1 / 67

INFN Working Group High Intensity Frontier (HIF)

INFN Working Group High Intensity Frontier (HIF). F. Cervelli Padova Nov. 11 2004. Introduction. D.G. day 1: “Let progress in physics guide your evaluation.”.

helenb
Download Presentation

INFN Working Group High Intensity Frontier (HIF)

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. INFN Working Group High Intensity Frontier (HIF) F. Cervelli Padova Nov. 11 2004

  2. Introduction D.G. day 1: “Let progress in physics guide your evaluation.” Which physics? How far off the main path of the HEP exploration is CERN interested in going, motivated to go and should be allowed to go?

  3. Two levels: • leading the quest for new physics • direct searches: • LHC, CLIC • indirect evidence: • Leptons: neutrino masses and mixings, LFV • Quarks: K, B hadron decays • CPT violation searches (AD), Axion searches • exploring dynamical issues • ancillary to the exploration of the fronteer, e.g.: • better PDF’s for LHC studies • with no obvious or direct impact on the HE frontier: • hadron spectroscopy • polarised/transverse/generalized/... PDFs • HI • ... • On a different Riemann sheet: • “Other topics” • Isolde/nTOF, future Eurisol-like activities

  4. QCD and strong interactions • Strong interaction studies will play a crucial role: QCD is ubiquitous in high energy physics! Once new particles are discovered at LHC, it will be mandatory to explore parameters, mixing patterns, i.e , we need an unprecedented ability to interpret the strong interaction structure of final states Synergy: Kaon system, Heavy Flavour, Hadron spectroscopy— • Many intellectual puzzles still open in QCD! • Confinement, chiral symmetry breaking, vacumm structure (glueballs etc) light particle classifications, multi-quark states...

  5. Beyond the Standard Model:the clue from Hadron studies ... • Precision study of hadrons …. • deviations in expected behaviour of • light and c quarks evidence for new physics + • will elucidate new physics if found elsewhere • Rare decays • Mixing & CPV

  6. Parton Distribution and Structure Functions (Compass, μ beam) • Longitudinal gluon polarization • Original goal: ΔG/G=0.14. Expectation at the end of ‘02-’04 analysis • from charm: ΔG/G=0.24 • inclusive high-pt hadron ΔG/G=0.05 (plus large th uncertanties) • Future prospects: • ΔG/G→0.17 (0.11) with 1 (3) yr after ‘06 • ?? after ‘10 • Competition: RHIC, jet-jet, similar or smaller error, larger x range • Recommendation: flagship measurement • Generalised parton densities Knowledge of transverse structure of the proton: go to the infinite-P frame, how are partons distributed on the flat disk as a function of x?. Goal: extend accuracy and range • Timescale: >2010. • Competition: rich program at DESY, JLab, but not in this domain of Q and x. eRHIC with similar kinematics, but not before 2015. • Recommendation: No rush. • Inclusive PDFs: improve accuracy of old CERN experiments. • Not obvious. Not obvious that this will contribute to LHC (timescale not adequate to have an impact) • Timescale: > 2010

  7. Chiral perturbation theory (π, K beams): • ππ, πK atoms (DIRAC, PS/SPS): improve the ππ accuracy, perform a (accurate) πK measure; complements related measurements at Dafne (DEAR/Siddartha) • Primakoff production (Compass): improve, increase statistics. Lower theoretical accuracy, due to higher energy scale • K→π+π0π0 , Ke4 (Cabibbo, ‘04) (NA48/2): new technique, potential for measurements as accurate (more?), as DIRAC’s. Very important measurements, extraction of fundamental parameters of low-energy QCD, useful for the description of several phenomena, e.g. in K decays Very accurate theoretical predictions (2%), crucial tests of the theory possible

