Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 1 Physics and Detector Studies in Europe 1. Where we’ve been 2. Goals of ECFA Study International Detector.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 1 Physics and Detector Studies in Europe 1. Where we’ve been 2. Goals of ECFA Study International Detector."— Presentation transcript:

1 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 1 Physics and Detector Studies in Europe 1. Where we’ve been 2. Goals of ECFA Study International Detector design etc. Machine Detector Interface Physics Case 3. Conclusions. A couple of examples from Higgs studies The BDIR Group - The MATRIX - The mask - A crossing angle for TESLA? Kalmus report

2 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 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 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 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 ). - to explore ways of co-ordinating and perhaps integrating the regional and worldwide workshop series.

4 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 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 See:- or slides 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 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 5 Kalmus panel

6 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 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 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 7 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“. Goals of the ECFA Study

8 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 8 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. Goals of the ECFA Study

9 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 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 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 10 MATRIX reloaded Identified 30 tasks for the BDIR group, assigned priorities and some names Great Opportunities ! Comment for Mumbai ACFA: Europe cannot do all of these jobs; they‘ll have to be shared. See MATRIX at

11 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 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 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 12 TDR Mask Problems Mask tips are inside the tracking system LAT has a conical surface –Envisaged precision in the luminosity measurement using Bhabha scattering (ΔL/L ≈ ) 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)  Karsten Buesser

13 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 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 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 14 New Mask Design 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)? Karsten Buesser

15 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 15 Crossing angle makes a difference NLC masking (S detector)

16 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 16 NLC Masking

17 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 17 Extraction Line Issues Nick Walker at Montpellier To cross, or not to cross, That is The Question

18 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 18 Spent beam extraction horizontal vertical m m Nick Walker

19 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 19 Beamstrahlung Extraction Nick Walker

20 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 20 Beamstrahlung Extraction Nick Walker

21 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 21 Beamstrahlung Extraction Nick Walker

22 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 22 Beamstrahlung Extraction Nick Walker Indicated power loss is for perfect design beam only!

23 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 23 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? Typical bunch train, fbk on 1 kW Nick Walker

24 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 24 (Large) Crossing Angle Concerns 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 Nick Walker

25 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA  r vertical x-angle solution R. Brinkmann 4m×300  r=1.2mm shines BS away from septum blade and away from incoming 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 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 26 Decision needed on X-angle for cold machine Phone-in meeting at Zeuthen, 19 January organised by Philip Bambade, agenda at 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 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 27 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  Goals of the ECFA Study, continued

28 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 28 I only show a few slides out of a long talk!

29 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 29 Kuhl

30 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 30 Kuhl

31 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 31 Kuhl

32 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 32

33 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 33 Arnaud Gay

34 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 34 Arnaud Gay

35 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 35 Results Arnaud Gay

36 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 36 Arnaud Gay NEW

37 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 37 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. Goals of the ECFA Study

38 David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 38 Conclusions 1.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.


Download ppt "David J. Mumbai 15/12/03 ECFA for ACFA 1 Physics and Detector Studies in Europe 1. Where we’ve been 2. Goals of ECFA Study International Detector."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google