ for this test, $`\overline{\chi ^2}_{\mathrm{min}}`$, is the increase in $`\chi ^2`$ for a combined fit, relative to fits of the individual data sets. The effective number of degrees of freedom is the number of parameters in common between the two data sets, which in this case are the parameters that go into the ratio. So, for comparison of the cross section and polarization transfer results, $`\overline{\chi ^2}_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the difference between $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ for the combined fit and the values of $`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ for the independent fits of the cross section data and of the polarization transfer data, i.e., $`\overline{\chi ^2}_{\mathrm{min}}=215.8162.026.5=27.3`$. Note that the $`\chi ^2`$ for the fit to polarization transfer data alone is not the result presented in section II.2, because the combined fit includes only the polarization transfer data from JLab Jones et al. (2000); Gayou et al. (2001, 2002). The two types of data both constrain the ratio, effectively 5 parameters, and so the PG goodness-of-fit measure corresponds to $`\overline{\chi ^2}_{\mathrm{min}}=27.3`$ for 5 degrees of freedom, or a 0.005% CL. This measure has two advantages over the confidence levels calculated based on the direct comparison of the single experiment extractions to the polarization transfer fits. It includes the entire cross section data set, rather than just the five single experiments extractions in Table 3, and it accounts for the uncertainties of the both the cross section and polarization transfer measurements.

In the end, both approaches yield a confidence level of $`1\%`$, showing that the data sets are clearly inconsistent. If it is an error in the cross section data, it would take an $`ϵ`$-dependent correction of at least 5–6% to make the results from the two techniques consistent. Until the source of the inconsistency between the two data sets is determined, we do not know how to combine the measurements in order to obtain a reliable extraction of the form factors.

## IV Discussion

We have presented a new extraction of the proton electromagnetic form factors based on a global analysis of elastic cross section data at moderate to high $`Q^2`$. The extracted value for $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ is slightly lower than in the previous global analysis Walker et al. (1994); Bosted (1994), but is still well above the values determined by polarization transfer measurements. We have demonstrated that the discrepancy between the global Rosenbluth analysis and the polarization transfer results is not merely the result of the inclusion of one or two bad data sets. While modifying the normalization factors of the different experiments can lead to a significant reduction in the extracted $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$, they yield significantly lower quality fits, and still do not fully resolve the discrepancy between the two techniques. Finally, we have demonstrated that the apparent inconsistency between single experiment extractions is not due to any inconsistency in the data themselves, but due to improper treatment of normalization uncertainties when combining data from multiple measurements. The values of $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ from single experiment extractions, which avoid the normalization uncertainties involved in a combined analysis, are self-consistent and in good agreement with the result of the global analysis.

This indicates that there is a more fundamental reason for the discrepancy, such as an intrinsic problem with either the Rosenbluth or polarization transfer techniques, or an error in the cross section or polarization transfer measurements. If the error is in the cross section measurements, it must be a systematic problem that yields a similar $`ϵ`$-dependence in a large set of these measurements: a 5–6% linear $`ϵ`$-dependence in all cross section measurements above $`Q^21`$ GeV2, larger if only some of the data are affected, or if the error has significant deviations from a linear $`ϵ`$-dependence. Since the the cross sections are necessary to extract the absolute value of $`G_{E_p}`$ and $`G_{M_p}`$ even with very precise measurements of $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$, an unknown systematic error in the cross section measurements implies unknown systematic errors in the values of the form factors.

Until this discrepancy is understood, it is premature to dismiss the Rosenbluth extractions of the form factors. There is a significant difference in the values of $`G_{E_p}`$ extracted by these two techniques, and smaller ($``$3%) differences in the extracted values of $`G_{M_p}`$. In addition to the impact this uncertainty has on the state of our knowledge of the proton structure, it also affects other measurements which rely on the proton electromagnetic form factors as input, or measurements where there are significant corrections due to the radiative tail of the elastic peak.

While the cross sections extracted using the new polarization transfer ratio measurements are typically within a few percent of previous parameterizations, the large change in the ratio of the form factors means that the changes in extracted cross sections are strongly $`ϵ`$-dependent. Thus, it will have a significant impact on experiments that try to examine a small $`ϵ`$-dependence. For example, there will be a large effect on Rosenbluth separation measurements for $`A(e,e^{})`$ (e.g., Coulomb sum rule measurements at large $`q`$) or $`A(e,e^{}p)`$ (e.g., $`>50`$% difference for recent results for separated structure functions in nuclei Dutta et al. (2000, )).

Experiments which need only the unseparated elastic cross sections are less sensitive to these uncertainties. Two such examples are the extraction of the axial form factors from neutrino scattering measurements, and extractions of nucleon spectral functions in nuclei, which use the proton electromagnetic form factors (or elastic cross sections) as input. An analysis of the neutrino measurements Budd and Bodek  shows that the extracted axial form factor is essentially identical using the Rosenbluth or polarization transfer parameterizations of the form factors. The difference also has relatively little effect on the extraction of the spectral function in unseparated $`A(e,e^{}p)`$ measurements. This is not surprising, as the polarization measurements only determine the relative contributions from $`G_{E_p}`$ and $`G_{M_p}`$, and the overall size of the form factors is still determined by fitting the cross section measurements. With the constraint from the polarization measurements included, the combined fit can reproduce the measured cross sections at the few percent level. However, while fits with and without polarization transfer data can reproduce the measured cross sections at the few percent level, the discrepancy in the ratio of form factors implies that some large set of these cross sections may be wrong by 5% or more. Until the source of the discrepancy is identified, there is no way to be sure which of these cross sections are incorrect, or how well these cross sections are measured.

