1. S TATUS OF THE P HYSICS A NALYSIS V. Blackmore MICE Project Board 29 th April, 2014 1/30

2. Contents Organisation Analysis ‘philosophy’ Current topics Conclusion of Step I analyses Preparation for Step IV MPB recommendations Summary 2/30

3. Organisation Analyses MICE Collaboration Beamline Simulation Manager J. Pasternak (Imperial) Production Manager […] Configuration Manager R. Bayes (Glasgow) Physics Co-ordinator V. Blackmore (JAI/Oxford) Generation of MC data & reconstruction of data Calibration constants and experimental configurations Derivation of beamline settings for operations 3/30

4. A NALYSIS ‘P HILOSOPHY ’ 4/30

5. Analysis ‘Framework’ A full and definitive exploration of the ionisation cooling equation Proof that we can predict it + proof that we can measure it Depends on material Depends on magnetic latticeDepends on upstream beam line (mostly diffuser) Depends on particle species  backgrounds! + RF, an additional requirement for other facilities, + canonical angular momentum, +... Multiple scattering Ionisation Cooling Measure a change in emittance 5/30

6. C URRENT T OPICS Conclusion of Step I physics analyses Preparation for Step IV 6/30

7. Step I Analyses Step I results published in EPJC (October 2013) Step I results published Identified discrepancy in dispersion between positive beam line simulation and data Simulation of upstream beam line uses G4Beamline Resolved with precise modelling of beam line Characterised beams are a valuable resource for Step IV analyses Implementation of a “realistic beam library” as input to MAUS simulations J. Nugent, V. Blackmore 7/30

8. Step I Analyses: EMR Commissioning Clear distinction between particle types over full momentum range Identified by range in EMR and deposited charge EMR implemented in MAUS Publication in progress Muons Pions Electrons R. Asfandiyarov, F. Drielsma 8/30 Total Deposited ChargeRange measurement Preliminary

9. Step I Analysis: Pion Contamination Identify proportions of pions in muon beams using time-of- flight and charge deposited in the KL Required implementation of KL detector in MAUS (completed) Publication drafted and nearing conclusion J. Nugent, D. Orestano Preliminary Arbitrary Units KL ADC product count 9/30

10. S TEP IV A NALYSES 10/30

11. MICE Step IV Liquid hydrogen SS1SS2FC CKOVs EMR TOF0TOF1TOF2KL Diffuser Tracker planes 7.5—8m One absorber No RF, no restoration of longitudinal momentum Aim: Demonstrate ionisation cooling without re-acceleration 11/30

12. Field Mapping Field increased by shielding plate Field decreased by shielding plate Example plot from field mapping of the upstream Spectrometer Solenoid with and without the iron shielding plate 12/30 To tracker and cooling channel V. Blackmore, M. Leonova

13. De-rating Step IV T. Carlisle Absorber centre 4.8% 13/30

14. (3, 140)(3, 200)(3, 240) (6, 140)(6, 200)(6, 240) (10, 140)(10, 200)(10, 240) (3, 140)(3, 200)(3, 240) (6, 140)(6, 200)(6, 240) (10, 140)(10, 200)(10, 240) De-rating Step IV C. Rogers (3, 140)(3, 200)(3, 240) (6, 140)(6, 200)(6, 240) (10, 140)(10, 200)(10, 240) (3, 140)(3, 200)(3, 240) (6, 140)(6, 200)(6, 240) (10, 140)(10, 200)(10, 240) “Baseline” matrix element 14/30 Focus Coil: 188 AFocus Coil: 165 A

15. De-rating Step IV 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 4 3 2 1 0 -2 -3 -4 15a/30 V. Blackmore

16. De-rating Step IV 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 4 3 2 1 0 -2 -3 -4 15b/30 V. Blackmore

17. De-rating Step IV 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 4 3 2 1 0 -2 -3 -4 15c/30 V. Blackmore

18. De-rating Step IV 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 4 3 2 1 0 -2 -3 -4 15d/30 V. Blackmore

19. De-rating Step IV 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 6.2 6 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5 Approx. 5% emittance reduction 16a/30 V. Blackmore

20. De-rating Step IV 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 6.2 6 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5 Approx. 5% emittance reduction Next, de-rate focus coil only (188A  165A) 16b/30 V. Blackmore

21. De-rating Step IV 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 6.2 6 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5 16c/30 V. Blackmore

22. De-rating Step IV 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 6.2 6 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5 16d/30 V. Blackmore

23. De-rating Step IV Upstream SS (& tracker) Downstream SS (& tracker) AFC Step IV simulated geometry with (annotated) approximate positions of first and last tracker planes in the upstream and downstream Spectrometer Solenoids. J. Pasternak, J-B. Lagrange, C. Hunt 17/30

24. De-rating Step IV Preliminary The following analysis is in progress, and all plots are highly preliminary. J. Pasternak, J-B. Lagrange, C. Hunt 18/30

25. De-rating Step IV 5% Preliminary Tracker reference planes J. Pasternak, J-B. Lagrange, C. Hunt 19/30

26. De-rating Step IV 17% Diffuser V. Blackmore 20/30

27. R ECOMMENDATIONS Consider the impact of a pessimistic long-term funding scenario that requires MICE operations to cease at Step IV or V. Identify the maximum scientific achievements that could be made in Step IV, in comparison to Step VI. Following the good work done on establishing the criteria for the successful conclusion of Step IV, the project now needs to focus on looking at how to decide for Step V versus Step VI as it no longer looks like going to V and then VI sequentially is the most optimum option (this is not critical at this point but that decision point and the science trade-offs needs to be continually borne in mind by the project and the funding agencies) 21/30