  8. Renaissance of hadron spectroscopy • Quarkonium: • ηc’ (Belle, CLEO, Babar) • X(3872) (Belle, CDF, D0, Babar) • Narrow charmed states: • DsJ(Babar, CLEO, Belle) (parity partners of Ds(*) ) • D+sJ(2632) → η Ds+ (Selex) (?? Tetraquark ??) • Ξcc (Selex) (τ∼30fs, predicted ∼400fs!) • Pentaquark candidates: • Θ+(1540) (Chiral soliton model prediction (Polyakov talk); diquarks; prod properties?) • Ξ--(1862) (NA49, Ξ-π-) • Θ+c(3100) (H1, D*− p)

  9. Rare and forbidden decays Motivation: lepton number violation study investigation of long range effects and SM extension FOCUS improved results by a factor of 1.7 –14: approaching theoretical predictions for some of the modes but still far for the majority CDF Br(D0m+m-)<2.4 10-6 @ 90% C.L. (65 pb-1 data) Hera –B Br(D0m+m-)<2 10-6 @ 90% C.L CDF and D0 can trigger on dimuons promising Next future: CLEO-c sensitivity 106 Next to Next future BTeV

  10. 3 x 3 = 6 + 3 Energy favours spin=0 state (Cooper pairs), and Pauli requires antisymmetric flavour (⇒I=0 for SU(2), 3F for SU(3)) [q q] [q q] = tetraquarks: scalar nonet? Selex Ds(2632) → Ds+ η ? [q q] [q q] q = (10⊕8flavour, JP=1/2+) Diquarks Jaffe, Wilczek ⇒qq in the antisymmetric colour state is attractive [qq] = qq pair in the fully antisymmetric state [q q] = Cooper pairs at the Fermi surface of dense, large systems (n-stars?) Maiani et al Evidence for diquarks from LEP. The ud pair in the Λ0is in a [qq] state, contrary to the case of the Σ ⇒ Λ0production favoured

  11. glueballs (ggg) hybrids (ccg) J/ spectroscopy confinement hidden and open charm in nuclei fundamental symmetries: p in traps (FLAIR) strange and charmed baryons in nuclear field inverted deeply virtual Compton scattering CP-violation (D/ - sector) Physics program at the High Energy Storage Ring (HESR)

  12. Statistics is relevant! Although statistics might be a not sufficient condition, it is certainly necessary! PS 1013 p/sec @ 26 GeV/c SIS100/300 1013 p/sec @29GeV/c NEW PS 6x1014 p/sec @ 30 GeV/c

  13. Future Muon Dipole Moment Measurements • at a high intensity muon source

  14. SUSY connection between Dμ, μ→ e (LFV)

  15. Unlike the EDM, aμ is well measured. Comparing with e+e- - data shows a discrepancy with the standard model of 2.4σ the combined value is

  16. Required m Fluxes

  17. Summary on muons • Both g-2 and mEDM are sensitive to new physics behind the corner • Unique opportunity of studying phases of mixing matrix for SUSY particles • Historically, limits on dE have been strong tests for new physics models • mEDM would be the first tight limit on dE from a second generation particle • The experiments are hard but, in particular the mEDM, not impossible • A large muon polarized flux of energy 3GeV (g-2) or 0.5GeV (mEDM) is required

  18. Strangeness ⇒ SU(3) K εK⇒ CP violation K decays • More: ε’/ε, CKM parameters, CPT tests (m(K) vs m(Kbar)), etc.etc. • New frontier: very rare decays, O(10−10÷-11) K0 − K0 mixing/ FCNC⇒ GIM, charm

  19. Why study Rare Kaon Decays • Search for explicit violation of Standard Model • Lepton Flavour Violation • Probe the flavour sector of the Standard Model • FCNC • Test fundamental symmetries • CP,CPT • Study the strong interactions at low energy • Chiral Perturbation Theory, kaon structure

  20. In the SM: ∝C mt2 λ5 , C=complex, λ=sinθc GIM suppression of light-quark contributions, dominated by high mass scales Guiding rationale In Supersymmetry (similar examples in other BSMs): ∝ f(Δmq2,λa ), a≥1 ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ Sensitive to whether GIM suppression operates in the scalar quark sector: tests of scalar quark mixings and mass differences χ

