SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Compass”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Limits on transverse momentum dependent evolution from semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering at moderate Q
In the QCD evolution of transverse momentum dependent parton distribution and fragmentation functions, the Collins-Soper evolution kernel includes both a perturbative short-distance contribution and a large-distance nonperturbative, but strongly universal, contribution. In the past, global fits, based mainly on larger 𝑄 Drell-Yan–like processes, have found substantial contributions from nonperturbative regions in the Collins-Soper evolution kernel. In this article, we investigate semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering measurements in the region of relatively small 𝑄 , of the order of a few GeV, where sensitivity to nonperturbative transverse momentum dependence may become more important or even dominate the evolution. Using recently available deep inelastic scattering data from the COMPASS experiment, we provide estimates of the regions of coordinate space that dominate in transverse momentum dependent (TMD) processes when the hard scale is of the order of only a few GeV. We find that distance scales that are much larger than those commonly probed in large 𝑄 measurements become important, suggesting that the details of nonperturbative effects in TMD evolution are especially significant in the region of intermediate 𝑄 . We highlight the strongly universal nature of the nonperturbative component of evolution and its potential to be tightly constrained by fits from a wide variety of observables that include both large and moderate 𝑄 . On this basis, we recommend detailed treatments of the nonperturbative component of the Collins-Soper evolution kernel for future TMD studies.
Extraction of the pretzelosity distribution from experimental data
We attempt an extraction of the pretzelosity distribution ($h^{\perp}_{1T}$) from preliminary COMPASS, HERMES, and JLAB experimental data on $\sin(3\phi_h - \phi_S)$ asymmetry on proton and deuteron targets. The resulting distributions, albeit big errors, show tendency for up quark pretzelosity to be positive and down quark pretzelosity to be negative. A model relation of pretzelosity distribution and Orbital Angular Momentum of quarks is used to estimate contributions of up and down quarks.
Extraction of quark transversity distribution and Collins fragmentation functions with QCD evolution
In this paper, we study the transverse momentum dependent (TMD) evolution of the Collins azimuthal asymmetries in e + e - annihilations and semi-inclusive hadron production in deep inelastic scattering (SIDIS) processes. All the relevant coefficients are calculated up to the next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) order accuracy. By applying the TMD evolution at the approximate NLL order in the Collins- Soper-Sterman (CSS) formalism, we extract transversity distributions for u and d quarks and Collins fragmentation functions from current experimental data by a global analysis of the Collins asymmetries in back-to-back di-hadron productions in e + e - annihilations measured by BELLE and BABAR Collaborations and SIDIS data from HERMES, COMPASS, and JLab HALL A experiments. The impact of the evolution effects and the relevant theoretical uncertainties are discussed. We further discuss the TMD interpretation for our results, and illustrate the unpolarized quark distribution, transversity distribution, unpolarized quark fragmentation and Collins fragmentation functions depending on the transverse momentum and the hard momentum scale. Finally, we give predictions and discuss impact of future experiments.
Pion polarizabilities from a γ γ → π π analysis
Here, we present results for pion polarizabilities predicted using dispersion relations from our earlier Amplitude Analysis of world data on two photon production of meson pairs. The helicity-zero polarizabilities are rather stable and insensitive to uncertainties in cross-channel exchanges. The need is first to confirm the recent result on $(\alpha_1-\beta_1)$ for the charged pion by COMPASS at CERN to an accuracy of 10% by measuring the $\gamma\gamma\to\pi^+\pi^-$ cross-section to an uncertainty of ~1\%. Then the same polarizability, but for the $\pi^0$, is fixed to be $(\alpha_1-\beta_1)_{\pi^0}=(0.9\pm0.2)\times 10^{-4}$ fm$^{3}$. By analyzing the correlation between uncertainties in the meson polarizability and those in $\gamma\gamma$ cross-sections, we suggest experiments need to measure these cross-sections between $\sqrt{s}\simeq 350$ and 600~MeV. The $\pi^0\pi^0$ cross-section then makes the $(\alpha_2-\beta_2)_{\pi^0}$ the easiest helicity-two polarizability to determine.