Finally, it is important to note that the while a consistent extraction of $`G_{E_p}`$ and $`G_{M_p}`$ yields only small differences in the elastic cross sections, this is not always the case when combining extractions of $`G_{E_p}`$ and $`G_{M_p}`$ from different analyses. Using the polarization transfer data to constrain $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ and cross section measurements to determine the size of $`G_{E_p}`$ and $`G_{M_p}`$, as presented here or in another recent analysis Brash et al. (2002), yields cross sections that are nearly identical to those from the cross section analysis only, except for a change of approximately 5% in their $`ϵ`$-dependence. However, using $`G_{M_p}`$ as extracted from Rosenbluth extractions, combined with $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ from polarization transfer measurements can yield cross sections which are significantly lower than the measured cross sections. For example, if one takes the magnetic form factor parameterization from Bosted Bosted (1994), but calculates the electric form factor using the polarization transfer ratios, the resulting cross sections are lower by 4–10% over a very large $`Q^2`$ range (0.1–15 GeV2), compared to using both form factors from the Bosted parameterization. Thus, it is extremely important to use a consistently determined set of form factors when examining the difference between the Rosenbluth and polarization transfer data, or when parameterizing the elastic cross section for comparison to other data or calculations.

There have been two more recent L-T separations from Hall C at JLab, which were not included in this analysis. One took points at $`Q^2`$=0.64 and 1.81 GeV2 Dutta et al. , both of which were in agreement with the new global Rosenbluth analysis presented here (Fig. 5). A more extensive set of Rosenbluth measurements was taken as part of JLab experiment E94-110 Keppel et al. (1994). The experiment measured $`R=\sigma _L/\sigma _T`$ in the resonance region, but also took elastic data. This allowed them to perform several Rosenbluth separations for $`0.5<Q^2<5.5`$ GeV2 Christy et al. . These results are also in excellent agreement with the new global fit presented here. While these newer JLab measurements have not been included in the new fit, the fact the single experiment extractions from these measurements are in good agreement with the global fit indicates that they would not significantly change the final fit, although their inclusion would decrease the uncertainties in the global analysis, and thus increase the significance of the discrepancy with the polarization transfer results.

## V Summary and Future Outlook

A careful analysis of Rosenbluth extractions has been performed to test the consistency of the worlds body of elastic cross section measurements, and to test explanations for the discrepancy between polarization transfer and Rosenbluth extractions of the proton form factors. We find no inconsistency in the cross section data sets, and cannot remove the discrepancy via modifications of the relative normalization of different data sets or the exclusion of individual measurements.

This discrepancy indicates a fundamental problem in one of the two techniques, or a significant error in either the polarization transfer or cross section measurements. An error in the polarization data would imply a large error in the electric form factor extracted from a combined analysis, and may have consequences for other recoil polarization measurements. An error in the cross section data would have to introduce an $`ϵ`$-dependence of $`>5`$% for $`Q^2>1`$ GeV2, implying an error in both the electric and magnetic form factors However, while the uncertainty in the form factors is smaller in this case, the error in the cross section measurements will also lead to uncertainties in other measurements which require the elastic cross section as input. Thus, even if it is demonstrated that the polarization transfer measurements are correct, it is necessary to determine the source of the discrepancy in order to have confidence in our knowledge of the elastic cross sections, and any other measurement which relies on this knowledge.

Future results from JLab should significantly improve the situation. JLab experiment E01-001 ran in 2002, and performed a high precision Rosenbluth separation using a modified experimental technique Arrington et al. (2001); Arrington (2002). This experiment should be able to clearly differentiate between the ratio of $`G_{E_p}/G_{M_p}`$ as seen in previous Rosenbluth measurements and in the polarization transfer results, while being significantly less sensitive to the types of systematics that are the dominant sources of uncertainties in previous results. In addition, there is an approved experiment to extend the polarization transfer measurements to higher $`Q^2`$ Perdrisat et al. (2001) using a different spectrometer from the previous measurements ($`Q^2>1`$ GeV2), which all used the High Resolution Spectrometer in Hall A at JLab. This will provide the first independent check of the Hall A large $`Q^2`$ polarization transfer experiments, whose systematics are dominated by the spin-precession in the spectrometer. These tests will provide crucial information to help explain the discrepancy in the measurements of the proton form factors. The resolution of the discrepancy will significantly improve the state of knowledge of the proton form factors, as well as determining if other other measurements utilizing the Rosenbluth or polarization transfer techniques are affected.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported by the U. S. Department of Energy, Nuclear Physics Division, under contract W-31-109-ENG-38.


format: text

text:
# Probing dark energy with gamma-ray bursts

\[

## Abstract

We propose a new method to use gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) as an alternative probe of the dark energy. By calibrating luminosity-variability and luminosity-lag time relations at low redshift where distance-redshift relations have been already determined from type Ia supernova (SNIa), GRBs at high redshift can be used as a distance indicator. We investigate the potential impact of future GRB data on determining the current matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and the dark energy equation of state $`w`$ which is assumed to be constant. We show that a combined analysis of a data set expected from the Swift and the current SNIa data results in excellent determination of both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`w`$.

\]

Accelerating universe, which is strongly suggested by the distance measurements of type Ia supernova (SNIa) , is one of the most interesting and challenging problems in modern cosmology. Recent observation of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy  revealed that the universe is almost flat and confirmed the need for the energy component which accelerates our universe.

