1 / 39

Muon (g-2) to 0.25 ppm

Muon (g-2) to 0.25 ppm. B. Lee Roberts on behalf of the New Muon (g-2) Collaboration: E969 . BNL E969 Collaboration. R.M. Carey, I. Logashenko, K.R. Lynch, J.P. Miller, B.L. Roberts Boston University G. Bunce, W. Meng, W. Morse, P. Pile, Y.K. Semertzidis Brookhaven National Laboratory

hayley
Download Presentation

Muon (g-2) to 0.25 ppm

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. Muon (g-2) to 0.25 ppm B. Lee Roberts on behalf of the New Muon (g-2) Collaboration: E969 B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  2. BNL E969 Collaboration R.M. Carey, I. Logashenko, K.R. Lynch, J.P. Miller, B.L. Roberts Boston University G. Bunce, W. Meng, W. Morse, P. Pile, Y.K. Semertzidis Brookhaven National Laboratory D. Grigoriev, B.I. Khazin, S.I. Redin, Y. M. Shatunov, E. Solodov Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics F.E. Gray, B. Lauss, E.P. Sichtermann UC Berkeley and LBL Y. Orlov – Cornell University J. Crnkovic, P. Debevec, D.W. Hertzog, P. Kammel, S. Knaack, R. McNabb University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign K.L. Giovanetti – James Madison University K.P. Jungmann, C.J.G. Onderwater – KVI Groningen T.P. Gorringe, W. Korsch U. Kentucky P. Cushman – University ofMinnesota M. Aoki, Y. Arimoto, Y. Kuno, A. Sato, K. Yamada Osaka University S. Dhawan, F.J.M. Farley – Yale University This group contains the core of E821, and we will build on our strength and experience there. B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  3. When we started in 1983, theory and experiment were known to about 10 ppm. Theory uncertainty was ~ 9 ppm Exp. uncertainty was 7.3 ppm B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  4. world average E821 achieved 0.54 ppm and the e+e- based theory is also at the 0.6 ppm level. Both can be improved. All E821 results were obtained with a “blind” analysis. B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  5. Most cited experimental paper of 2001 This large number of citations demonstrate widespread interest in the community. Citations to E821 Physics Results S = 1127 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 PRL 92 (2004) PRL 89 (2002) PRL 86 (2001) PRD 62 (2000) PRL 82 (1999) 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Precision measurements provide an alternate path to the frontier of particle physics. Whatever LHC finds, muon (g-2) will provide independent constraints on the parameter space for new physics. B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  6. We measure the difference frequency between the spin and momentum precession With an electric quadrupole field for vertical focusing 0 B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  7. Experimental Technique Central orbit Kicker Modules R=711.2cm d=9cm Electric Quadrupoles Protons Pions Inflector (from AGS) p=3.1GeV/c Target (1.45T) Injection orbit • Muon polarization • Muon storage ring • injection & kicking • focus by Electric Quadrupoles • 24 electron calorimeters Storage ring B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  8. We count high-energy electrons as a function of time. B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  9. Pedestal vs. Time We base our request on a modified version of this proven concept. E821 used a forward decay beam, with pp 1.7% above pmagic to provide a separation at K3/K4 Pions @ 3.115 GeV/c Decay muons @ 3.094 GeV/c Our models show that by quadrupling the quads and going further above pmagic the flash is decreased and the muon flux will grow by approximately 2-3 Near side Far side B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  10. Upper Pole Piece Space limitations prevent matching the inflector exit to the storage aperture B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  11. The E821 inflector magnet had closed ends which scattered away half the beam. Length = 1.7 m; Central field = 1.45T Open end prototype, built and tested →X2 Increase in Beam B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  12. E969 needs 5 times the muon flux that E821 stored. • Open inflector x 2 • Quadruple the quadrupoles x 2 – 3 Beam increase design factor x 4 – 6 At 3% above pmagic the reduced injection flash will permit us to begin fitting the data at earlier times (closer to the injection time) than in E821. B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  13. E969 New Baseline – 0.25 ppm total error • Systematic error goals: • for wa: 0.1 ppm • for wp: 0.1 