Peak Locations and Relative Phase of Different Decay Modes of the a 1 Axial Vector Resonance in Diffractive Production
Not Available
TU-EF-BRA-00: MR Basics I
NMR, and Proton Density MRI of the 1D Patient - Anthony Wolbarst Net Voxel Magnetization, m(x,t). T1-MRI; The MRI Device - Lisa Lemen ‘Classical’ NMR; FID Imaging in 1D via k-Space - Nathan Yanasak Spin-Echo; S-E/Spin Warp in a 2D Slice - Ronald Price Magnetic resonance imaging not only reveals the structural, anatomic details of the body, as does CT, but also it can provide information on the physiological status and pathologies of its tissues, like nuclear medicine. It can display high-quality slice and 3D images of organs and vessels viewed from any perspective, with resolution better than 1 mm. MRI is perhaps most extraordinary and notable for the plethora of ways in which it can create unique forms of image contrast, reflective of fundamentally different biophysical phenomena. As with ultrasound, there is no risk from ionizing radiation to the patient or staff, since no X-rays or radioactive nuclei are involved. Instead, MRI harnesses magnetic fields and radio waves to probe the stable nuclei of the ordinary hydrogen atoms (isolated protons) occurring in water and lipid molecules within and around cells. MRI consists, in essence, of creating spatial maps of the electromagnetic environments around these hydrogen nuclei. Spatial variations in the proton milieus can be related to clinical differences in the biochemical and physiological properties and conditions of the associated tissues. Imaging of proton density (PD), and of the tissue proton spin relaxation times known as T1 and T2, all can reveal important clinical information, but they do so with approaches so dissimilar from one another that each is chosen for only certain clinical situations. T1 and T2 in a voxel are determined by different aspects of the rotations and other motions of the water and lipid molecules involved, as constrained by the local biophysical surroundings within and between its cells – and they, in turn, depend on the type of tissue and its state of health. Three other common applications of MRI exploit its capability to detect and image distinct movements of fluids: MR angiography (MRA), which rivals CT angiography but often requires no contrast medium, monitors the bulk flow of blood; functional MRI (f MRI), distinguishes the perfusion of oxygenated blood from that of de-oxygenated, and lights up parts of the brain that are activated by a stimulus, rather like PET; and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) indicates the diffusion of free water along tracts of axons, thereby bringing nerve trunks into view. There are variants on all of these themes, and on others as well. Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS), for example, can perform non-invasive ‘virtual biopsies’ that allow identification of certain cancers and other lesions. And an MRI-guided needle biopsy can sample brain tissue from a region only millimeters in dimensions. MRI, however, involves deeper and more complex aspects of physics, technology, and biology than do most other imaging modalities, and it is widely considered to be correspondingly more difficult to learn. We could probably cover all of this rather comprehensively if we had 50 hours available rather than 2 ̶ but, to paraphrase a former Secretary of Defense, you tell your story in the time you have allotted. The four presenters and another physicist, Kevin King from GE, have combined their efforts to co-author a single slide show that describes essentials of MRI as simply as possible. It is obviously far from thorough, but hopefully it will succeed in explaining some of the basics in a simplified but still valid fashion; in providing a taste of the numerous capabilities and complexities of the modality; and in whetting your appetite to learn more. Part I. NMR, and Proton Density MRI of the 1D Patient (Wolbarst), begins with an introductory case study that illustrates a half dozen ways in which MRI provides valuable clinical information. It then explores the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) phenomenon, which underlies MRI. NMR can be introduced with either of two approaches. In the first, one thinks (loosely) of the nuclei of hydrogen atoms as (rotating and charged and therefore) magnetic objects, whose spin-axes tend to align in a strong external magnetic field, much like a compass needle. As with the Bohr atom, this spin-up/spin-down picture is a highly abridged version of the full quantum mechanical treatment, but still it leads to some useful, legitimate pictures of the NMR process occurring within a voxel: When RF photons of the correct (Larmor) frequency elevate protons in a fixed magnetic field out of their lower-energy spin state into the upper, the NMR phenomenon is indicated by the detectable absorption of RF power. With the addition of a linear gradient field along a multi-voxel, one-dimensional patient/phantom, as well, we can determine the water content of each compartment – an example of a real MRI study, albeit in 1D. Part I concludes with a discussion of the net magnetization at position x, m0(x), under conditions of dynamic thermal equilibrium, which leads into: Part II. Net Voxel Magnetization, m(x,t); T1-MRI; The MRI Device (Lemen), investigates the biophysics of the form of proton spin relaxation process characterized by the time T1. It then moves on to the creation of an MR image that displays the spatial variation in the values of this clinically relevant parameter, again in 1D. Finally, the design and workings of a clinical MRI machine are sketched, in preparation for: Part III. ‘Classical’ NMR; FID Imaging in 1D via k-Space (Yanasak) presents the second standard approach to NMR and MRI, the classical model. It focuses on the time dependence of the net nuclear magnetization, m(x,t), the overall magnetic field generated by the cohort of protons in the voxel at position x. Quite remarkably, this nuclear net magnetization itself acts in a strong magnetic field like a gyroscope in a gravitational field. This tack is better for explaining Free Induction Decay (FID), which involves a brief introduction to the Fourier transform and k-space. This leads to conventional Spin-Echo (S-E) reconstruction techniques for creating clinical images from raw data, and sets the stage for: Part IV. Spin-Echo; S-E / Spin Warp in a 2D Slice (Price) discusses application of the S- E sequence of radiofrequency pulses and gradient magnetic fields to the 1D patient. T2 is introduced but not explained. This Part also considers how to manipulate the image acquisition parameters so as to generate clinical pictures with contrast dominated by spatial variations in PD, T1, or T2. We conclude by demonstrating the spin-warp approach to imaging in 2D with a simple 2×2, 4-voxel example. Much of this material is presented in more detail in the chapter “MRI of the One-dimensional Patient, Part I”, in Advances in Medical Physics, Vol 5 (2014). Copies are on display at the Medical Physics Publishing booth. Learning Objectives: The participant will learn about the processes of NMR and T1 spin relaxation in a tissue voxel in a uniform magnetic field. The participant will learn about combining spin-up/spin-down NMR and T1 processes with a linear gradient to effect frequency-encoding of voxel spatial position. This approach can be used to create proton density and T1 MRI maps, respectively, of the contents of multi-voxel 1D phantoms. The participant will learn about how the ‘classical’ model of NMR it can generate Free Induction Decay (FID) images of 1D phantoms, which involves the use of the Fourier transform in k-space. This can lead simply into standard Spin-Echo images. The participant will learn about extending Spin-Echo imaging into 2 and more dimensions.
