1 / 38

Physics and Detector Studies in Europe

Physics and Detector Studies in Europe. Kalmus report. 1. Where we’ve been 2. Goals of ECFA Study International Detector design etc. Machine Detector Interface Physics Case 3. Conclusions. The BDIR Group - The MATRIX - The mask - A crossing angle for TESLA?.

abie
Download Presentation

Physics and Detector Studies in Europe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Physics and Detector Studies in Europe Kalmus report 1. Where we’ve been 2. Goals of ECFA Study International Detector design etc. Machine Detector Interface Physics Case 3. Conclusions. The BDIR Group - The MATRIX - The mask - A crossing angle for TESLA? A couple of examples from Higgs studies

  2. Where we’ve been Began in 1990, before first LCWS in Saariselka. series of workshops led by Ron Settles and Peter Zerwas Then the ECFA/DESY Studies – wrote the Physics and Detectors volumes of the TESLA TDR, Spring 1991 Extended ECFA/DESY Study, until Amsterdam, Spring ’03 Ron editing proceedings ECFA Study had first workshop at Montpellier November 2003

  3. Goals of the ECFA Study • International • -------------- • to contribute to the development of a Global Linear Collider programme • by encouraging international collaboration on the physics case, • on detector R&D and on the machine-detector interface. • to participate in the international LCWS workshops (the Saariselka • series; PARIS NEXT, April 19-23 2004). • to explore ways of co-ordinating and perhaps integrating the • regional and worldwide workshop series.

  4. The Global LC Lab. The European Linear Collider Steering Group asked George Kalmus to chair a high level committee on the possible governance of a World LC Lab. Reported summer 2003. See:- http://committees.web.cern.ch/Committees/ECFA/Cern03Kalmus.pdf or slides http://committees.web.cern.ch/Committees/ECFA/Cern03KalmusReport.pdf%20 Lots of suggestions on governance, management and financing. Summarised in the two following slides. N.B. This is not “Europe’s policy” on the LC. It is a set of suggestions. An agreed policy will not exist until Governments produce one. The ECFA chair warns us not take statements from any individuals as the policy.

  5. Kalmus panel

  6. ALMA is a radiotelescope array. ITER is the fusion torus. GLCP is the Global Linear Collider Project. The Kalmus recommendations are summarised in the last column. Kalmus panel

  7. Goals of the ECFA Study • Detector design, R&D, Simulation • ------------------------------------- • to design, build and test detector prototypes • (with inter-regional collaboration). • to maintain the detector design, and critically review its • performance on all important physics channels. • to build up a modern simulation framework (both for detector • and physics studies) sharing resources with the other regions • whenever possible. • to prepare all tools necessary for a "simulated data challenge“.

  8. Goals of the ECFA Study • Machine-Detector Interface • -------------------------------- • to study the impact of realistic beams and the associated • backgrounds on the detector. • when the linac technology and crossing angle choice are made, • to update all designs to match. • to interact with the designers of the beam delivery system, ensuring • that physics goals can be achieved. • - to participate in planning and R&D for polarimetry, beam energy • measurement, beam monitoring, luminosity measurement. • to study the special requirements of the gamma-gamma, e-gamma • and GigaZ options.

  9. Beam Delivery and Interaction Region (new name for MDI working group) Growing activity, with many particle physicists. * UK putting >£7.2 million into BDS design study including laserwire, feedback, beam monitoring, survey * DESY Zeuthen leading R&D collab’n on small angle calorimeters and masking. * Crossing angle is urgent. * Philip Bambade’s “jobs to do” Matrix.

  10. MATRIX reloaded Great Opportunities ! Comment for Mumbai ACFA: Europe cannot do all of these jobs; they‘ll have to be shared. See MATRIX at http://www-flc.desy.de/talks-public/bdir/BDIRprojects.html • Identified 30 tasks for the BDIR group, assigned priorities and some names

  11. Karsten Buesser on the Mask TDR version • Shielding of the detector from direct and backscatterd beam induced backgrounds? • Provide instrumentation for luminosity measurement, fast feedback system and hermeticity?