ppm • Statistical error goal: • for wa: 0.2 ppm • Total Error Goal: • am: 0.25 ppm • Forward beam with 4x quadrupoles • New detectors / electronics • Upgraded NMR system B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  14. The error budget for E969 represents a continuation of improvements already made during E821 • Field improvements:better trolley calibrations, better tracking of the field with time, improvements in the hardware • Precession improvementswill involve new scraping scheme, lower thresholds, more complete digitization periods, better energy calibration B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  15. Calibration to a spherical water sample that ties the field to the Larmor frequency of the free protonwp Thus we measure wa and wp The magnetic field is measured and controlled using pulsed NMR and the free-induction decay. B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  16. The ± 1 ppm uniformity in the average field is obtained with special shimming tools. We can shim the dipole, quadrupole sextupole independently E969 will require additional shimming, monitoring and calibration 0.5 ppm contours B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  17. Field systematic uncertainties, ordered by importance B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  18. New segmented detectors of tungsten / scintillating- fiber ribbons to deal with pile-up • System fits in available space • We know how to cost and build it. (prototype under construction) • Calibration method reasonable • Bases will be gated. • New custom electronics and DAQ B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  19. Precession frequency systematic uncertainties, ordered by importance B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  20. Summary: E821 and E969 Costs E969 Costs (2006 M$) • E821 costs (M$) (as spent $) • Capital 25.0 1989-1998 • Operations 54.0 1998-2001 • Total E821 79.0 B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  21. 1.0 g-2 Ring/Building maintenance 1 man month to engineer an air conditioning system for bldg 919 1.1 V/V1 Beam Lines 1 man-months engineering 1 man-months physicist 1.2 Inflector A quote from the Furukawa Company for superconductor 1.3 E Quads Nothing new, defendable 1.8 Kicker Nothing new, defendable 1.11 Cryogenics (to determine scope) 2 man-months engineering 1 man-month tech 1.12 Vacuum System 1 man-month engineering 1.14 Booster/AGS 0.5 man month engineering 0.5 man month physicist ES&H – review operation within present guidelines 1 man-month physicist 1 man month engineer Preparation of Cost Books, Resource Loaded Schedules, CD0-1 documents etc 4 man-months engineering 4 man--months physicist Summary 11 man-month engineering 7 man-month physicist 1 man-month tech Required Budget ~ $360K Calendar Time Required ~ 6-8 months Funds needed to baseline the costs (not included in construction cost estimate) B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  22. Cost Summary: E969 Construction • Experiment Construction, Direct Costs M$ Contingency • G-2 Ring and building $ 0.56 21% • V/V1 Beam Line modifications $ 2.59 18% • Inflector (open ends) $ 0.64 19% • E-Quad rebuild $ 0.13 15% • Additional muon Kicker $ 0.41 15% • Cryogenic plant rehab $ 0.74 233% • Ring Vacuum System $ 0.16 29% • Equipment Testing $ 0.69 20% • Project Office $ 0.37 20% • Sub-Total, direct costs $ 6.3 • Indirects (reduced) $ 2.2 • Contingency (44%) $ 3.7 • Sub-Total, with indirects $ 12.2 • University (Detectors/DAQ) $ 2.4 • Total $ 14.6 FY 2006 $’s B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  23. Cost Summary: AGS/Booster Restoration to High Intensity • AGS/Booster, Direct Costs M$Contingency • Electrical Modifications $ 2.11 22% • Mechanical Modifications $ 1.25 20% • RF System Modifications $ 0.67 22% • Instrumentation $ 0.34 20% • Project Support $ 0.33 34% • Controls $ 0.16 24% • ES&H (CAPS) $ 2.63 28% • Sub-Total, direct costs $ 7.5 • Indirects (reduced) $ 1.9 • Contingency (24%) $ 2.3 • Total $ 11.7 FY 2006 $’s B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  24. E969 Operations Cost Summary FY 2006 $’s • Year Wks w/RHICWks AlonePhysics WksCost (M$) 1st 12 0 3 $ 5.8 2nd20 0 15 $ 7.8 Total 34 0 18 $ 13.6 If warranted to push beyond 0.25 ppm, an additional 10-15 week run with RHIC adds ~$6-7M B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  25. Construction Operations construction operation Funding Profile by Year B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  