TU-EF-BRA-01: NMR and Proton Density MRI of the 1D Patient
NMR, and Proton Density MRI of the 1D Patient - Anthony Wolbarst Net Voxel Magnetization, m(x,t). T1-MRI; The MRI Device - Lisa Lemen ‘Classical’ NMR; FID Imaging in 1D via k-Space - Nathan Yanasak Spin-Echo; S-E/Spin Warp in a 2D Slice - Ronald Price Magnetic resonance imaging not only reveals the structural, anatomic details of the body, as does CT, but also it can provide information on the physiological status and pathologies of its tissues, like nuclear medicine. It can display high-quality slice and 3D images of organs and vessels viewed from any perspective, with resolution better than 1 mm. MRI is perhaps most extraordinary and notable for the plethora of ways in which it can create unique forms of image contrast, reflective of fundamentally different biophysical phenomena. As with ultrasound, there is no risk from ionizing radiation to the patient or staff, since no X-rays or radioactive nuclei are involved. Instead, MRI harnesses magnetic fields and radio waves to probe the stable nuclei of the ordinary hydrogen atoms (isolated protons) occurring in water and lipid molecules within and around cells. MRI consists, in essence, of creating spatial maps of the electromagnetic environments around these hydrogen nuclei. Spatial variations in the proton milieus can be related to clinical differences in the biochemical and physiological properties and conditions of the associated tissues. Imaging of proton density (PD), and of the tissue proton spin relaxation times known as T1 and T2, all can reveal important clinical information, but they do so with approaches so dissimilar from one another that each is chosen for only certain clinical situations. T1 and T2 in a voxel are determined by different aspects of the rotations and other motions of the water and lipid molecules involved, as constrained by the local biophysical surroundings within and between its cells – and they, in turn, depend on the type of tissue and its state of health. Three other common applications of MRI exploit its capability to detect and image distinct movements of fluids: MR angiography (MRA), which rivals CT angiography but often requires no contrast medium, monitors the bulk flow of blood; functional MRI ( f MRI), distinguishes the perfusion of oxygenated blood from that of de-oxygenated, and lights up parts of the brain that are activated by a stimulus, rather like PET; and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) indicates the diffusion of free water along tracts of axons, thereby bringing nerve trunks into view. There are variants on all of these themes, and on others as well. Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS), for example, can perform non-invasive ‘virtual biopsies’ that allow identification of certain cancers and other lesions. And an MRI-guided needle biopsy can sample brain tissue from a region only millimeters in dimensions. MRI, however, involves deeper and more complex aspects of physics, technology, and biology than do most other imaging modalities, and it is widely considered to be correspondingly more difficult to learn. We could probably cover all of this rather comprehensively if we had 50 hours available rather than 2 ̶ but, to paraphrase a former Secretary of Defense, you tell your story in the time you have allotted. The four presenters and another physicist, Kevin King from GE, have combined their efforts to co-author a single slide show that describes essentials of MRI as simply as possible. It is obviously far from thorough, but hopefully it will succeed in explaining some of the basics in a simplified but still valid fashion; in providing a taste of the numerous capabilities and complexities of the modality; and in whetting your appetite to learn more. Part I. NMR, and Proton Density MRI of the 1D Patient (Wolbarst), begins with an introductory case study that illustrates a half dozen ways in which MRI provides valuable clinical information. It then explores the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) phenomenon, which underlies MRI. NMR can be introduced with either of two approaches. In the first, one thinks (loosely) of the nuclei of hydrogen atoms as (rotating and charged and therefore) magnetic objects, whose spin-axes tend to align in a strong external magnetic field, much like a compass needle. As with the Bohr atom, this spin-up/spin-down picture is a highly abridged version of the full quantum mechanical treatment, but still it leads to some useful, legitimate pictures of the NMR process occurring within a voxel: When RF photons of the correct (Larmor) frequency elevate protons in a fixed magnetic field out of their lower-energy spin state into the upper, the NMR phenomenon is indicated by the detectable absorption of RF power. With the addition of a linear gradient field along a multi-voxel, one-dimensional patient/phantom, as well, we can determine the water content of each compartment – an example of a real MRI study, albeit in 1D. Part I concludes with a discussion of the net magnetization at position x, m0(x), under conditions of dynamic thermal equilibrium, which leads into: Part II. Net Voxel Magnetization, m(x,t); T1-MRI; The MRI Device (Lemen), investigates the biophysics of the form of proton spin relaxation process characterized by the time T1. It then moves on to the creation of an MR image that displays the spatial variation in the values of this clinically relevant parameter, again in 1D. Finally, the design and workings of a clinical MRI machine are sketched, in preparation for: Part III. ‘Classical’ NMR; FID Imaging in 1D via k-Space (Yanasak) presents the second standard approach to NMR and MRI, the classical model. It focuses on the time dependence of the net nuclear magnetization, m(x,t), the overall magnetic field generated by the cohort of protons in the voxel at position x. Quite remarkably, this nuclear net magnetization itself acts in a strong magnetic field like a gyroscope in a gravitational field. This tack is better for explaining Free Induction Decay (FID), which involves a brief introduction to the Fourier transform and k-space. This leads to conventional Spin-Echo (S-E) reconstruction techniques for creating clinical images from raw data, and sets the stage for: Part IV. Spin-Echo; S-E / Spin Warp in a 2D Slice (Price) discusses application of the S- E sequence of radiofrequency pulses and gradient magnetic fields to the 1D patient. T2 is introduced but not explained. This Part also considers how to manipulate the image acquisition parameters so as to generate clinical pictures with contrast dominated by spatial variations in PD, T1, or T2. We conclude by demonstrating the spin-warp approach to imaging in 2D with a simple 2×2, 4-voxel example. Much of this material is presented in more detail in the chapter “MRI of the One-dimensional Patient, Part I”, in Advances in Medical Physics, Vol 5 (2014). Copies are on display at the Medical Physics Publishing booth. Learning Objectives: The participant will learn about the processes of NMR and T1 spin relaxation in a tissue voxel in a uniform magnetic field. The participant will learn about combining spin-up/spin-down NMR and T1 processes with a linear gradient to effect frequency-encoding of voxel spatial position. This approach can be used to create proton density and T1 MRI maps, respectively, of the contents of multi-voxel 1D phantoms. The participant will learn about how the ‘classical’ model of NMR it can generate Free Induction Decay (FID) images of 1D phantoms, which involves the use of the Fourier transform in k-space. This can lead simply into standard Spin-Echo images. The participant will learn about extending Spin-Echo imaging into 2 and more dimensions.