The cosmological constant, or “dark energy” in general, is often introduced to account for this cosmic acceleration. Dark energy is the unknown energy component which has effective negative pressure $`p=w\rho `$ ($`w<0`$). The case with $`w=1`$ corresponds to the cosmological constant. Since the value of $`w`$, which is a function of redshift $`z`$ in general, is closely related to the nature of dark energy, it is of great importance to determine the value of $`w`$ observationally. Until now, a number of methods are proposed to probe the dark energy equation of state . However, currently $`w`$ has not been determined quite well even if one assumes that $`w`$ is constant . In particular, the current distance measurements of SNIa poorly determines the value of $`w`$ because of the degeneracy between $`w`$ and the dark-energy density . Moreover, the use of CMB anisotropy, which is known to be one of the most powerful and clean probe of cosmological parameters, introduces an additional degeneracy between the Hubble constant and dark-energy parameters . That is one of the reason why future SNIa search, such as the proposed SNAP satellite , has been vigorously studied as a probe of the dark energy . In this Letter, we propose another method using gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) as a distance indicator.

Recent studies have suggested the possibilities that GRBs can be standard candles through the relations between absolute “isotropic-equivalent” luminosity ($`L`$) and other observed quantities. Two of them, which we use in this Letter, are variability ($`V`$)  and spectral lag ($`\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}`$) . The variability is a specific measure of the “spikiness” of the light curve. The spectral lag is the time between peaks as recorded at high and low photon energies. These two quantities are related to the luminosity as $`LV^{\alpha _V}`$ and $`L\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}^{\alpha _{\mathrm{lag}}}`$, respectively. Furthermore, a $`V/\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}`$ relation, which must exist if the $`L/V`$ and $`L/\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}`$ relations are true, has been confirmed with an independent sample of 112 BATSE bursts . There are also some theoretical explanations for these relations . Once these relations are established by observations, then one can use these relations to derive the absolute luminosity of GRBs and to estimate the luminosity distance to the GRBs .

Up to now, only $`10`$ GRBs have the enough information ($`z,V,\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}`$) to establish the above two relations. However the Swift satellite , planned for launch in 2003, is expected to detect $`1000`$ GRBs, about half of which will be observed with known redshifts, during 3 years of observations. This huge number of GRBs allows us to probe the expansion history of the universe more deeply than SNIa . In this Letter, we simulate the data which is expected to be obtained by the Swift and investigate the ability to probe the dark energy independently with other methods such as CMB anisotropy. Throughout the Letter, we assume a flat universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_X=1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is the present matter density and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ is the present dark-energy density.

Here we must be careful to avoid circular logic. The original studies of the $`L/V`$ and $`L/\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}`$ relations assumed a particular set of cosmological parameters (the Hubble constant $`H_0`$, $`w`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and the flatness of the universe) to derive the relations. Without any assumptions about the cosmological parameters, we cannot determine $`L/V`$ and $`L/\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}`$ relations which are used to obtain the absolute luminosity of GRBs. Thus we assume that a form of the luminosity distance as a function of the redshift at $`z<1`$ has already been well determined by the current SNIa observations. This is approximately that of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated universe ($`w=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_X=0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$). The errors associated with the form of the luminosity distance at $`z<1`$ is reflected in the systematic errors in the derived absolute luminosities of the low-$`z`$ ($`z<1`$) GRBs. We calibrate these two relations by using only low-$`z`$ GRBs, and obtain the absolute luminosities of high-$`z`$ ($`z>1`$) GRBs using these relations. After that, the procedure is the same as that using SNIa: fitting parameters such as $`w`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ so as to reproduce the magnitude as a function of the redshift. The apparent magnitude $`m`$ and redshift $`z`$ are related by the luminosity distance as:

$$m=M+25+5\mathrm{log}d_L(z),$$
(1)
where $`M`$ is an absolute magnitude and

$`d_L(z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+z)c}{H_0}}{\displaystyle _0^z}𝑑z^{}`$ (3)
$`\times \left[\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z^{})^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)(1+z^{})^{3+3w}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
is the luminosity distance in units of Mpc.

For concreteness, we simulate a future data set similar to one expected from the Swift. The sample comprises 500 GRBs, which is consistent with the expected number of GRBs with measured redshifts. Their redshifts and luminosities are distributed according to the GRB rate history and the luminosity function based on the model of the star formation rate 2 (SF2) in , which is roughly constant at $`z2`$. This model is consistent with the current observations of UV luminosity density of the galaxy population. The energy spectrum of the GRB is assumed to be a single power-law with index $`2.25`$. The observed luminosities are calculated assuming a background cosmology with $`H_0=65\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1,\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_X=0.7`$ and $`w=1`$. The flux limit of the Swift, $`f>0.04\mathrm{photons}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, is applied to check whether a produced GRB will be observed or not. The errors in redshifts are tentatively neglected because of the lack of information on the redshift measurement by Swift, while we will show later that inclusion of the errors in redshifts does not change our result so much. We assume the log-normal distribution of the luminosity errors of 0.02 in logarithmic units of base 10. Other errors below are also assumed to be the log-normal distribution. Fig. 1 shows the redshift distribution of the simulated GRBs. The average redshift of these GRBs is about 3. Although very high-$`z`$ GRBs might be subject to some possible biases, they are practically not influential on the analyses below, because the number of such high-$`z`$ GRBs is not so large.

