Higgs at LHC

1. Particle Physics in 2010’s: The High Intensity Opportunities SUSY leptons maybe, maybe not Higgs at LHC quarks F. Cervelli INFN-Pisa

2. Limitations of the Standard Model (1) • Although the standard model is successful as an effective theory that describes quark mixing and CP violation, it does not give answers to more fundamental questions of flavor physics • Why three generations ? • Why hierarchy in the CKM (and not in the PMNS) matrix ? • What is the origin of CP violation?

3. matter no antimatter (BAU) DM H cut-off at ~TeV Limitations of the Standard Model (2) • Cosmic connections • Fine-tuning problem

5. New CP-violating phases and new interactions of quarks and leptons almost inevitable New physics at TeV • Promising hypotheses that predict new elementary particles in the TeV scale (SUSY, extra-dimension, etc.) • More ambitious proposals that incorporate flavor symmetries (and violation) to answer the deeper questions of flavor physics.

7. New physics at TeV New particles must come with New Flavor Mixing. Many models/hypotheses  Experiments should decide

8. No more valid for New Physics ! Our present dogmas from the Standard Model • No right-handed current • No additional CPV phase • Off-diagonal terms in quark mixing strongly suppressed Recall the dramatic breakdown of our old dogma “neutrinos are massless.”

10. squark/slepton mass matrix FCNC Off-diagonal terms Flavor Structure Luminosity/ High Intensity frontier Diagonal terms Mass Spectrum Energy frontier (LHC, LC) MSSM Flavor Physics as an example

11. MSSM: Squark mass matrix (down-type) New particles must come with New Flavor Mixing.

12. The muon trio In SUSY models the slepton mixing matrix links the three processes gm-2 meg meconv mEDM

20. tan(b)=30 tan(b)=1 Experimental limit n-oscillation connection Additional contribution toslepton mixingfrom V21 (the matrix element responsible for solar neutrino deficit) J. Hisano, N. Nomura, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999)116010

21. Neutrino beams (1)

22. Neutrino beams (2)

24. In the SM: ∝ C mt2 λ5 , C=complex, λ=sinθc GIM suppression of light-quark contributions, dominated by high mass scales Why study Rare Kaon Decays 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

25. 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

27. Synergy with LHC • If LHC finds TeV New Physics, • its flavor structure must be examined experimentally. High intensity facilities represent a powerful tool for this purpose. • If LHC finds nothing but SM-like Higgs, • search for deviations from the SM in flavor physics will be one of the best ways to obtain a hint of new physics energy scale.

28. The High Intensity Frontier Search for new quark mixing is currently limited by statistics. Improvements indispensable to uncover the entire flavor structure of new physics.

29. Design Goals • 4-5 MW beam power on target • Very short pulse duration (~1 ns rms) • Very low beam loss (~10-4) • Note: most proton drivers under study are based on synchrotrons (US, JKJ, UK)

30. Megawatt proton drivers : a definition Two main requirements: high beam power very short pulse length on the proton target. Power: E is mean energy of the beam (in eV), I average current, N number of protons per pulse, e is the electron charge (1.602 10-19) f is the frequency of pulses on target. An example : 1MW = 50 GeV x 1.6 10-19 x 1 (Hz) X ~1.3 1014 (p/pulse)

31. PHYTHIA: E = 30 GeV, I = 80 mA BEAM FLUXES: ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE

32. MW Facility • For a MW facility, the provisions for reliability, availability, and maintenability has to be designed in in the beginning. • The radiation shielding, spares, and the maintenance and repair procedure are part of the design thinking

33. Beam Losses and Shielding • Develop realistic analysis of beam losses, collimation, and shielding requirements. • Remote handling should be provided to reduce human exposure and equipment damage.

34. Target / Horn and Neutrino Beam • A 1 MW target/horn system is feasible; however, the 4 MW one needs active R&D for realization. • Current international collaborations include, 1. Material testing at BNL 2. Proposed Hg jet testing at CERN • The target/horn system is integrally connected to the proton driver and physics requirements, hence, close communication among those groups are essential.

35. Targetry Many difficulties: enormous power densitylifetime problems (pion capture) Replace target between bunches: Liquid mercury jet or rotating solid target Stationary target: Proposed rotating tantalum target ring Densham Sievers

36. Critical Areas in the Design of a Proton Driver • The H ion source • The beam chopper, aimed at removing segments of the train of linac bunches at the low energy stage • Injection into the ring • The possibility of an electron cloud (e-p) instability in the ring • Compression to a final 1ns rms bunch duration

37. R&D and Upgrade Paths • R&D items include, ion source, chopper, SRF cavity, target/horn, which should be supported with vigor. • Anticipate possible different operation modes and upgrade paths to minimize cost and interference later.

38. R&D Conclusions • Large laboratories (Cern, Fermilab) should play important role, if not the leading role, in the international collaboration of R&D efforts and encourage participation from their staff, as long as their core missions are not compromised.

39. CERN SPL Model • Stacked accumulator and compressor rings in old ISR tunnel, radius 151m. • H beam from linac cleaned of halo in achromat/transfer line and injected via charge exchange into accumulator

40. Synchrotron-based Proton Drivers • Low energy linac (~150 MeV) • Booster synchrotrons to accumulate proton beam and perform some acceleration • Main synchrotrons to complete acceleration and compress the bunches.

46. High Power Proton Driver in USA

47. Brookhaven AGS Upgrade • Direct injection of ~ 11014 protons via a 1.2 GeV sc linac extension • low beam loss at injection; high repetition rate possible • further upgrade to 1.5 GeV and 2  1014 protons per pulse possible (x 2) • 2.5 Hz AGS repetition rate • triple existing main magnet power supply and magnet current feeds • double rf power and accelerating gradient • further upgrade to 5 Hz possible (x 2)

48. Fermilab Proton Driver8 GeV Synchrotron • Synchrotron technology well understood • Large aperture (100150mm2) magnets • Modern collimation system to limit equipment activation • Provides 0.5 MW beam power at 8 GeV; 1.9 MW at 120 GeV assuming upgrade of Main Injector ramp rate by 30% • Likely less expensive than an 8 GeV linac

49. Fermilab Proton Driver8 GeV Superconducting Linac • Basic concept inspired by the observation that $/GeV for SCRF has fallen dramatically  Consider a solution in which H- beam is accelerated to 8 GeV in a superconducting linac and injected directly into the Main Injector • Attractions of a superconducting linac: • Many components exist (few parts to design vs. new synchrotron) • Copy SNS, RIA, & AccSys Linac up to 1.2 GeV • “TESLA” Cryo modules from 1.2  8 GeV • Smaller emittance than a synchrotron • High beam power simultaneously at 8 & 120 GeV • Plus, high beam power (2 MW) over entire 40-120 GeV range • Flexibility for the future • Issues • Uncontrolled H- stripping • Halo formation and control • Cost

50. Fermilab Proton Driver8 GeV SC Linac Parameters