TU-EF-BRA-02: Longitudinal Proton Spin Relaxation and T1-Imaging
NMR, and Proton Density MRI of the 1D Patient - Anthony Wolbarst Net Voxel Magnetization, m(x,t). T1-MRI; The MRI Device - Lisa Lemen ‘Classical’ NMR; FID Imaging in 1D via k-Space - Nathan Yanasak Spin-Echo; S-E/Spin Warp in a 2D Slice - Ronald Price Magnetic resonance imaging not only reveals the structural, anatomic details of the body, as does CT, but also it can provide information on the physiological status and pathologies of its tissues, like nuclear medicine. It can display high-quality slice and 3D images of organs and vessels viewed from any perspective, with resolution better than 1 mm. MRI is perhaps most extraordinary and notable for the plethora of ways in which it can create unique forms of image contrast, reflective of fundamentally different biophysical phenomena. As with ultrasound, there is no risk from ionizing radiation to the patient or staff, since no X-rays or radioactive nuclei are involved. Instead, MRI harnesses magnetic fields and radio waves to probe the stable nuclei of the ordinary hydrogen atoms (isolated protons) occurring in water and lipid molecules within and around cells. MRI consists, in essence, of creating spatial maps of the electromagnetic environments around these hydrogen nuclei. Spatial variations in the proton milieus can be related to clinical differences in the biochemical and physiological properties and conditions of the associated tissues. Imaging of proton density (PD), and of the tissue proton spin relaxation times known as T1 and T2, all can reveal important clinical information, but they do so with approaches so dissimilar from one another that each is chosen for only certain clinical situations. T1 and T2 in a voxel are determined by different aspects of the rotations and other motions of the water and lipid molecules involved, as constrained by the local biophysical surroundings within and between its cells – and they, in turn, depend on the type of tissue and its state of health. Three other common applications of MRI exploit its capability to detect and image distinct movements of fluids: MR angiography (MRA), which rivals CT angiography but often requires no contrast medium, monitors the bulk flow of blood; functional MRI ( f MRI), distinguishes the perfusion of oxygenated blood from that of de-oxygenated, and lights up parts of the brain that are activated by a stimulus, rather like PET; and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) indicates the diffusion of free water along tracts of axons, thereby bringing nerve trunks into view. There are variants on all of these themes, and on others as well. Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS), for example, can perform non-invasive ‘virtual biopsies’ that allow identification of certain cancers and other lesions. And an MRI-guided needle biopsy can sample brain tissue from a region only millimeters in dimensions. MRI, however, involves deeper and more complex aspects of physics, technology, and biology than do most other imaging modalities, and it is widely considered to be correspondingly more difficult to learn. We could probably cover all of this rather comprehensively if we had 50 hours available rather than 2 ̶ but, to paraphrase a former Secretary of Defense, you tell your story in the time you have allotted. The four presenters and another physicist, Kevin King from GE, have combined their efforts to co-author a single slide show that describes essentials of MRI as simply as possible. It is obviously far from thorough, but hopefully it will succeed in explaining some of the basics in a simplified but still valid fashion; in providing a taste of the numerous capabilities and complexities of the modality; and in whetting your appetite to learn more. Part I. NMR, and Proton Density MRI of the 1D Patient (Wolbarst), begins with an introductory case study that illustrates a half dozen ways in which MRI provides valuable clinical information. It then explores the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) phenomenon, which underlies MRI. NMR can be introduced with either of two approaches. In the first, one thinks (loosely) of the nuclei of hydrogen atoms as (rotating and charged and therefore) magnetic objects, whose spin-axes tend to align in a strong external magnetic field, much like a compass needle. As with the Bohr atom, this spin-up/spin-down picture is a highly abridged version of the full quantum mechanical treatment, but still it leads to some useful, legitimate pictures of the NMR process occurring within a voxel: When RF photons of the correct (Larmor) frequency elevate protons in a fixed magnetic field out of their lower-energy spin state into the upper, the NMR phenomenon is indicated by the detectable absorption of RF power. With the addition of a linear gradient field along a multi-voxel, one-dimensional patient/phantom, as well, we can determine the water content of each compartment – an example of a real MRI study, albeit in 1D. Part I concludes with a discussion of the net magnetization at position x, m0(x), under conditions of dynamic thermal equilibrium, which leads into: Part II. Net Voxel Magnetization, m(x,t); T1-MRI; The MRI Device (Lemen), investigates the biophysics of the form of proton spin relaxation process characterized by the time T1. It then moves on to the creation of an MR image that displays the spatial variation in the values of this clinically relevant parameter, again in 1D. Finally, the design and workings of a clinical MRI machine are sketched, in preparation for: Part III. ‘Classical’ NMR; FID Imaging in 1D via k-Space (Yanasak) presents the second standard approach to NMR and MRI, the classical model. It focuses on the time dependence of the net nuclear magnetization, m(x,t), the overall magnetic field generated by the cohort of protons in the voxel at position x. Quite remarkably, this nuclear net magnetization itself acts in a strong magnetic field like a gyroscope in a gravitational field. This tack is better for explaining Free Induction Decay (FID), which involves a brief introduction to the Fourier transform and k-space. This leads to conventional Spin-Echo (S-E) reconstruction techniques for creating clinical images from raw data, and sets the stage for: Part IV. Spin-Echo; S-E / Spin Warp in a 2D Slice (Price) discusses application of the S- E sequence of radiofrequency pulses and gradient magnetic fields to the 1D patient. T2 is introduced but not explained. This Part also considers how to manipulate the image acquisition parameters so as to generate clinical pictures with contrast dominated by spatial variations in PD, T1, or T2. We conclude by demonstrating the spin-warp approach to imaging in 2D with a simple 2×2, 4-voxel example. Much of this material is presented in more detail in the chapter “MRI of the One-dimensional Patient, Part I”, in Advances in Medical Physics, Vol 5 (2014). Copies are on display at the Medical Physics Publishing booth. Learning Objectives: The participant will learn about the processes of NMR and T1 spin relaxation in a tissue voxel in a uniform magnetic field. The participant will learn about combining spin-up/spin-down NMR and T1 processes with a linear gradient to effect frequency-encoding of voxel spatial position. This approach can be used to create proton density and T1 MRI maps, respectively, of the contents of multi-voxel 1D phantoms. The participant will learn about how the ‘classical’ model of NMR it can generate Free Induction Decay (FID) images of 1D phantoms, which involves the use of the Fourier transform in k-space. This can lead simply into standard Spin-Echo images. The participant will learn about extending Spin-Echo imaging into 2 and more dimensions.