  21. K+→ π+ ν ν K0L → π0 ν ν K0L → π0e+e− K0L → π0 μ+ μ− A measurement of the 4 decay modes is a crucial element in the exploration of the new physics discovered at the LHC.Accuracies at the level of 10% would already provide precious quantitative information

  22. K0L→p0e+e-andK0L→p0m+m- Study Direct CP-Violation • Indirect CP-Violating Contribution • has been measured (NA48/1, see next slide) • Constructive Interference (theory) • CP-Conserving Contributions are negligible Direct CPV Indirect CPV CPC 0++, 2++

  23. K0L→p0ee(mm): Sensitivity to New Physics Isidori, Unterdorfer,Smith: Fleisher et al: Ratios of B → Kp modes could be explained by enhanced electroweak penguins and enhance the BR’s: * A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel, F. Schwab, hep-ph/0402112

  24. K0L→p0n n • Purely theoretical error ~2%: SM 3 10-11 • Purely CP-Violating (Littenberg, 1989) • Totally dominated from t-quark • Computed to NLO in QCD ( Buchalla, Buras, 1999) • No long distance contribution SM~3 × 10-11 • Experimentally: 2/3 invisible final state !! • Best limit from KTeV using p0→eeg decay BR(K0→ p0nn) < 5.9 × 10-7 90% CL Still far from the model independent limit: BR(K0→ p0nn) < 4.4 × BR(K+→ p+nn) ~ 1.4 × 10-9 Grossman & Nir, PL B407 (1997)

  25. Experimental landscape • E949 at BNL: stopped2K+→π+νν • Terminated by D0E after 12 weeks or run • CKM at FNAL: in flight K+→π+νν • “Deprioritized” by P5 after PAC approval • K0PI0K0L→π0νν, at BNL AGS • Late stage of R&D, $30M in ‘05 President’s budget • >40 events, S/B=2/1 • P940, K+→π+νν, modified CKM based on KTeV. • Proposal to PAC ‘05, Data taking at t=“Funding-approval + 1yr” • 100 events /2 FNAL yrs

  26. E391a at KEK, K0L→π0νν • First run ‘04, more data in ‘05. Sensitivity 10-10 , below signal • L-05 at JPARC, K0L→π0νν • Proposal to PAC ‘05, beam available Spring ‘08 • 100 events/3 yrs • L-04 at JPARC, K+L→π+νν • NA48/3 at CERN: in flight K+→π+νν • tests on beam ‘04, proposal to SPSC in ‘05 • ready for beam in ‘09 • >100 evts in 2 CERN yrs, S/B=10/1 • NA48/4-5: K0→π0ll, π0νν, sensitivity dep on integrated Lum

  27. Conclusion for K’s Absolutely clear physics case, to be pursued with the strongest determination in a global context of healthy, aggressive and very competent competition The discovery of Supersymmetry at the LHC will dramatically increase the motivation for searches of new phenomena in flavour physics. The K physics programme will find a natural complement in the B physics studies at the LHC, and in new Lepton Flavour Violation searches. The definition of a potential LFV programme and the study of its implications for the accelerator complex should be strongly encouraged and supported

  28. v v m=v2/Λ v=O(100 GeV) Λ=O(MGUT) H H 1/Λ ν ν Neutrinos • Physics case clear and strong: • GUT-scale physics • Flavour structure • Leptogenesis (lepton-driven B asymmetry of the Universe) • Cosmology: WMAP => Ων<0.015, mν<0.23 eV • Majorana nature favoured theoretically (implications for 0ν2e β-decay): • 2 relative masses, one absolute mass scale, 3 mixing angles, 1 CKM phase δ, 2 relative phases if Majorana

  29. source P(νi→νj) = S x sin(Δm2 E / L) beam purity, backgrounds Source power, detector Volume location Straightforward theoretical interpretation: entries of a 3x3 matrix Clear criteria driving the experimental design/optimization: Rather general consensus on the pros and cons of different configurations: Perhaps too much consensus? K→SK→YK→?K ..... Need to explore new detector concepts? capabilities?

