What We Know and What We Don't Know About the Proton Spin After 30 Years
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REVIEWS What we know and what we don’t know about the proton spin after 30 years Xiangdong Ji 1,2 ✉ , Feng Yuan 3 ✉ and Yong Zhao4 ✉ Abstract | More than three decades ago, the European Muon Collaboration published a surprising result on the spin structure of the proton: the spins of its three quark components account for only a small part of the spin of the proton. Ever since, theoretical and experimental progress has been made in understanding the origins of the proton spin. In this Review, we discuss what has been learned so far, what is still missing and what could be learned from the upcoming experiments, including the Jefferson Lab 12 GeV upgrade and the proposed Electron-Ion Collider. In particular, we focus on first- principles calculations and experimental measurements of the total gluon helicity ΔG, and the quark and gluon orbital angular momenta. The proton is a spin-1/2 particle, thought to be funda- the polarized structure function based on the quark mental when discovered in 1917 by Ernest Rutherford1. picture16. The EMC result shocked the physics com- However, the subsequent measurement of its magnetic munity, and created the so- called proton spin ‘crisis’ or moment2 showed a significant deviation from the value proton spin problem. The discrepancy has since inspired expected for a point- like object3. The proton substruc- a large number of experimental and theoretical studies, ture, along with the origin of its spin and magnetic which have been reviewed in a number of papers17–22. moment, has intrigued nuclear and particle physicists The most important lesson learned so far is that the ever since. underlying theory for the proton structure, QCD, has Every model of the proton ought to give an explana- a much more sophisticated way to build up the proton tion for its spin: from the Skyrme model4, to Gell–Mann spin. and Zweig’s quark model5,6, and to many other models QCD is fundamental and beautiful on the one hand, proposed in the 1970s and 1980s (REFS7,8). The simplest and sophisticated and defying simple ways to under- and most successful one has been the quark model, which stand it on the other. For example, in a QCD frame- inspired, among other things, the discovery of quantum work, it is no longer feasible, or we have failed so far, to chromodynamics (QCD)9 — the fundamental theory of come up with an entire quark and gluon wave function strong interactions. The non- relativistic quark model for the proton and to check the content of its various has an exceedingly simple explanation for the proton/ components. Therefore, we will consider instead the 1Center for Nuclear neutron spin and the associated magnetic moments10, as so- called sum rules or decompositions of the spin into Femtography, SURA, well as their excitations11. The three constituent quarks various physical parts. This has been the main approach Washington DC, USA. are all in the s- wave orbit, and their spins couple to 1/2 to understand the origins of the proton spin so far. 2 Department of Physics, in a way that is consistent with the SU(2) × SU(3) This is not a comprehensive review of hadron University of Maryland, spin flavour 12 College Park, MD, USA. combined spin–flavour symmetry . spin physics. Nor is it meant to be an update on other 19,22 3Nuclear Science Division, The quark model picture was directly tested through reviews , which have done an excellent job. Rather, Lawrence Berkeley National measurements of the polarized deep inelastic scattering of this Review focuses on the questions related to the ori- Laboratory, Berkeley, leptons (electrons or muons) off a polarized proton tar- gins of the proton spin. We mainly discuss issues such CA, USA. get13. In 1987, the European Muon Collaboration (EMC) as: does it make sense to talk about different parts of 4Physics Department, reported that the fraction of the proton spin carried by the proton spin? What will be an interesting and phys- Brookhaven National the spins of three quarks at the measured scale Q2 is14,15 ically meaningful decomposition for the spin? To what Laboratory, Upton, NY, USA. ✉ extent do we believe that we can measure each part e- mail: [email protected]; 22 (1) [email protected]; yzhao@ ΔΣ(=Q 107G. eV )=00...60±0 047±0 069, experimentally? How can one calculate these parts in bnl.gov fundamental theory and put the results to experimental https://doi.org/10.1038/ which is practically nothing. The EMC data also showed tests? We hope that, after more than 30 years after the s42254-020-00248-4 a significant deviation from the Ellis–Jaffe sum rule for EMC result, this Review can help the broader physics NATURE REVIEWS | PHYSICS VOLUME 3 | JANUARY 2021 | 27 REVIEWS Key points A physically interesting spin sum rule should have the following