26. Summary • Historically (g-2) has placed a major hurdle in the path of new theories beyond the standard model. • See the letters from Altarelli, Davier, Ellis, Jackiw, Jaffe, Kane, Wilczek, Winstein • The (g-2) result must fit with other evidence into a consistent picture of new physics, e.g. B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  27. The (g-2) discrepancy is consistent with other constraints on the SUSY LSP being the dark matter candidate. scalar mass CMSSM calculation Following Ellis, Olive, Santoso, Spanos, from K. Olive gaugino mass B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  28. Future Comparison: sE969 = 0.25 ppm; DE969 = Dnow B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  29. Future Comparison: sE969 = 0.25 ppm; DE969= 0 Historically (g-2) has played an important role in restricting models of new physics. B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  30. Summary, ctd. • Historically (g-2) has placed a major hurdle in the path of new theories beyond the standard model. • This hurdle is unique and complementary to other information. • Theory can and will support the proposed experimental improvement. • See the letters from Davier, De Rafael • E969 provides an important opportunity to capitalize on the substantial investment in E821. B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  31. Closing Points • Muon (g-2) will be important to particle physics even beyond the LHC era • A large community continues to improve the knowledge of the strong-interaction contribution. • E969 will be a wonderful and unique training ground for young scientists. • E969 presents a unique opportunity for U.S. particle physics. B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  32. Extra Projections B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  33. Expect for both sides Also attractive for E969 is a “backward” decay beam, which we continue to model. new front-end Pions @ 5.32 GeV/c increase of proton beam Decay muons @ 3.094 GeV/c No hadron-induced prompt flash By quadrupling the quads, the muon flux will grow by ~1.6, but the hadronic flash will largely be eliminated. B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  34. g-2 Experiment Operations (0.5 ppm) FY 2006 $’s B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  35. g-2 Experiment Operations (0.25 ppm) FY 2006 $’s B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  36. g-2 Experiment Operations (0.20 ppm) FY 2006 $’s B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  37. T. Kirk’s 4 Dec 04 letter to DOE • Construction Cost - $11M+ • Beam line g-2 ring upgrades etc - $11M • Cost sharing with RSVP of AGS/Booster rehab – discussed but not specified • Operations Cost - $9-10M+ • 25 week single year cost - $9-10M • 3 week engineering run costs – discussed but not specified B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  38. Variance with T. Kirk’s 4 Dec 04 letter to DOE • Construction Cost: $26M today ($9M + $2M Inflector, Kirks letter) • Scope changes: +$4.1M • Beam Line – fwd decay (was back decay w/1X FODO) with 4X FODO (-$2M) • Contingency for new cryo plant + $2M • New Kicker, EQuad Rebuild, Bldg 919 AC + $1M • Equipment testing (some with beam) + $1M • Project Office + $0.7M • Universities (detectors/DAQ) + $1.4M • Revised cost estimates, inflation: (-$1M inflector, + $1M other) • Cost of AGS/Booster rehab: +$11.7M (no cost sharing) • Operations Cost: $13M, 2 year base plan • Engineering/data run, one 12 week year - $6M (3 weeks in Kirk’s letter – no costs specified) • Data Runs, one 20 week year – $8M (Kirk’s letter $9-10M for 25 weeks) • Variance ~ consistent with Kirk’s letter B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

  39. Milestones/Timeline (by FY) -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 • CD0 Beamline design – backward/forward decision; detector prototype; simulations of injection, scraping, CBO damping; decide on scope of cryo work; begin tube/base development • +9 Months CD1; Begin electronics engineering • CD2 - Engineering on beamline, Cryo • CD3 - Start to order long leadtime items e.g. Inflector, rad-hard front-end magnets, etc.; Refurbish storage ring; develop on-line; develop NMR tools for 0.1 ppm. Construction • Shim magnet, improve on absolute calibration • CD4 - Finish construction, few weeks of low intensity beam • Commission experiment, engineering and short physics run • Major data collection run B. Lee Roberts, P5: 27 March 2006

More Related