Next the observed variability and spectral lag are given to each GRB according to the following $`L/V`$ and $`L/\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}`$ relations,

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`3\times 10^{56}\left(V(1+z)\right)^3\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s},`$ (4)
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`10^{50}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}(1+z)}{1\mathrm{s}}}\right)^1\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s},`$ (5)
with the intrinsic scatter as well as the measurement uncertainties. For both the $`L/V`$ and $`L/\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}`$ relations, we assume both the intrinsic scatter and measurement error to be 0.1 in logarithmic units. The indices and proportional constants of these relations are different among various studies. The values we use are typical of them . The measurement errors are almost the same as those of the current observations. The simulated data are plotted in Fig. 2 and 3 with the assumed relations (4) and (5), respectively. Although the $`L/\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}`$ relation might steepen to $`L\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}^3`$ at $`\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}0.1\mathrm{s}`$ , our assumption of single power-law for the $`L/\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}`$ relation is enough because GRB events with such large $`\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}`$ will be very rare for the luminosity function adopted here. In fact the indices that we adopted need not be the true values since they are to be determined from the Swift observation. Thus what we require are that there are some one-to-one relations between the observable quantities ($`V`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}`$) and the absolute luminosity $`L`$ and that the relations are independent on z for $`0<z3`$. Although evolution of the relations is not likely as is stated in , it will be tested if the luminosity distance up to $`z1.7`$ is obtained from the SNAP observation.

Then the absolute luminosities of the low-$`z`$ GRBs are calculated by the luminosity distance-redshift relation which has been determined by the current SNIa observations. Its uncertainties lead to the uncertainties of the absolute luminosities of $`0.2`$ in logarithmic units. Then the $`L/V`$ and $`L/\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}`$ relations are derived by the low-$`z`$ GRBs. As a result, we recover the the $`L/V`$ and $`L/\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}`$ relations of the form $`LV^{2.13}`$ and $`L\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}^{0.99}`$ from the simulated low-$`z`$ GRBs. Two independent absolute luminosities of high-$`z`$ GRBs are obtained by these relations, and are combined as weighted averages to produce combined absolute luminosities. Fig. 4 shows the binned magnitude difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ between several representative cosmological models and the fiducial model ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`w=1`$), along with the simulated data.

Finally we perform $`\chi ^2`$ constraints to see to what extent we can constrain dark energy properties from the observation of GRBs. Here we assume the dark energy to have a time-independent equation of state $`w=p/\rho =\mathrm{const}`$. We do not put a prior $`w1`$ both because it may bias our final result  and because several theoretical models which predict $`w<1`$ do exist . Further a flat universe with $`H_0=65\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ is assumed. We calculate $`\chi ^2`$ as

$$\chi ^2\underset{i}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{GRB}}}{}}\frac{\left[m_iM_i255\mathrm{log}d_L(z_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_m,w)\right]^2}{\delta m_i^2},$$
(6)
where $`N_{\mathrm{GRB}}`$ is the number of GRBs, $`m_i`$ is the observed apparent magnitude, $`M_i`$ is the absolute magnitude estimated from $`L/V`$ and $`L/\tau _{\mathrm{lag}}`$ relations, and $`\delta m_i`$ is the error of the magnitude. SNIa data fit and the combined fit of GRB and SNIa data are also performed. For the SNIa data, we use the data of the SCP (primary data set C) , the High-Z Search Team  and Calán-Tololo survey  for the SNIa analysis. Fig. 5 shows the best-fit $`1\sigma `$ and $`3\sigma `$ confidence regions in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mw`$ plane by the simulated GRB data, the current SNIa data and the combined analysis. Since average redshifts are significantly different between SNIa ($`0.5`$) and GRB ($`3`$), the combined fit results in the excellent determination of both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`w`$. Our simulation demonstrates that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`w`$ can be determined within $`20`$% accuracy from the combined analysis of only two types of observation;, SNIa and GRBs. Note that constraints from both SNIa and GRBs are quite insensitive to other (cosmological) parameters, such as the Hubble constant, the spectral index of primordial power spectrum, and the normalization of rms mass fluctuations, which are also very important in using other methods, e.g., CMB anisotropy or cluster abundance.

Besides the fiducial simulation, we perform two additional pessimistic simulations: one with 300 GRBs instead of fiducial 500 GRBs, and another with redshift error of 0.2 in logarithmic units which is neglected in Fig. 5. The best fit $`1\sigma `$ confidence regions for these two pessimistic simulations as well as the fiducial simulation are shown in Fig. 6. Although the two pessimistic simulations result in larger $`1\sigma `$ regions, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`w`$ are still determined well. Therefore, we conclude that search for distant GRBs can be a promising way to probe the dark energy density and dark energy equation of state separately.

In summary, we have investigated a potential impact of future GRB searches on probing the cosmological parameters such as the matter density fraction of the universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and the equation of state of dark energy $`w`$. Our result is that a combined analysis of a data set expected from the Swift and the current SNIa data results in the excellent determination of these parameters.

K.T.’s work is supported by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows. We thank B. Schaefer for fruitful discussions.


text:
# The 590 days long term periodicity of the microquasar GRS 1915+105

## 1 Introduction

The galactic X-ray binary system GRS 1915+105 is the most prominent microquasar showing dramatic variability in its light curve (Greiner et al. 1996), quasi-periodic oscillations, phase lags and coherence behavior (Morgan et al. 1997, Muno et al. 2001). Microquasars are thought to be down-scaled analogs to quasars harboring a stellar mass black hole which accretes matter from a companion star. They show superluminal ejections (Mirabel & Rodriguez 1994) making the sources potential laboratories for studying accretion and relativistic jets near black holes (Mirabel et al. 1992). GRS 1915+105 is the most energetic object known in our galaxy with a luminosity of $`510^{39}`$ erg/s in the high state and $`10^{38}`$ erg/s in the low state. The binary system, located at a distance of $``$12 kpc, contains a 1 M late type giant (Greiner et al. 2001a) in a 33.5 days orbit around a 14 M black hole (Greiner et al. 2001b), making it the most massive stellar black hole known.