TU-EF-BRA-03: Free Induction Decay (without the Decay) and Spin-Echo Imaging
NMR, and Proton Density MRI of the 1D Patient - Anthony Wolbarst Net Voxel Magnetization, m(x,t). T1-MRI; The MRI Device - Lisa Lemen ‘Classical’ NMR; FID Imaging in 1D via k-Space - Nathan Yanasak Spin-Echo; S-E/Spin Warp in a 2D Slice - Ronald Price Magnetic resonance imaging not only reveals the structural, anatomic details of the body, as does CT, but also it can provide information on the physiological status and pathologies of its tissues, like nuclear medicine. It can display high-quality slice and 3D images of organs and vessels viewed from any perspective, with resolution better than 1 mm. MRI is perhaps most extraordinary and notable for the plethora of ways in which it can create unique forms of image contrast, reflective of fundamentally different biophysical phenomena. As with ultrasound, there is no risk from ionizing radiation to the patient or staff, since no X-rays or radioactive nuclei are involved. Instead, MRI harnesses magnetic fields and radio waves to probe the stable nuclei of the ordinary hydrogen atoms (isolated protons) occurring in water and lipid molecules within and around cells. MRI consists, in essence, of creating spatial maps of the electromagnetic environments around these hydrogen nuclei. Spatial variations in the proton milieus can be related to clinical differences in the biochemical and physiological properties and conditions of the associated tissues. Imaging of proton density (PD), and of the tissue proton spin relaxation times known as T1 and T2, all can reveal important clinical information, but they do so with approaches so dissimilar from one another that each is chosen for only certain clinical situations. T1 and T2 in a voxel are determined by different aspects of the rotations and other motions of the water and lipid molecules involved, as constrained by the local biophysical surroundings within and between its cells – and they, in turn, depend on the type of tissue and its state of health. Three other common applications of MRI exploit its capability to detect and image distinct movements of fluids: MR angiography (MRA), which rivals CT angiography but often requires no contrast medium, monitors the bulk flow of blood; functional MRI ( f MRI), distinguishes the perfusion of oxygenated blood from that of de-oxygenated, and lights up parts of the brain that are activated by a stimulus, rather like PET; and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) indicates the diffusion of free water along tracts of axons, thereby bringing nerve trunks into view. There are variants on all of these themes, and on others as well. Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS), for example, can perform non-invasive ‘virtual biopsies’ that allow identification of certain cancers and other lesions. And an MRI-guided needle biopsy can sample brain tissue from a region only millimeters in dimensions. MRI, however, involves deeper and more complex aspects of physics, technology, and biology than do most other imaging modalities, and it is widely considered to be correspondingly more difficult to learn. We could probably cover all of this rather comprehensively if we had 50 hours available rather than 2 ̶ but, to paraphrase a former Secretary of Defense, you tell your story in the time you have allotted. The four presenters and another physicist, Kevin King from GE, have combined their efforts to co-author a single slide show that describes essentials of MRI as simply as possible. It is obviously far from thorough, but hopefully it will succeed in explaining some of the basics in a simplified but still valid fashion; in providing a taste of the numerous capabilities and complexities of the modality; and in whetting your appetite to learn more. Part I. NMR, and Proton Density MRI of the 1D Patient (Wolbarst), begins with an introductory case study that illustrates a half dozen ways in which MRI provides valuable clinical information. It then explores the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) phenomenon, which underlies MRI. NMR can be introduced with either of two approaches. In the first, one thinks (loosely) of the nuclei of hydrogen atoms as (rotating and charged and therefore) magnetic objects, whose spin-axes tend to align in a strong external magnetic field, much like a compass needle. As with the Bohr atom, this spin-up/spin-down picture is a highly abridged version of the full quantum mechanical treatment, but still it leads to some useful, legitimate pictures of the NMR process occurring within a voxel: When RF photons of the correct (Larmor) frequency elevate protons in a fixed magnetic field out of their lower-energy spin state into the upper, the NMR phenomenon is indicated by the detectable absorption of RF power. With the addition of a linear gradient field along a multi-voxel, one-dimensional patient/phantom, as well, we can determine the water content of each compartment – an example of a real MRI study, albeit in 1D. Part I concludes with a discussion of the net magnetization at position x, m0(x), under conditions of dynamic thermal equilibrium, which leads into: Part II. Net Voxel Magnetization, m(x,t); T1-MRI; The MRI Device (Lemen), investigates the biophysics of the form of proton spin relaxation process characterized by the time T1. It then moves on to the creation of an MR image that displays the spatial variation in the values of this clinically relevant parameter, again in 1D. Finally, the design and workings of a clinical MRI machine are sketched, in preparation for: Part III. ‘Classical’ NMR; FID Imaging in 1D via k-Space (Yanasak) presents the second standard approach to NMR and MRI, the classical model. It focuses on the time dependence of the net nuclear magnetization, m(x,t), the overall magnetic field generated by the cohort of protons in the voxel at