  12. Mask tips are inside the tracking system LAT has a conical surface Envisaged precision in the luminosity measurement using Bhabha scattering (ΔL/L ≈ 10-4)will be extremely challenging Quadrupoles are inside the detector solenoid Challenges New optical design with l*>4m. Crossing angle or not ? First try (Achim Stahl) Try to find, for minimal l*, a mask design with a flat LAT geometry (in the head-on collision scheme)  TDR Mask Problems Karsten Buesser

  13. Proposed Design for l* ≥ 4.1m Achim Stahl (presented in Amsterdam) Achim and I (DJM) prefer “LUMICAL” (for LAT) ~30<<100mr; primarily for L measurement. “BEAMCAL” (for LCal) ~5<<30mr; primarily for beam monitoring (+tag +veto).

  14. Advantages Flat LAT geometry LAT is behind ECAL, no scattering of particles off the LAT edge into the ECAL Mask moved out of the tracking system Vacuum situation much better Questions How to open the detector ? What is the background situation ? What is the performance of the LAT/LCAL (Lumical/Beamcal)? New Mask Design Karsten Buesser

  15. Crossing angle makes a difference NLC masking (S detector)

  16. NLC Masking

  17. Extraction Line IssuesNick Walker at Montpellier To cross, or not to cross, That is The Question

  18. Spent beam extraction horizontal vertical Nick Walker 0-120 m 100-250 m

  19. Beamstrahlung Extraction Nick Walker

  20. Beamstrahlung Extraction Nick Walker

  21. Beamstrahlung Extraction Nick Walker

  22. Beamstrahlung Extraction Indicated power loss is for perfect design beam only! Nick Walker

  23. Typical bunch train, fbk on 1 kW Beamstrahlung loss on septum increases drastically (few W  several kW) under (realistically) non-perfect collision conditions (A. Seryi, SLAC) May be partially cured by increasing separator deflection angle – impact on FFS and extraction line (length!)? Separator issues: sparking? Bunch-to-bunch (10-6) and pulse to pulse (>10-5) stability? Nick Walker

  24. 20 mrad angle will need new final doublet design NLC currently has PM Compact s.c. quads possible (R&D needed) Crab-crossing required More complicated IR Impact on physics capabilities NLC says not! Civil engineering (cost!) implications (Large) Crossing Angle Concerns Nick Walker

  25. 300mr vertical x-angle solution R. Brinkmann 4m×300mr=1.2mm • shines BS away from septum blade and • away from incoming beam @ BS dump • needs quadruplet instead of doublet to obtain spent beam bandwidth • crab-crossing needed but not so bad as that needed for 20mr horizontal crossing angle • much optics and tracking work to do!! Nick Walker

  26. Decision needed on X-angle for cold machine Phone-in meeting at Zeuthen, 19 January organised by Philip Bambade, agenda at http://www-flc.desy.de/talks-public/bdir/meeting190104.html Input on Physics (SUSY veto etc.) and machine aspects. SLAC people will participate. Please stay up all night and join in! Aim to clarify issues before LCWS in Paris.

  27. Goals of the ECFA Study, continued • Physics Case • -------------- • to co-operate with LHC colleagues to develop and present the • arguments for concurrent running of LC and LHC. • to explore the connections between the LC physics programme • and cosmology. • - before the linac technology choice is made, to explore any differences • between the physics capabilities of the candidate technologies. • to continue to upgrade feasibility studies on important • physics channels, with more realistic beam, background • and detector simulation • 

  28. I only show a few slides out of a long talk!

  29. Kuhl

  30. Kuhl

  31. Kuhl

  32. Arnaud Gay

  33. Arnaud Gay

  34. Results Arnaud Gay

  35. NEW Arnaud Gay

  36. Goals of the ECFA Study • Physics Case - continued • to study quantitatively the potential systematic limitations • on measurements and look for ways around them. • to quantify the physics benefits from options to upgrade or vary • the LC programme: from the energy upgrade, from the e- e-, • e-  and   options, from the Giga Z option, from e+ polarisation, • from narrower beam energy spread, from better polarimetry and • spectrometry. • to continue improving the precision of Standard Model and • Supersymmetric predictions, to match the expected precision of • experimental measurements with the LC. • to continue to investigate new theoretical ideas, both strategic and • methodological. • to continue development of Monte Carlo generators suitable for • LC physics.

  37. Conclusions • There’s a lot to do – and we’re • all in it together, Worldwide. 2. We look forward to seeing you in Paris in the Spring.

More Related