Neutron interferometric measurement of the scattering length difference between the triplet and singlet states of nHe3

M. G. Huber, M. Arif, W. C. Chen, T. R. Gentile, D. S. Hussey, T. C. Black, D. A. Pushin, C. B. Shahi, F. E. Wietfeldt, and L. Yang
Phys. Rev. C 90, 064004 – Published 15 December 2014

Abstract

We report a determination of the nHe3 scattering length difference Δb=b1b0=[5.411±0.031(statistical)±0.039(systematic)] fm between the triplet and singlet states using a neutron interferometer. This revises our previous result Δb=[5.610±0.027(statistical)±0.032(systematic)] fm obtained using the same technique in 2008 [Huber et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 200401 (2009); Huber et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 179903(E) (2009)]. This revision is attributable to a reanalysis of the 2008 experiment that now includes a systematic correction caused by magnetic-field gradients near the He3 cell which had been previously underestimated. Furthermore, we more than doubled our original data set from 2008 by acquiring 6 months of additional data in 2013. Both the new data set and a reanalysis of the older data are in good agreement. Scattering lengths of low-Z isotopes are valued for use in few-body nuclear effective field theories, provide important tests of modern nuclear potential models, and, in the case of He3, aid in the interpretation of neutron scattering from quantum liquids. The difference Δb was determined by measuring the relative phase shift between two incident neutron polarizations caused by the spin-dependent interaction with a polarized He3 target. The target He3 gas was sealed inside a small, flat-windowed glass cell that was placed in one beam path of the interferometer. The relaxation of He3 polarization was monitored continuously with neutron transmission measurements. The neutron polarization and spin-flipper efficiency were determined separately using He3 analyzers and two different polarimetry analysis methods. A summary of the measured scattering lengths for nHe3 with a comparison to nucleon interaction models is given.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
6 More
  • Received 4 September 2014
  • Revised 12 November 2014

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.90.064004

©2014 American Physical Society

Authors & Affiliations

M. G. Huber*, M. Arif, W. C. Chen, T. R. Gentile, and D. S. Hussey

  • National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, USA

T. C. Black

  • University of North Carolina-Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403, USA

D. A. Pushin

  • University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1

C. B. Shahi and F. E. Wietfeldt

  • Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70188, USA

L. Yang

  • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA

  • *michael.huber@nist.gov
  • Also at University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.
  • Also at Institute for Quantum Computing, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1.

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 90, Iss. 6 — December 2014

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
CHORUS

Article Available via CHORUS

Download Accepted Manuscript
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×
×

Images

×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review C

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×