position x. Quite remarkably, this nuclear net magnetization itself acts in a strong magnetic field like a gyroscope in a gravitational field. This tack is better for explaining Free Induction Decay (FID), which involves a brief introduction to the Fourier transform and k-space. This leads to conventional Spin-Echo (S-E) reconstruction techniques for creating clinical images from raw data, and sets the stage for: Part IV. Spin-Echo; S-E / Spin Warp in a 2D Slice (Price) discusses application of the S- E sequence of radiofrequency pulses and gradient magnetic fields to the 1D patient. T2 is introduced but not explained. This Part also considers how to manipulate the image acquisition parameters so as to generate clinical pictures with contrast dominated by spatial variations in PD, T1, or T2. We conclude by demonstrating the spin-warp approach to imaging in 2D with a simple 2×2, 4-voxel example. Much of this material is presented in more detail in the chapter “MRI of the One-dimensional Patient, Part I”, in Advances in Medical Physics, Vol 5 (2014). Copies are on display at the Medical Physics Publishing booth. Learning Objectives: The participant will learn about the processes of NMR and T1 spin relaxation in a tissue voxel in a uniform magnetic field. The participant will learn about combining spin-up/spin-down NMR and T1 processes with a linear gradient to effect frequency-encoding of voxel spatial position. This approach can be used to create proton density and T1 MRI maps, respectively, of the contents of multi-voxel 1D phantoms. The participant will learn about how the ‘classical’ model of NMR it can generate Free Induction Decay (FID) images of 1D phantoms, which involves the use of the Fourier transform in k-space. This can lead simply into standard Spin-Echo images. The participant will learn about extending Spin-Echo imaging into 2 and more dimensions.
TU-EF-BRA-04: Into 2, 3, and 4 Dimensions
NMR, and Proton Density MRI of the 1D Patient - Anthony Wolbarst Net Voxel Magnetization, m(x,t). T1-MRI; The MRI Device - Lisa Lemen ‘Classical’ NMR; FID Imaging in 1D via k-Space - Nathan Yanasak Spin-Echo; S-E/Spin Warp in a 2D Slice - Ronald Price Magnetic resonance imaging not only reveals the structural, anatomic details of the body, as does CT, but also it can provide information on the physiological status and pathologies of its tissues, like nuclear medicine. It can display high-quality slice and 3D images of organs and vessels viewed from any perspective, with resolution better than 1 mm. MRI is perhaps most extraordinary and notable for the plethora of ways in which it can create unique forms of image contrast, reflective of fundamentally different biophysical phenomena. As with ultrasound, there is no risk from ionizing radiation to the patient or staff, since no X-rays or radioactive nuclei are involved. Instead, MRI harnesses magnetic fields and radio waves to probe the stable nuclei of the ordinary hydrogen atoms (isolated protons) occurring in water and lipid molecules within and around cells. MRI consists, in essence, of creating spatial maps of the electromagnetic environments around these hydrogen nuclei. Spatial variations in the proton milieus can be related to clinical differences in the biochemical and physiological properties and conditions of the associated tissues. Imaging of proton density (PD), and of the tissue proton spin relaxation times known as T1 and T2, all can reveal important clinical information, but they do so with approaches so dissimilar from one another that each is chosen for only certain clinical situations. T1 and T2 in a voxel are determined by different aspects of the rotations and other motions of the water and lipid molecules involved, as constrained by the local biophysical surroundings within and between its cells – and they, in turn, depend on the type of tissue and its state of health. Three other common applications of MRI exploit its capability to detect and image distinct movements of fluids: MR angiography (MRA), which rivals CT angiography but often requires no contrast medium, monitors the bulk flow of blood; functional MRI ( f MRI), distinguishes the perfusion of oxygenated blood from that of de-oxygenated, and lights up parts of the brain that are activated by a stimulus, rather like PET; and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) indicates the diffusion of free water along tracts of axons, thereby bringing nerve trunks into view. There are variants on all of these themes, and on others as well. Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS), for example, can perform non-invasive ‘virtual biopsies’ that allow identification of certain cancers and other lesions. And an MRI-guided needle biopsy can sample brain tissue from a region only millimeters in dimensions. MRI, however, involves deeper and more complex aspects of physics, technology, and biology than do most other imaging modalities, and it is widely considered to be correspondingly more difficult to learn. We could probably cover all of this rather comprehensively if we had 50 hours available rather than 2 ̶ but, to paraphrase a former Secretary of Defense, you tell your story in the time you have allotted. The four presenters and another physicist, Kevin King from GE, have combined their efforts to co-author a single slide show that describes essentials of MRI as simply as possible. It is obviously far from thorough, but hopefully it will succeed in explaining some of the basics in a simplified but still valid fashion; in providing a taste of the numerous capabilities and complexities of the modality; and in whetting your appetite to learn more. Part I. NMR, and Proton Density MRI of the 1D Patient (Wolbarst), begins with an introductory case study that illustrates a half dozen ways in which MRI provides valuable clinical information. It then explores