  30. Layout (CDR 1)

  31. Benefits of the SPL • Replacement of the (40 years old !) 1.4 GeV PSB by a 2.2 GeV SPL • ß • JRadio-active ion beams: EURISOL is feasible • (direct use of 5-100 % of the SPL nominal beam) • J Neutrino super-beam: ideal with a large detector at Frejus • (using an accumulator and 100 % of the SPL nominal beam) • J Neutrino beta-beam: ideal + synergy with EURISOL • (direct use of 5 % of the SPL nominal beam) • J LHC: - potential for substantial increase of brightness/intensity from the PS beyond the ultimate (space charge limit is raised to 4 1011 ppb)* • - large flexibility for # bunch spacings (replacing RF systems…) • - simplified operation / increased reliability • K PS: - limited benefit on peak intensity (~ 6 1013 ppp) • - large potential for higher beam brightness (x 2) • - large flexibility in number of bunches, emittances and intensities • K CNGS: limited benefit (target capability is fully used with 7 1013 ppp) * More work is needed to analyse the other limitations

  32. What about High Power Beams? • High power beams: what for? • Improve LHC beam (yet to be seen) • High flux of POT for hadron physics • Feed n-factory Main Ring Cycle

  33. Possible parameters

  34. Consequences • Potential of 4 MW - 30 GeV RCS: • Driver for kaon physics • Driver for n physics • Upgraded proton injector for LHC • Upgraded proton injector for a higher • energy synchrotron (SPS or super-SPS) • Limitation of 4 MW – 30 GeV RCS: lack of flexibility • Magnetic cycle is fixed (likely, but to be confirmed) • Slow ejection ? • Acceleration of heavy ions for LHC ? • RF has a limited frequency range (4.5 %) • Acceleration of heavy ions for LHC ? • Beam gymnastics ? If sharing the same target ! With adequate choice of RF

  35. Nuclear Physics CERN: b-beam baseline scenario SPL Decay ring Brho = 1500 Tm B = 5 T Lss = 2500 m SPS Decay Ring ISOL target & Ion source ECR Cyclotrons, linac or FFAG Rapid cycling synchrotron PS

  36. Long term: preliminary comparison *Comparison should also be made with an RCS of similar characteristics. **Input expected from the present workshop !

  37. Machines comparison

  38. ??M SPL: 1.4→2.2 GeV,0.01→4MW SPL: 1.4→2.2 GeV,0.01→4MW RCS PS Booster: 1.4→2.2 GeV,0.01→4MW X M ? 520M ??M RCS PS: 26→50 GeV, 0.1→4MW βBeam βBeam Precise BRs for rare K decays (up to 3 exp’s) NA48/4: first attempt at K0→π0νν 500M SuperCompass (GPD, high rate charm physics and exotic spectroscopy, etc.etc.) ν to Frejus ν to Frejus Eurisol Eurisol new PS: 50 GeV Optional? new PS: 50 GeV Optional? θ13 CPV? SuperCNGS ? Super SPS 1 TeV SC 200-400M 200-400M Super SPS 1 TeV SC Super SPS 1 TeV SC Super LHC Super LHC Super LHC νFactory νFactory

  39. Key questions for the neutrino programme at CERN • Do the physics motivations of the Superbeam, βbeam and SP+βB programmes suffice to undertake the SPL (possibly + βbeam) path, or is this justified only in the context of a subsequent νFact upgrade? • What if no detector at Frejus is available? • This must be understood clearly before the SPL road is taken, as the νFact option it has impact on the post-LHC programme (compatibility of the νFact with CLIC??) • Does the Eurisol physics motivation and financial opportunity suffice to undertake the construction of the SPL regardless of the answer to the above points?