properties: • There are two established approaches to look at the composition of the proton spin: • Experimental measurability. The interest in the the frame- independent spin structure (or the Ji sum rule) and the infinite-momentum- proton spin began with the EMC data. Many of frame or parton spin structure (or the Jaffe–Manohar sum rule). the follow- up experiments, including HERMES and • In the frame- independent approach, the quark orbital and gluon angular momentum COMPASS, the polarized Relativistic Heavy Ion contributions can be extracted from the moments of the generalized parton Collider (RHIC)28, the Jefferson Lab (JLab) 12 GeV distributions. Results from the Jefferson Lab 6 GeV and HERMES experiments suggest upgrade29 and the EIC23,24, have been partially moti- that there is a substantial quark orbital contribution. vated to search for a full understanding of the proton • In terms of partons, the quark and gluon helicity contributions have a simple physical spin. interpretation, and the result from Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider spin experiments • Frame independence. As spin is an intrinsic prop- has provided a first important constraint on the total gluon helicity. erty of a particle, it is natural to look for a descrip- • The development of a large- momentum effective theory along with lattice quantum tion of its structure independent of its momentum. chromodynamics simulations provide first- principles calculations of the spin structure. The results on the quark and gluon helicity contributions, and the quark To know how the individual contributions to the orbital and gluon angular momentum contributions have provided the first complete total spin depend on the reference frame requires theoretical picture. an understanding of the properties of the Lorentz • The Jefferson Lab 12 GeV programme will provide better information on the quark transformations of Jα. As the proton structure probed orbital angular momentum and gluon angular momentum. The future Electron- Ion in high- energy scattering is best described in the Collider will provide high-precision measurements on the gluon helicity and gluon infinite- momentum frame (IMF), a partonic picture angular momentum. of the spin is interesting in this special frame of reference. • According to the above remarks, two sum rules have community to understand what we know now, what we been well established in the literature (TABLE 1): the don’t and what we can expect in the future. In particular, frame- independent one30 and the IMF one31, as we how will the Electron-Ion Collider (EIC) help to answer explain below. the fundamental questions about the origins of the proton spin23,24. QCD sources of angular momentum. To obtain a spin sum rule, an expression for the QCD AM opera- Spin structure in sum rules tor is needed. This can be derived through Noether’s Without knowing the wave function of the composite theorem32 based on the space- time symmetry of the system, the angular momentum (AM), or spin structure, QCD Lagrangian density can be studied through the various contributions to the 1 total. Thus, to explore origins of the proton spin, one L μν / QCD = − FFa μνa +(f ψf iDm− f )ψf , (3) can start from the QCD AM operator JQCD in terms of 4 ∑ individual sources Jα, μν where Fa (μ and ν = 0, 1, 2, 3 are Lorentz indices) is a gluon JJ=, QCD ∑α α (2) field strength tensor or simply gluon field with colour indices a = 1, . ., 8 and ψf is a quark spinor field of flavour through which, the spin projection ħ/2 can be expressed f = u, d, s, . (up, down, strange, . .), and mf is the quark as a sum of different contributions. mass. The relation between the gauge field and gauge μ μν μν ν μ abc μ ν This approach has some limitations. Since the proton potential Aa is Fa = ∂ AA−∂ a − gfs AAb c with 25 is an eigenstate of the relativistic Pauli–Lubanski spin , gs as the strong coupling constant. The covariant deriv- μ μ μ μ μ the individual contributions can only be the quantum ative is D = ∂ + igsA and D/ = D γμ with γ as Dirac μ μ a a mechanical expectation values of the AM sources from matrices. A = Ata and t are the generators of the the entire bound- state wave function. Moreover, they SU(3) colour group and f abc is the structure constant. are ‘renormalization- scale dependent’, because indi- A straightforward calculation yields the canonical AM vidual operators are not separately conserved, and the expression31 resulting ultraviolet divergences must be renormalized meaning that the short- distance physics is included in 3 ⎡ ††Σ 26 Jx=d⎢ψψ+ ψ xE× (−i∇)+ψ × A the effective AM operators . In non- relativistic sys- QCD ∫ ⎣⎢ ff2 ffaa tems, with the exception of particles moving in a mag- (4) i i ⎤ netic field, the AM sources corresponding to different +(EAx × ∇) ⎥, a a⎥ physical degrees of freedom obey the separate AM ⎦ commutation relations.