the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) phenomenon, which underlies MRI. NMR can be introduced with either of two approaches. In the first, one thinks (loosely) of the nuclei of hydrogen atoms as (rotating and charged and therefore) magnetic objects, whose spin-axes tend to align in a strong external magnetic field, much like a compass needle. As with the Bohr atom, this spin-up/spin-down picture is a highly abridged version of the full quantum mechanical treatment, but still it leads to some useful, legitimate pictures of the NMR process occurring within a voxel: When RF photons of the correct (Larmor) frequency elevate protons in a fixed magnetic field out of their lower-energy spin state into the upper, the NMR phenomenon is indicated by the detectable absorption of RF power. With the addition of a linear gradient field along a multi-voxel, one-dimensional patient/phantom, as well, we can determine the water content of each compartment – an example of a real MRI study, albeit in 1D. Part I concludes with a discussion of the net magnetization at position x, m0(x), under conditions of dynamic thermal equilibrium, which leads into: Part II. Net Voxel Magnetization, m(x,t); T1-MRI; The MRI Device (Lemen), investigates the biophysics of the form of proton spin relaxation process characterized by the time T1. It then moves on to the creation of an MR image that displays the spatial variation in the values of this clinically relevant parameter, again in 1D. Finally, the design and workings of a clinical MRI machine are sketched, in preparation for: Part III. ‘Classical’ NMR; FID Imaging in 1D via k-Space (Yanasak) presents the second standard approach to NMR and MRI, the classical model. It focuses on the time dependence of the net nuclear magnetization, m(x,t), the overall magnetic field generated by the cohort of protons in the voxel at position x. Quite remarkably, this nuclear net magnetization itself acts in a strong magnetic field like a gyroscope in a gravitational field. This tack is better for explaining Free Induction Decay (FID), which involves a brief introduction to the Fourier transform and k-space. This leads to conventional Spin-Echo (S-E) reconstruction techniques for creating clinical images from raw data, and sets the stage for: Part IV. Spin-Echo; S-E / Spin Warp in a 2D Slice (Price) discusses application of the S- E sequence of radiofrequency pulses and gradient magnetic fields to the 1D patient. T2 is introduced but not explained. This Part also considers how to manipulate the image acquisition parameters so as to generate clinical pictures with contrast dominated by spatial variations in PD, T1, or T2. We conclude by demonstrating the spin-warp approach to imaging in 2D with a simple 2×2, 4-voxel example. Much of this material is presented in more detail in the chapter “MRI of the One-dimensional Patient, Part I”, in Advances in Medical Physics, Vol 5 (2014). Copies are on display at the Medical Physics Publishing booth. Learning Objectives: The participant will learn about the processes of NMR and T1 spin relaxation in a tissue voxel in a uniform magnetic field. The participant will learn about combining spin-up/spin-down NMR and T1 processes with a linear gradient to effect frequency-encoding of voxel spatial position. This approach can be used to create proton density and T1 MRI maps, respectively, of the contents of multi-voxel 1D phantoms. The participant will learn about how the ‘classical’ model of NMR it can generate Free Induction Decay (FID) images of 1D phantoms, which involves the use of the Fourier transform in k-space. This can lead simply into standard Spin-Echo images. The participant will learn about extending Spin-Echo imaging into 2 and more dimensions.
SU-F-T-227: A Comprehensive Patient Specific, Structure Specific, Pre-Treatment 3D QA Protocol for IMRT, SBRT and VMAT - Clinical Experience
Purpose: To present a 3D QA method and clinical results for 550 patients. Methods: Five hundred and fifty patient treatment deliveries (400 IMRT, 75 SBRT and 75 VMAT) from various treatment sites, planned on Raystation treatment planning system (TPS), were measured on three beam-matched Elekta linear accelerators using IBA’s COMPASS system. The difference between TPS computed and delivered dose was evaluated in 3D by applying three statistical parameters to each structure of interest: absolute average dose difference (AADD, 6% allowed difference), absolute dose difference greater than 6% (ADD6, 4% structure volume allowed to fail) and 3D gamma test (3%/3mm DTA, 4% structure volume allowed to fail). If the allowed value was not met for a given structure, manual review was performed. The review consisted of overlaying dose difference or gamma results with the patient CT, scrolling through the slices. For QA to pass, areas of high dose difference or gamma must be small and not on consecutive slices. For AADD to manually pass QA, the average dose difference in cGy must be less than 50cGy. The QA protocol also includes DVH analysis based on QUANTEC and TG-101 recommended dose constraints. Results: Figures 1–3 show the results for the three parameters per treatment modality. Manual review was performed on 67 deliveries (27 IMRT, 22 SBRT and 18 VMAT), for which all passed QA. Results show that statistical parameter AADD may be overly sensitive for structures receiving low dose, especially for the SBRT deliveries (Fig.1). The TPS computed and measured DVH values were in excellent agreement and with minimum difference. Conclusion: Applying DVH analysis and different statistical parameters to any structure of interest, as part of the 3D QA protocol, provides a comprehensive treatment plan evaluation. Author G. Gueorguiev discloses receiving travel and research funding from IBA for unrelated to this project work. Author B. Crawford discloses receiving travel funding from IBA for unrelated to this project work.