Originally discovered by GRANAT (Castro-Tirado et al. 1992) GRS 1915+105 has been extensively monitored by the RXTE satellite since 1996, and a number of investigations of these data have been published (e.g. Greiner et al.1996, Morgan et al. 1997, Belloni et al. 1997 & 2000, Muno et al. 1999 & 2001, Rau & Greiner 2003; hereafter RG03).

In a recent paper (RG03) we presented a comprehensive study of the X-ray spectral behavior of GRS 1915+105 in the $`\chi `$-state (Belloni et al. 2000) for over nearly four years of observation with RXTE. Within this study, a remarkable long term periodicity was found which was mentioned briefly by Kuulkers et al. (1997). They found a 19 month long term variability comparing the X-ray outbursts observed with BASTE and RXTE data from August 1992, March 1994, October 1995 and May 1997. This is consistent with our presented result.

A number of X-ray binaries, including LMXB as well as HMXB, exhibit long term variability in their X-ray flux with periods remarkably longer then their orbital period. Tananbaum et al. (1972) found a 35 days period in Her X-1 which they explained by the precession of a warped accretion disk in the system. The same process is used to describe the long term variations in SMC X-1 (Wojdowski et al. 1998), LMC X-3 (Cowley et al. 1991) and LMC X-4 (Heemskerk & van Paradijs 1989).

In this letter we discuss the detection of a new long term periodicity in GRS 1915+105.

## 2 Data reduction and analysis

The analysis presented here is based on the data reduction described in full detail in RG03. We investigated public RXTE data from GRS 1915+105 from November 1996 to September 2000 obtained from the HEASARC. We analyzed data of the PCU0 detector of the Proportional Counter Array (PCA) from 3–25 keV and data of the High Energy X-ray Timing Experiment (HEXTE) cluster 0 from 20–190 keV for 139 $`\chi `$-state observations from 89 different days. $`\chi `$-states correspond to the low/hard state of GRS 1915+105, exhibiting relatively low flux from the accretion disk and showing a hard power law tail. These states are characterized by the lack of obvious variations in light curve and spectrum and are connected by continuous radio emission of varying strength.

For the spectral fitting in XSPEC 11.0 (Arnaud 1996) we used a model consisting of (i) photo-electric absorption (WABS), (ii) a spectrum from an accretion disk consisting of multiple blackbody components (DISKBB) and (iii) a power law spectrum reflected from an ionized relativistic accretion disk (REFSCH; Fabian et al. 1989, Magdziarz & Zdziarski 1995).

The analysis of the X-ray model parameters for all $`\chi `$-state observations of GRS 1915+105 reveals a remarkably periodic behavior of the power law slope, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which dominates the hard X-ray spectrum. It shows a nearly sinusoidal variation (Fig. 1, see also RG03) on a time scale much longer then the orbital period, $`P_{orb}`$. The recently found correlation of the power law slope and the radio flux, $`F_R`$, in the $`\chi `$-states (RG03) suggests that one should also search for a long term periodicity in the radio data of the Green Bank Interferometer (GBI; 2.25 and 8.3 GHz) and the Ryle Telescope (RT; 15 GHz).

For the determination of a cycle duration an analysis of variance for several model parameters and X-ray and radio fluxes was performed using the Fisher-Snedecor distribution function (Schwarzenberg-Czerny 1989). The results for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the 20–200 keV X-ray CGRO/BATSE flux and the 8.3 GHz RT flux are given in the periodogram in Fig. 2. It shows a maximum at a period, $`P_{long}`$, of 590$`\pm `$40(FWHM) days. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`F_R`$ show several identical local maxima around 200, 300 and 400 days which are caused by the three major radio outbursts (see right panel of Fig. 3) during a 590 days period. This local maxima result from the time separation of the outbursts at phase $``$0.6 and $``$0.85 (200 days), $``$0.2 and $``$0.6 (300 days) and $``$0.2 and $``$0.85 (400 days). These local maxima in the analysis of the variance of Gamma arise from a combination of two factors. First the chi-states are usually connected with radio emission and second the chi-states have non-stochastic distribution within the RXTE observations. The later factor results in an uneven coverage of data points within the time period.

Fig. 3 shows the power law slope and the GBI radio flux at 2.25 GHz displayed in segments of 590 days each. These light curves demonstrate, that 590 days is the preferred period rather than 200,300 or 400 days. Even though the coverage with GBI data is shorter than with RXTE observations the periodicity is clearly visible in the radio outbursts. Both the broad outburst with exponential cutoff at phase $``$0.2 and the shorter and steeper outbursts repeat periodically.

The soft X-ray component did not show any periodicity in the $`\chi `$-states. This is true for the ASM count rate and hardness ratio as well as for the fit parameters of the accretion disk, i.e. effective temperature and the inner disk radius.

The 590 days period in the hard X-rays is also seen in the 20–200 keV BATSE earth occultation fluxes (Tab.1). However, the long term periodicity seems to be variable on larger time scale. Fig. 4 shows the 20-200 keV light curve with a 52 day (orbital precession period of CGRO) binning. This binning ensures the removal of any periodicity arising from the precession of the satellite orbit. Although the 590 day period is also visible when analyzing the data from JD 2448300 to JD 2450300 (before RXTE observations where performed, Tab. 1) the structures in the light curve show remarkable differences and a somewhat shorter period of 545$`\pm `$25 days is found when analyzing all available BATSE data from JD 2448300 to JD 2451800 together. A first hint for this variation is seen when fitting the power law slope behavior with a simple sinusoidal function with a 590 days period (solid line in left panel of Fig. 3). The minimum in he power law slope of the long duration $`\chi `$-state from JD 2450400–2450600 lies outside the minimum of the sinusoidal function (Fig. 3 top). Also, an additional maximum is seen around phase=0.6, particularly in the bottom panel. The inpersistent behavior is not surprising, and probably reflects the known transient behavior of GRS 1915+105.

