1. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi1 ITEP Meeting on the future of heavy flavour physics July 24-25,2006 Marcello A. Giorgi Università di Pisa and INFN Pisa SuperB Flavor Factory

2. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi2 Outline So far… Status of SuperB activity Status of Machine Effort

3. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi3 SuperB International Study Group THE GROUP IS OPEN TO CONTRIBUTORS AND PARTICIPANTS !! Goals of SuperB International Study Group : Study the physics case, machine and detector for a Super Flavor Factory with a luminosity higher than 10 36, to study physics in b, c and  sectors. Prepare by the beginning of 2007 a Report “CDR” to be delivered to the President of INFN, it will be submitted to an International Review Committee and presented to the International Community. Events: 3 Workshops: LNF (November 2005 and March 2006), SLAC (June 2006) UK meeting on SuperB in Daresbury 26-26 April Round table in Elba on Future Machines 23 May : presentation of Suzuki containing SuperKEKB possibilty (4 10 35 and 40-50 ab-1 by 2020) INFN President R.Petronzio presented SuperB as one of priorities of INFN

4. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi4 On physics case On the physics case many documents are available they are the result of three years of Physics workshops in Slac,in KEK and Joint meetings in Hawaii. Three years of Physics Workshops have produced heavy documents. See for example: The Discovery Potential of a Super B Factory (Slac-R- 709) Letter of Intent for KEK Super B Factory ( KEK Report 2004-4 ) Physics at Super B Factory ( hep-ex/0406071 ) At the URL : www.pi.infn.it/SuperB you can find documents and links to documents

5. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi5 On physics case The physics case for a Super Flavour Factory is solid if : See The sample of data available in a few years of running would be bigger than 50 ab -1 and approaching 100 ab -1 (10 11 B Bbar, tau and charm pairs). The running period is overlapped to LHC. (Results from Super Flavour Factory and LHC are largely complementary).

6. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi6 On physics case.. This issue has been widely presented and discussed in Topical Conferences (as DIF06 in Frascati, 28/2/2006- 3/3/2006) and in workshops as the CERN series Flavour Physics in the era of LHC (So far 3 workshops : Nov 2006, Feb 2006 and May 2006) The May workshop included a special session devoted to High intensity, High luminosity flavour experiments and a round table chaired by I.Bigi to compare expected performance and physics expectation from SuperB, SuperKEKB and LHCb..

7. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi7 On physics case The physics case is continuing to be refined with the solid contribution of theorists. An ad-hoc subgroup was set up to study the physics reach on  and charm and the possible impact on the machine and detector design of the possibility of one polarized beam and special runs at low cms Energies ( 4.0 and 5.0 GeV) still with a luminosity higher than 10 35 cm -2 s -1. Contiguous to the 4 th SuperB workshop to be held Nov 16-18 2006 in Rome, a theory meeting is also planned for an updated physics assessment. On this subject today I will only show few vignettes

8. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi8 UNIVERSAL UT fit with 50 ab -1 Universal fit makes only use of quantities independent of NP contributions within MFV

9. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi9 b  sl + l - precision measurements New Physics – K (*) l + l -, s l + l - e + e - Precision MeasurementGoal3/ab10/ab50/ab100/ab B (B  K      / B (B  Ke + e - ) SM: 1~8%~4%~2%~1.5% A CP (B  K* l + l - ) (all) (high mass) SM: < 0.05% ~6% ~12% ~3% ~6% ~1.5% ~3% ~1.1% ~2% A FB (B  K*l + l - ) : ŝ 0 SM: ±5%~20%~9%9% A FB (B  sl + l - ) : ŝ 0 27%15%6.7%5.0% A FB (B  sl + l - ) : C 9, C 10 36-55%20-30%9-13%7-10%

10. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi10 Extrapolation at high Lumi

11. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi11 Rare Decays MEASUREMENT Goal3/ab10/ab50/ab100/ab B( B  D*  ) SM: B : 8x10 -3 10.2%5.6%2.5% B( B  s )K,K* SM:Theory ~5% 1 excl: 4x10 -6 ~1 s >3 s >4 s >5 s B( B  invisible) <2x10 -6 <1x10 -6 <4x10 -7 <2.5x10 -7 B( B d  mm ) ~8x10 -11 <3x10 -8 <1.6x10 -8 <7x10 -9 <5x10 -9 B( B d  tt ) ~1x10 -8 <1x10 -3 O(10 -4 ) ?? B(t  mg ) now< 6.8 10 -8 <3.410 -9 B(t  m Ks) now < 5.10 -8 <1.2510 -10

12. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi12 Report on SuperB Accelerator Effort SuperB Contributors (Accelerator): BINP: Koop, Levichev, Shatilov KEKB:Ohmi LNF: Biagini, Raimondi, Zobov Pisa: M.G., Paoloni SLAC: Novokhatski, Seeman, Seryi, Sullivan, Wienands

13. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi13 A Comment! SuperB is commonly named “Linearly colliding Super B Factory” to avoid confusion and misinterpretation: SuperB is not a linear collider. It is instead a machine that is based on several concepts of linear collider as: Damping rings to get very low emittance, the final focus as in linear collider and in general the characteristics of very small size of the bunches for the high luminosity.

14. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi14 SuperB effort Strong interest of SLAC PEP-II staff to collaborate and possibly contribute with hardware (PEP-II magnets, vacuum pumps, power supplies, RF) Interest from other major Laboratories (SLAC, KEK, BINP) to collaborate on proof-of-principle simulations Before the IV SuperB Workshop in Rome (16-18 November 2006) there will be at the end of september 2006 an “Accelerator only” retreat week.

15. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi15 Summary from Oide’s talk at 2005 2 nd Hawaii SuperBF Workshop Present design of SuperKEKB hits fundamental limits in the beam-beam effect and the bunch length (HOM & CSR) Higher current is the only way to increase the luminosity Many technical and cost issues are expected with a new RF system We need a completely different collider scheme.....

16. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi16 Issues HIGH CURRENT and HIGH BACKGROUND IS AN ISSUE FOR : DETECTOR DESIGN WALL POWER NEEDED

17. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi17 ILC rings & ILC FF Simplified SuperB layout Crossing angle = 2*25 mrad

18. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi18 Present parameter set based on ILCDR-like parameters: Same DR emittances Same DR bunch length 1.5 times DR bunch charges PEP-KEK DR damping time Same ILC-IP betas Crossing angle and “crab waist” to minimize bb blowup Machine parameters

19. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi19 High luminosity requires: - short bunches - small vertical emittance - large horizontal size and emittance to mimimize beam-beam For a ring: -easy to achieve small horizontal emittance and horizontal size -Hard to make short bunches Crossing angle swaps X with Z, so the high luminosity requirements are naturally met: Luminosity goes with 1/  x and is weakly dependent by  z REQUIREMENTS

20. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi20 Crossing angle concepts With large crossing angle X and Z quantities are swapped: Very important!!! Both cases have the same luminosity, but (2) has longer bunch and smaller  x 1) Standard short bunches 2) Crossing angle zz xx Overlapping region xx zz Overlapping region

21. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi21 Vertical waist has to be a function of x: Z=0 for particles at –  x (-  x /2  at low current) Z=  x /  for particles at +  x (  x /2  at low current) Crabbed waist realized with a sextupole in phase with the IP in X and at  /2 in Y “Crab waist” removes beam-beam betratron coupling Introduced by the crossing angle “Crab waist” (P. Raimondi) 2z2z x 2x2x 2x/2x/ 2z*2z* YY  z e- e+

22. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi22 Crab waist properties Large Piwinski's (not only crossing) angle:  P =  *  z /  x Low  y comparable with the 'overlap area' Low  x and long bunch length Crab focus eliminates the betatron resonances introduced by the Piwinski's angle Synchrotron resonances are not suppressed but damped horizontally Partial compensation of the hourglass effect due to the  y shift along the 'overlap' area.  y is shifted not only with x, but also along the longitudinal axis For a fixed longitudinal position,  y does not depend on the horizontal motion anymore ! No vertical modulation due to the horizontal oscillations !

23. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi23 Crab-waist simulations The new idea is being checked by several beam-beam codes: –Guinea-Pig: strong-strong, ILC centered –BBC (Hirata): weak-strong –Lifetrack (Shatilov): weak-strong with tails growths calculation –Ohmi: weak-strong (strong-strong to be modified for long bunches and large angles) Storage rings

24. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi24 Collisions with uncompressed beams Crossing angle = 2*25 mrad Relative Emittance growth per collision:  yout /  yin =1. 5x10 -3 Horizontal PlaneVertical Plane BB simulations with ILC code

25. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi25 Ohmi’s weak-strong code K2 is the strength of the sextupolar nonlinearity introduced to have crab waist Luminosity Vertical blow-up

26. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi26 Conclusions on bb simulations The “crossing angle with crab waist” scheme has shown big potentiality and exciting results  LNF, Pisa, BINP and KEKB physicists are working on bb simulations with different codes to find the best set of parameters This scheme is promising also for increasing luminosity at existing factories, as DA  NE, KEKB and possibly PEP-II Crab waist scheme is planned to be tested in 2007 in DA  NE

27. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi27 SuperB ILC-like rings ILC OCS (Baseline) lattice used Scaled to 4 and 7 GeV 3.0 Km long rings studied Lattice symmetry respected Fewer and lower field wigglers used (pm ) Preliminary Final Focus (ILC-like) included Design based on recycling all PEP hardware, Bends, Quads and Sexts, and RF system Maximize Luminosity keeping low DE and wall power.

28. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi28 O 1.0Km O 0.7Km Possible site: Tor Vergata campus Ring circumference: 3. to 2.2 Km

29. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi29 Ring Parameters Energy (GeV)47 C (m)2985 B w (T)1.41. L bend (m)2.111.2 N. bends96 B bend (T)0.4390.144 Uo (MeV/turn)2.34.1 N. wigg. cells44  x (ms) 3434.  s (ms) 17  x (nm) 0.700.73 EE 1.0x10 -3 1.1x10 -3 I beam (A)3.01.73 P beam (MW)6.97.1 P wall (MW) (50% eff) x2 rings 28.0 Sigx*  m 2.67 Sigy nm16.1 Betx mm9.0 Bety mm0.130 Sigz mm6.0 Sige_Lum MeV8.3 Emix nm0.8 Emiy nm0.002 Emiz  m 13.2 Cross_angle mrad2*15 Sigz_DR mm6.0 Sige_DR1.1e-3 Np 10e103.0 Nbunches4741 DR_length km3.0  s msec 17 Collision freq MHz476 L geometric 1e361.2 L multiturn 1e361.0

30. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi30 M. Zobov, D. Shatilov 10 36 Upgradeable

31. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi31 EXERCISE 1 :4x7 GeV rings with PEP-II dipoles & quadrupoles in a 3.0Km ring

32. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi32 SuperB-ILC synergy Potential size and cost reduction of the ILC complex Potential decrease of the ILC commissioning time Potential increase of the ILC performances Could the ILC community benefit by having an operating positron DR just 3 Km long delivering 4741 bunches with 3x10 10 particles/bunch? Could the ILC community benefit by having an operating Beam Delivery System with ILC-IP beams sizes and betas?

33. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi33 Conclusions on machine Solution with ILC DR + ILC FF seems extremely promising Uses all the work done for ILC (DR and FF)  100% synergy with ILC Beam Currents around 3.0/1.7 A, and backgrounds should be better than PEP and KEKB Possibly to operate at the  energy with L=10 35 Needs the standard injector system, probably a C-band 7GeV linac like in KEKB upgrade Possibility to simultaneously boost the performances of the existing machines and do SuperB R&D.

34. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi34 Beam Pipe Radius and Detector Issues Small beam pipe radius possible because of small beam size –Studied impact of boost on vertex separation (B   ) –Rest of tracking is Babar –Beam pipe needs to be cooled.Study is in progress to keep total thickness low in the order of % of  rad Separation significance Proper time difference resolution 7+4GeV Boost  =.28 Instead of 0.56

35. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi35 Pipe Inner Radius 1 cm “Uniform” water gap (8 flat channels) Single channel area = 2.35 mm 2 Channel width = 300  m Flow: 4.2 m/s (OK) To dissipate 1KW with water specific heat and thermal conductivity Requires channel 1-side coating to prevent erosion (7  m Ni or BerylcoatD) Possibly a Peek (plastic) jacket

36. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi36 Detector comments Background should be lower than in Babar. Occupancy would be OK in Vertex Detector even with a smaller radius beam pipe. (from 3cm of Babar down to 1.cm). Simulations are currently run for interaction region and Bgkd. Apparatus would be more hermetic than Babar and Belle (7+4 GeV). Detectors don’t require a major R&D PID would be needed also in forward/backward direction. By reducing Lorentz boost higher resolution vertex is needed (MAPS?) R&D on EMC (Babar Caltech..) R&D on PID (Babar: Slac) (Belle :KeK,Lubijana x5 scale with 10mm radius BP, 6mm pixel chip R&D on Maps within Belle (Hawaii group)and Babar (Pisa+Slac) Two monolithic active pixel layers glued on beam pipe Since active region is only ~10  m, silicon can be thinned down to ~50  m.Good resolution O(5  m). Improves pattern recognition robustness and safety against background

37. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi37 MAPS R&D SLIM chip (Babar collabor.) PRESHAPERDISCLATCH  =105 mV  =12 mV Landau peak 80 mV saturation due to low energy particle. 125022003000 (e-) 1640 threshold 90 Sr electrons Noise only (no source) 55 Fe X-rays Charge sharing ST 0.13um triple well technology Single pixels tested with source Full signal processing chain

38. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi38 FINAL Conclusion Either BaBar or Belle can be reused in SuperB with a moderate upgrade. Trigger and DAQ must be updated.

39. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi39 BACKUP

40. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi40 SuperB-Factories Parameters before SuperB activity (may05)

41. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi SuperKEKB (K. Ohmi) SuperKEK B Crab waist xx 9.x10 -9 6. x10 -9 yy 4.5x10 -11 6. x10 -11  x (mm) 2001005010050  y (mm) 310.51  z (mm) 36644 s 0.0250.01 NeNe 5.5x10 10 3.5 x10 10 NpNp 1.26x10 11 1.27x10 11 8. x10 10  /2 (mrad) 015 xx 0.3970.04180.0220.05470.0298 yy 0.794- >0.24 0.19850.1790.1780.154 Lum (W.S.) 8.x10 35 6.7x10 35 1. x10 36 3.95 x10 35 4.8 x10 35 Lum (S.S.) 8.25x10 35 4.77 x10 3 5 9 x10 35 3.94 x10 35 4.27 x10 35

42. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi42 Flange detail O-ring insertion F.Raffaelli + = Be wall Outer peek wall Hybrid Cooling Chamber

43. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi43 Gold foil 4 um0.121 % X0 Berillium 300 um0.142 % X0 Peek layer 500 um0.330 % X0 Water 300 um0.083 % X0 Ni coating 7 um0.050 % X0 Total 0.726 % X0 Power dissipation1 KW T Inlet8 C T MAX raise3 C Water speed< 5m/s Negative pressure

44. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi44 EXERCISE 2 : 7 GeV ring, 2.2 Km as PEPII

45. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi45

46. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi46

47. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi47

48. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi48 Nominal damping 2.5 times longer 5 times longer N = 2.5 x 10 10 A x x A y = 15  x x 20  y N = 5.0 x 10 10 A x x A y = 25  x x 80  y

49. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi49 SuperSuperB with ILC Damping Ring Parameters Working Point (0.53,0.57); N b = 7.5 x10 10 ; 6000 Bunches D.N.Shatilov, M.ZobovL = 1.22 x 10 37 cm -2 s -1 0.6/  0.8/  1.0/ 

50. ITEP Meeting 07.25,2006 Moscow Marcello A Giorgi50 Detector Issues As the present parameters for 10 36 machine show a running condition not substantially different from the present PEPII/BaBar. One of the present detectors running at BFactories (BaBar or Belle) could be used as is without major modifications (Trigger,DaQ…). However, mainly due to the reduced asymmetry (7x4 GeV) in the present parameter choice of SuperB a new beam pipe with a small radius and an improved SVT are needed. An improvement in Detector acceptance and in PID performance are welcome. Detector Effort under coordination of F.Forti and A. Roodman, is currently carried mainly from Caltech,Pisa and Slac.