Erratum to: Hadron transverse momentum distributions in muon deep inelastic scattering at 160 GeV/ $$c$$ c
This paper is an erratum to a previous paper (EPJC 73 (2013) 2531) published by C. Adolph et al. (The COMPASS Collaboration) using a data sample taken in 2004. In the course of the ongoing analysis of the more recent 2006 data sample, and following some additional hints we identified a problem in the analysis of the 2004 data presented in EPJC 73 (2013) 2531. The acceptance correction for the 2004 data sample did not properly account for the use of semi-inclusive triggers on top of the inclusive triggers.
$$\pi ^-p\rightarrow \eta ^{(\prime )}\, \pi ^- p$$ in the double-Regge region: Joint Physics Analysis Center
Abstract The production of $$\eta ^{(\prime )}\pi $$ η ( ′ ) π pairs constitutes one of the golden channels to search for hybrid exotics, with explicit gluonic degrees of freedom. Understanding the dynamics and backgrounds associated to $$\eta ^{(\prime )}\pi $$ η ( ′ ) π production above the resonance region is required to impose additional constraints to the resonance extraction. We consider the reaction $$\pi ^-p\rightarrow \eta ^{(\prime )} \pi ^- \,p$$ π - p → η ( ′ ) π - p measured by COMPASS. We show that the data in $$2.4< m_{\eta ^{(\prime )}\pi } < 3.0{\mathrm {\,GeV}} $$ 2.4 < m η ( ′ ) π < 3.0 GeV can be described by amplitudes based on double-Regge exchanges. The angular distribution of the meson pairs, in particular in the $$\eta ' \pi $$ η ′ π channel, can be attributed to flavor singlet exchanges, suggesting the presence of a large gluon content that couples strongly to the produced mesons.
Spin density matrix elements in exclusive $\rho ^0$ meson muoproduction
We report on a measurement of Spin Density Matrix Elements (SDMEs) in hard exclusive $\rho ^0$ meson muoproduction at COMPASS using 160 GeV/c polarised μ + and μ – beams impinging on a liquid hydrogen target. The measurement covers the kinematic range 5.0 GeV/c 2 < W < 17.0 GeV/c 2 , 1.0 (GeV/c) 2 < $\mathrm{Q}$ 2 < 10.0 (GeV/c) 2 and 0.01 (GeV/c) 2 < $p_{\textrm{T}}^2$ < 0.5 (GeV/c) 2 . Here, W denotes the mass of the final hadronic system, $\mathrm{Q}$ 2 the virtuality of the exchanged photon, and $p_{\textrm{T}}$ the transverse momentum of the $\rho ^0$ meson with respect to the virtual-photon direction. The measured non-zero SDMEs for the transitions of transversely polarised virtual photons to longitudinally polarised vector mesons ($\gamma ^*_T \rightarrow V^{ }_L$) indicate a violation of s-channel helicity conservation. Additionally, we observe a dominant contribution of natural-parity-exchange transitions and a very small contribution of unnatural-parity-exchange transitions, which is compatible with zero within experimental uncertainties. The results provide important input for modelling Generalised Parton Distributions (GPDs). In particular, they may allow one to evaluate in a model-dependent way the role of parton helicity-flip GPDs in exclusive $\rho ^0$ production.
QCD EVOLUTION AND TMD/SPIN EXPERIMENTS
Transverse Spin and Transverse Momemtum Dependent (TMD) distribution study has been one of the main focuses of hadron physics in recent years. The initial exploratory Semi-Incluisve Deep-Inelastic-Scattering (SIDIS) experiments with transversely polarized proton and deuteron from HERMES and COMPASS attracted great attention and lead to very active efforts in both experiments and theory. QCD factorization has been carefully studied. A SIDIS experiment on the neutron with a polarized 3He target was performed at JLab. Recently published results will be shown. Precision TMD experiments are planned at JLab after the 12 GeV energy upgrade. The approved experiments with a new SoLID spectrometer on both the proton and neutron will be presented. Proper QCD evolution treatments beyond collinear cases become crucial for the precision study of the TMDs. Experimentally, Q2 evolution and higher-twist effects are often closely related. The experience of study higher-twist effects in the cases of moments of the spin structure functions will be discussed.
Process Dependence and the Sivers Effect in Inclusive and Semi-Inclusive Reactions
We perform an analysis of the the spin asymmetry for single inclusive jet production in proton-proton collisions collected by AnDY experiment and the Sivers asymmetry data from semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering experiments. In particular, we consider the role color gauge invariance plays in determining the process-dependence of the Sivers effect. We find that after carefully taking into account the initial-state and final-state interactions between the active parton and the remnant of the polarized hadron, the calculated jet spin asymmetry based on the Sivers functions extracted from HERMES and COMPASS experiments is consistent with the AnDY experimental data. This provides a first indication for the process-dependence of the Sivers effect in different processes. We also make predictions for both direct photon and Drell-Yan spin asymmetry, to further test the process-dependence of the Sivers effect in future experiments.
Generalized parton distributions and exclusive processes
In last fifteen years, GPDs have emerged as a powerful tool to reveal such aspects of the QCD structure of the nucleon as: - 3D parton correlations and distributions; - spin content of the nucleon. Further advances in the field of GPDs and hard exclusive processes rely on: - developments in theory and new methods in phenomenology such as new flexible parameterizations, neural networks, global QCD fits - new high-precision data covering unexplored kinematics: JLab at 6 and 12 GeV, Hermes with recoil detector, Compass, EIC. This slide-show presents: Nucleon structure in QCD, particularly hard processes, factorization and parton distributions; and a brief overview of GPD phenomenology, including basic properties of GPDs, GPDs and QCD structure of the nucleon, and constraining GPDs from experiments.