  40. Personal assessment (M. Mangano) • The physics case for the simple superbeam option does not appear compelling • from the “SPL Physics case” presentation at Villars: • if T2K-I measures non-zero θ13, SB will come in late, and will be in competition with T2K-II • if T2K-I fails, SB will at best detect a non-zero θ13, but will not be in the condition to perform an accurate measurement, or to firmly establish CP violation • the upgrade to a νFact appears unavoidableto justify the start of a neutrino programme based on the SPL (whether or not the βbeam option is available) • In all cases, it is mandatory that an independent physics case be developed, and independent resources be confirmed and allocated, for the construction of the required detector at the Frejus

  41. In view of the physics case, I (M.M) would bypass the superbeam/βbeam phase, and support a plan explicitly aiming at the construction of the νFact (to the extent that this does not jeopardize CLIC) • The injector upgrade should be staged according to the primary needs of the LHC, with a view at a possible future νFact • The compatibility between a βbeam option and an RCS-based injection upgrade should be explored • The ability to assess the feasibility and costs of a νFact by the time similar info is available for CLIC (end ‘09?) would put us in the best position to determine CERN’s future options • The availability of the RCS PS by 201?, in addition to benefiting the SLHC, would open excellent new opportunities for the fixed-target programme

  42. From the Recommendations of the High Intensity Protons WG: In my view this formulation is rather negative as far as the “alternative options” are concerned. A decision “prepared” by “pursuing studies” in one case, and “exploring scenarios” in the other, will prevent a meaningful and fair comparison between all options when the time comes.

  43. Scientific objectives (1) • The following strategic orientations are proposed for CERN activities in 2004-2010: • 1. to keep the utmost priority for the completion of the LHC project, and strive for a start of operations in the summer of 2007 = machine / detectors / LCG • 2. to fulfil commitments previously made by CERN: CNGS, EGEE • 3. after an in-depth risk analysis review, to mitigate the consequences of failure of old equipment that is necessary for reliable LHC operation.

  44. Scientific objectives (2) • 4. in line with the new policy by the European Commission for structuring the European Research Area, by promoting the coordination of laboratories in matters of R&D and new infrastructure (FP6 – CARE programme), to launch in the period 2004-2006 different studies in cooperation with other laboratories.

  45. Scientific objectives (3) • Their primary goal would be: • to develop detailed technical solutions for a future LHC luminosity upgrade to be commissioned around 2012-2015. • Definition of the Linac4 (160 MeV-H-), in relation with the European Programme for a High Intensity Pulsed Proton Injector (HIPPI) • Definition of modifications to the magnets in the interaction regions at two crossing points of the LHC beams, linked with the European programme Next European Dipole (NED), aiming at 15 Tesla • Definition of new trackers for the upgrade of the ATLAS and CMS detectors, to withstand a factor 10 higher luminosity.

  46. Scientific objectives (4) • to contribute, as far as possible, in collaboration with other European laboratories, to solving design issues that are generic to e+e- linear colliders and not specific to any particular design – EUROTEV. • to keep in touch with other design studies launched in Europe, of Eurisol and SIS 100. • Another goal would be: • to define possible new fixed-target experiments, highly praised at another “Cogne” meeting in September 2004.

  47. Scientific objectives (5) • 5. to decide in 2006 on the possible planning and the start of implementation of the Linac 4 and/or any proposed R&D or experiment, depending on the funds available or expected at that time. • 6. to accelerate the tests of feasibility of the CLIC concept, in order to arrive by 2010 at a firm conclusion on its possible use in an e+e- linear collider above l TeV. For this to be possible, cooperation with other European (and non European) laboratories would be needed, with exceptional resources to be committed in 2004 and 2005 (contributions “a la carte” from Member States).

  48. Scientific objectives (6) • 7. in 2009-2010, to review and redefine the strategy for CERN activities in the next decade 2011-2020 in the light of the first results from LHC and of progress and results from the previous actions. The possible choices are presently quite open. The future role of CERN will depend on these choices and their effective funding.

More Related