## 3 Interpretation

The observation of the 590 days periodicity in GRS 1915+105 suggests a precessing warped accretion disk, analogous to what is seen in other X-ray binaries. However, in all previous sources it was the soft X-ray flux which showed the long-term modulation. In contrast, in the case of GRS 1915+105, it is the spectral slope of the power law and the radio flux. The radio flux is connected with the hard X-ray component and probably originates near the inner part of the disk. It is unlikely that the periodic behavior of $`F_R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be explained by a geometric effect of obscuration of the inner disk by the outer accretion disk.

It has long been known (Katz 1973), that a precession of a warped disk can be caused by tidal forces of the donor star. Assuming the accretion disk consists of small concentric rings which are tilted away from the orbital plane. Because of their fast rotation the rings behave gyroscopically. Without interaction of the various individual ring elements a retrograde precession around an axis perpendicular to the orbital plane will be excited by the tidal torque. The precession rate depends on the radius of the ring element which will lead to a tilted disk. In a fluid disk, an internal torque between the ring elements acts against the tilting. The resulting torque can enforce a precession of the disk. But the internal torque arises only if the disk is inclined with respect to the orbital plain and is connected with a dissipation of energy and a backward aligned movement of the disk into the orbital plane.

For tidally forced precession, a correlation of $`P_{long}/P_{orb}`$ and $`q`$ is theoretically expected but not found (Wijers & Pringle 1999). Neither the existence of a long term period nor the ratio $`P_{long}/P_{orb}`$ are correlated with the mass ratios of the components of the binary systems, ruling out tidal forces as the generally dominant mechanism for the long term periodicities in these systems. Thus, another mechanism is required which provides continuous warping of the accretion disk. Radiation driven warping is one possible mechanism (Petterson 1977, Pringle 1996, Maloney et al. 1996, Ogilvie & Dubus 2001). The outer, tilted part of the accretion disk is irradiated by the central source. If the radiation is absorbed and re-emitted parallel to the local disk gradient a torque due to gas pressure affects the disk. Therefore, a small warp grows exponentially if the luminosity is sufficient to depress the dissipative processes forcing the disk back into the orbital plane (Petterson 1977).

In principle, for every system a combination of viscosity and accretion efficiency can be found which makes the system stable, unstable or highly unstable against radiation driven warping. A deeper knowledge of the internal physics of accretion disk is therefore required to determine the cause of the warping. Recently, Ogilvie & Dubus (2001) found that radiation driven warping in LMXB becomes relevant when the orbital period is above $``$1 day, which makes it possibly important for GRS 1915+105.

Whether or not a warped accretion disk is the relevant cause of the long term periodicity in GRS 1915+105 remains uncertain, because the 590 days period is visible in the non-thermal part of the X-ray spectrum and in the radio flux, but not in the disk parameters. However, it is worth mentioning two issues: (i) a possibly existing long term variability in the soft X-ray flux and the disk parameters can easily be masked by the high short term variability in timing and spectral behavior of GRS 1915+105. (ii) The observed periodicity can originate due to variability of the mass accretion rate or the viscosity of the inner part of the disk. One can assume that the Roche lobe overflow of the donor star deposits it’s mass at different disk radii, depending on the mass transfer rate, thus differing mass density. The radial flow in the inner part of the accretion disk is therefore not constant, leading to a periodic variation of the amount of soft seed photons being comptonized in the corona. Therefore, the electron temperature in the corona varies on the same time scale due to Compton cooling, as the power law slope. The amount of matter to be ejected in a jet changes with similar periodicity which explains the overall periodicity in the radio flux.

In the same way, periodic instabilities in the secondary affect the amount of accreted matter and may therefore cause or at least influence the observed periodicity. Wind-driven limit cycles (Shields et al. 1986) as discussed for LMC X-3 (Wilms et al. 2001) can also exist in GRS 1915+105. In order to drive a wind from the outer parts of the accretion disk the sound speed for the inverse Compton temperature, $`kT_{IC}`$, has to exceed the escape velocity in the outer disk. With an orbital separation of $`a7.510^{12}`$ cm the outer disk radii is likely of the order of $`510^{12}`$ cm. Thus, GRS 1915+105 fullfils the criterium given in Equ.(3) of Wilms et al. (2001) for $`kT_{IC}>1`$ keV and may therefore be driving a substantial Compton-heated wind.

A warped accretion disk would temporarily shadow the irradiated donor star. A search for the 590 days periodicity in the IR flux of the donor would also help in the understanding of the origin and mechanism of the long term behavior of GRS 1915+105.

## 4 Conclusion

We present the discovery of a 590 days long term periodicity in the power law slope of the hard X-ray spectrum, the hard X-ray flux and the radio flux (at several frequencies) of the microquasar GRS 1915+105. No such periodicity is seen in the soft X-ray component. We discussed the observed behavior in the context of a warped accretion disk and of wind-driven limit cycles. We have found, that a periodic mass density variation in the disk, produced by the warp and/or by periodic instabilities in the donor, can describe the observations, by producing a varying amount of soft seed photons for the Comptonization process and for the relativistic mass ejecta, very well. A wind-driven limit cycles is also a possible origin of the 590 days periodicity.