28. R ECOMMENDATIONS 1. Consider the impact of a pessimistic long-term funding scenario that requires MICE operations to cease at Step IV or V. 2. Identify the maximum scientific achievements that could be made in Step IV, in comparison to Step VI. 3. Following the good work done on establishing the criteria for the successful conclusion of Step IV, the project now needs to focus on looking at how to decide for Step V versus Step VI as it no longer looks like going to V and then VI sequentially is the most optimum option (this is not critical at this point but that decision point and the science trade-offs needs to be continually borne in mind by the project and the funding agencies) 22/30

29. MICE Steps Step V Step VI RFCC Step IV 23/30

30. The MICE Physics Program StepResultTypeDependencies IV1. First demonstration of ionisation coolingEssential-- 2. Measurement of ionisation cooling with LH2 and LiH absorbers Core1. 3. Initial study of factors affecting performance of ionisation cooling lattices Optimal1, 2 4. Initial study of emittance exchange in an ionisation cooling lattice Optimal1, 2 V5. First demonstration of ionisation cooling with re-acceleration Essential1 6. Measurement of transverse emittance reduction and longitudinal emittance preservation in an ionisation cooling lattice Core1, 2 7. Study of factors affecting the performance of ionisation cooling lattices Core1, 2, (3) 8. Management of canonical angular momentum in an ionisation cooling lattice Optimal1, (3), 5, (6, 7) VI9. Detailed study of the optics of ionisation cooling lattices Core1, 2, (3), 5, (6, 7, 8, 9) Definition of terms: Essential: This result must be measured for MICE to achieve its goals. It cannot be delayed until a later Step. Core: A critical result that could be delayed until a later Step given careful planning. Optimal: An important result that could be better explored in a later Step. 24/30

31. StepResultTypeDependencies IV1. First demonstration of ionisation coolingEssential-- 2. Measurement of ionisation cooling with LH2 and LiH absorbers Core1. 3. Initial study of factors affecting performance of ionisation cooling lattices Optimal1, 2 4. Initial study of emittance exchange in an ionisation cooling lattice Optimal1, 2 V*5. First demonstration of ionisation cooling with re-acceleration Essential1 6. Measurement of transverse emittance reduction and longitudinal emittance preservation in an ionisation cooling lattice Core1, 2 7. Study of factors affecting the performance of ionisation cooling lattices Core1, 2, (3) 8. Management of canonical angular momentum in an ionisation cooling lattice Optimal1, (3), 5, (6, 7) VI9. Detailed study of the optics of ionisation cooling lattices Core1, 2, (3), (6, 7, 9) Definition of terms: Essential: This result must be measured for MICE to achieve its goals. It cannot be delayed until a later Step. Core: A critical result that could be delayed until a later Step given careful planning. Optimal: An important result that could be better explored in a later Step. The MICE Physics Program 25/30

32. R ECOMMENDATIONS 1. Consider the impact of a pessimistic long-term funding scenario that requires MICE operations to cease at Step IV or V. 2. Identify the maximum scientific achievements that could be made in Step IV, in comparison to Step VI. 3. Following the good work done on establishing the criteria for the successful conclusion of Step IV, the project now needs to focus on looking at how to decide for Step V versus Step VI as it no longer looks like going to V and then VI sequentially is the most optimum option (this is not critical at this point but that decision point and the science trade-offs needs to be continually borne in mind by the project and the funding agencies) 26/30

33. Step V or Step VI? StepResultTypeDependencies IV1. First demonstration of ionisation coolingEssential-- 2. Measurement of ionisation cooling with LH2 and LiH absorbers Core1. 3. Initial study of factors affecting performance of ionisation cooling lattices Optimal1, 2 4. Initial study of emittance exchange in an ionisation cooling lattice Optimal1, 2 V*5. First demonstration of ionisation cooling with re-acceleration Essential1 6. Measurement of transverse emittance reduction and longitudinal emittance preservation in an ionisation cooling lattice Core1, 2 7. Study of factors affecting the performance of ionisation cooling lattices Core1, 2, (3) 8. Management of canonical angular momentum in an ionisation cooling lattice Optimal1, (3), 5, (6, 7) VI9. Detailed study of the optics of ionisation cooling lattices Core1, 2, (3), (6, 7, 9) Both Step V and Step VI demonstration ionisation cooling with reacceleration. Step V: 1 RFCC module 2 absorbers ½ lattice 0—2 field flips Step VI: 2 RFCC modules 3 absorbers Full lattice 0—3 field flips 27/30

34. Step V or Step VI? Both Step V and Step VI demonstration ionisation cooling with reacceleration. Step V: 1 RFCC module 2 absorbers ½ lattice 0—2 field flips Step VI: 2 RFCC modules 3 absorbers Full lattice 0—3 field flips StepFlipsAbsorbersRF IV110~5% V221~10% VI332~15% Depends on material Depends on magnetic lattice Pick the Step that exploits these parameters best. + Canonical angular momentum (field flips) + Stabilisation of longitudinal phase space 28/30

35. S UMMARY 29/30

36. Summary Step I physics analyses drawing to a close Provides useful input to Step IV analyses Use data to tune beam line for Step IV Step IV analyses in progress Field mapping of magnets Alignment & systematic error studies in progress Other analyses planned/beginning, exploiting “cooling formula” framework De-rated Step IV analyses progressing Could use FC1 in Step IV Requires understanding the reconstructed emittance Next steps: Compare with “ideal” FC, improve matching to lattice, use ‘measured’ Step I beam Step V/VI question approached via simulation and linear optics Mantra: Simulate twice, measure once. 30/30