The authors thank E. H. Morgan (MIT) and G. G. Pooley (MRAO) for providing the ASM and RT data and W. A. Heindl (RXTE) and K. A. Arnaud (XSPEC) for their comments. We thank R. Schwarz (AIP) for the kind help with the analysis of variance. The Ryle Telescope is supported by PPARC. The Green Bank Interferometer is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated by the NRAO in support of NASA High Energy Astrophysics programs.


text:
# The Large-Scale Polarization of the Microwave Foreground

## I INTRODUCTION

CMB polarization and its decomposition into $`E`$ and $`B`$ modes is a topic of growing importance and interest in cosmology. In the era of WMAP , a key issue is to estimate the contribution of Galactic foregrounds (more specifically, polarized synchrotron emission) at the large angular scales. Unfortunately, these large scales are also the ones where polarized foreground contamination is likely to be most severe, both because of the red power spectra of diffuse Galactic synchrotron and dust emission and because they require using a large fraction of the sky, including less clean patches. The key challenge in the CMB polarization endeavor will therefore be modeling, quantifying and removing large-scale polarized Galactic foregrounds.

Unfortunately, we still know basically nothing about the polarized contribution of the Galactic synchrotron component at CMB frequencies , since it has only been measured at lower frequencies and extrapolation is complicated by Faraday Rotation. This is in stark contrast to the CMB itself, where the expected polarized power spectra and their dependence on cosmological parameters has been computed from first principles to high accuracy .

This is the topic of the present proceeding. We will employ polarization sensitive radio surveys to further quantify the polarized synchrotron radiation, which is likely to be the most challenging contaminant in the polarization maps expected from the WMAP satellite . This proceeding is organized as follows: in section Section II, we review the basics of the synchrotron emission, as well the problems involved with extrapolations from lower to higher frequencies. We present our results as well as discuss our conclusions in Section III. For more details about this analysis consulte

## II Our Knowledge of Synchrotron Emission

The Galactic InterStellar Medium (ISM) is a highly complex medium with many different constituents interacting through a multitude of physical processes. Free electrons spiraling around the Galactic magnetic field lines emit synchrotron radiation , which can be up to 70% linearly polarized (see  for a review).

The power spectrum $`C_ł`$ of synchrotron radiation is normally modeled as a power law in both multipole $`ł`$ and frequency $`\nu `$, which we will parametrize as

$$\delta T_ł^2(\nu )=A\left(\frac{ł}{50}\right)^{\beta +2}\mathrm{with}A\nu ^{2\alpha },$$
(1)
where $`\delta T_ł[ł(ł+1)C_ł/2\pi ]^{1/2}`$. This definition implies that $`C_łł^\beta `$ for $`ł1`$ and that the fluctuation amplitude $`\nu ^\alpha `$. The standard assumption is that the unpolarized intensity has $`\alpha 2.8`$ with variations of order $`0.15`$ across the sky  – see also .

As to the power spectrum slope $`\beta `$, the 408 MHz Haslam map  suggests $`\beta `$ of order -2.5 to -3.0 down to its resolution limit of $`1^{}`$ . A similar analysis done on the 2.3 GHz Rhodes map of resolution 20  gives $`\beta =2.92\pm 0.07`$  (flattening to $`\beta 2.4`$ at low Galactic latitudes ).

For the polarized synchrotron component, our observational knowledge is, unfortunately, not as complete. To date, there are measurements of the polarized synchrotron power spectrum obtained basically from three different surveys : the Leiden surveys , the Parkes 2.4 GHz Survey of the Southern Galactic Plane , and the Medium Galactic Latitude Survey . These measurements exhibit a much bluer power spectrum in polarization than in intensity, with $`\beta `$ in the range from 1.4 to 1.8 . These results are usually taken with a grain of salt when it comes to their implications for CMB foreground contamination, for three reasons:

1. Extrapolations are done from low to high latitudes;
2. Extrapolations are done from low to high frequencies;
3. Much of the available data is undersampled.

The Leiden surveys extend to high Galactic latitudes and up to 1.4 GHz but are unfortunately undersampled, while the Parkes and the Medium Galactic Latitude Surveys only probe regions around the Galactic plane – see  for more details. In the following three subsections, we will discuss these three problems in turn.

### A The Latitude Extrapolation Problem

There is a well-know empirical result that shows that whereas the unpolarized synchrotron emission (at MHz range) depends strongly on the Galactic latitude, the polarized component is approximately independent of Galactic latitude (see, e.g., ). The usual interpretation for this very weak latitude dependence of polarized synchrotron radiation is that the signal is dominated by sources that are nearby compared to the scale height of the Galactic disk, with more distant sources being washed out by Depolarization (to which we return in the next subsection). As a result, having well-sampled polarized maps off the galactic plane at the same frequencies would not be expected to affect our results much, since they would be similar to those in the plane. This issue, however, deserves more work as far as extrapolation to CMB frequencies is concerned: the latitude dependence may well return at higher frequencies as Depolarization becomes less important, thereby revealing structure from more distant parts of the Galactic plane. In this case, extrapolating from an observing region around the Galactic plane to higher latitudes may well result in less small-scale power in the angular distribution.

### B  Frequency Extrapolation Problem

It is important to point out, that Faraday Rotation (see, e.g., ) can only change the polarization angle and not the polarized intensity $`P`$ ($`P`$=$`\sqrt{Q^2+U^2}`$). The fact that we do see structure in $`P`$ that is not correlated with a counterpart in intensity $`T`$ implies that part of the radiation has been depolarized . Depending on the frequency and beamwidth used, Depolarization can play an important role in polarization studies of the Galactic radio emission  – for more details, see Cortiglioni and Spoelstra . Because of the complicated interplay of these mechanisms, we should expect both the amplitude and the shape of the polarized synchrotron power spectrum to change with frequency.

Table 1 – Normalization & Spectral Index(a)

$`\nu `$ $`A_E`$ $`\beta _E`$ $`A_B`$ $`\beta _B`$    (GHz) $`[mK^2]`$  $`[mK^2]`$   0.408 5.5 -0.5 5.7 -0.4  0.465 5.4 -1.0 5.4 -0.5  0.610 5.1 -1.0 5.1 -0.8  0.820 4.5 -1.5 4.6 -1.8  1.411 3.9 -1.9 3.6 -2.6

(a)All fits are normalized at $`\mathrm{}`$=50, i.e., $`\delta \mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{}}^2=A(\mathrm{}/50)^{\beta +2}`$.

### C Incomplete Sky Coverage and the Undersampling Problem

For the case of undersampling in the Leiden surveys, some authors have overcome this problem by doing their Fourier analysis over selected patches in the sky where they believe the average grid space in the patch is close to the map’s beam size, so that they can apply a Gaussian smoothing on it – this is well explained and illustrated in . Fortunately, we can eliminate this problem by measuring the power spectra with the matrix-based quadratic estimator technique that has recently been developed for analyzing CMB maps . Although the undersampling and partial sky coverage results in unavoidable mixing between different angular scales $`ł`$ and polarization types ($`E`$ and $`B`$), this mixing (a.k.a. leakage) is fully quantified by the window functions that our method computes  and can therefore be included in the statistical analysis without approximations. Specifically, we compute the six power spectra ($`C_ł^TT,C_ł^EE,C_ł^BB,C_ł^{TE}X,C_ł^{TB}Y,C_ł^{EB}Z`$) so that the much discussed  $`EB`$ leakage is minimal .

## III Results & Conclusions

We employed only the Leiden surveys  for our analysis. The observations done by Brouw and Spoelstra covered almost 40% of the sky extending to high Galactic latitudes. Using the same instrument, they observed the polarized Galaxy in $`Q`$ and $`U`$ in five frequencies from 408 MHz up to 1.4 GHz and with angular resolutions from 2.3 at 408 MHz up to 0.6 at 1.4GHz. Unfortunately this data was also undersampled, making it difficult to draw inferences about its polarized power spectrum.

Using matrix-based quadratic estimator methods , we measure the power spectra from the Leiden surveys, obtaining the following key results:

1. Our analysis was performed using 10 multipole bands of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }ł=10`$ for each of the six polarization types $`(T,E,B,X,Y,Z)`$, thereby going out to $`ł=100`$. We used the Haslam map for the unpolarized component $`T`$, scaled and smoothed to match Leiden’s five different frequencies, and assuming a $`|b|=25^{}`$ Galactic cut. The best fit normalizations $`A`$ and slopes $`\beta `$ for $`E`$ and $`B`$ are shown in Table 1. The values of $`\beta `$ are consistent with previous analyses , showing that the slopes get redder as frequency increases. For all Leiden surveys, the $`X`$ and $`Y`$ power spectra are found to be consistent with zero – the 2.4 GHz Parkes survey had a similar finding for $`X`$ . These are not surprising results: if Faraday Rotation makes the polarized and unpolarized components to be uncorrelated, it is natural to expect that $`X,Y`$=0. However, at the CMB frequencies (where the effects of Faraday Rotation & Depolarization are unimportant) this should not be the case.
2. To study the frequency dependence, we average the 10 multipole bands of the Leiden power spectrum measurements together into a single band for each polarization type to reduce noise. From these results, we fit the average frequency dependence (for the $`25^{}`$ cut data) as a power law as in equation (1) with slope $`\alpha _E=1.3`$ and $`\alpha _B=1.5`$ for $`E`$ and $`B`$polarization, respectively.
3. An interesting question about polarized foregrounds is how their fluctuations separate into $`E`$ and $`B`$. Although many authors initially assumed that foregrounds would naturally produce equal amounts of $`E`$ and $`B`$, Zaldarriaga  showed that this need not be the case. Early studies  have indicated that $`EB`$ at 2.4 GHz in the Galactic plane. However, these analyses used Fourier transforms and spin-2 angular harmonic expansions, respectively, without explicitly computing the window functions quantifying the leakage between $`E`$ and $`B`$. We therefore perform a likelihood analysis of the Leiden surveys specifically focusing on this question, and including an exact treatment of the leakage. The likelihood analysis of the data is done with two free parameters corresponding to the overall normalization of the $`E`$ and $`B`$ power spectra, and assuming that they both have the same power law shape given by the slopes $`\beta _E`$ from Table 1. We obtain that the synchrotron $`E`$\- and $`B`$-contributions are equal to within 10% from 408 to 820 MHz, with a hint of $`E`$-domination at higher frequencies. One interpretation is that $`E>B`$ at CMB frequencies but that Faraday Rotation mixes the two at low frequencies.
4. Faraday Rotation & Depolarization effects depend not only on frequency but also on angular scale – they are important at low frequencies ($`\nu \mathrm{}<10`$ GHz) and on large angular scales. Therefore, we must take into account Faraday Rotation & Depolarization effects when extrapolating radio survey results from low to high galactic latitudes and from low to high frequencies.
5. We detect no significant synchrotron $`X`$ cross correlation, but Faraday Rotation could have hidden a substantial correlation detectable at CMB frequencies.
6. Combining the POLAR  and radio frequency results, and the fact that the $`E`$-polarization of the abundant Haslam signal in the POLAR region is not detected at 30 GHz, suggests that the synchrotron polarization percentage $`p`$ at CMB frequencies is rather low ($`p<`$20%).

Experiments such as polarized WMAP and Planck will shed significant new light on synchrotron polarization and allow better quantification of its impact both on these experiments and on ground-based CMB observations.

This work was supported by NSF grants AST-0071213 & AST-0134999 and NASA grants NAG5-9194 & NAG5-11099. MT acknowledges a David and Lucile Packard Foundation fellowship and a Cottrell Scholarship from Research Corporation.