- Slides: 67
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. ” 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?
• • 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/n. TOF, future Eurisol-like activities
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. . .
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
• • • 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. e. RHIC with similar kinematics, but not before 2015. • Recommendation: No rush. Inclusive PDFs: improve accuracy of old CERN experiments. • Not obvious that this will contribute to LHC (timescale not adequate to have an impact) • Timescale: > 2010
Chiral perturbation theory (π, K beams): 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 theory possible • • • 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 , Ke 4 (Cabibbo, ‘ 04) (NA 48/2): new technique, potential for measurements as accurate (more? ), as DIRAC’s.
Renaissance of hadron spectroscopy • • • Quarkonium: • ηc’ (Belle, CLEO, Babar) • X(3872) (Belle, CDF, D 0, Babar) Narrow charmed states: • Ds. J(Babar, CLEO, Belle) (parity partners of Ds(*) ) • D+s. J(2632) → η Ds+ (Selex) (? ? Tetraquark ? ? ) • Ξcc (Selex) (τ∼ 30 fs, predicted ∼ 400 fs!) Pentaquark candidates: • Θ+(1540) (Chiral soliton model prediction (Polyakov talk); diquarks; prod properties? ) • Ξ--(1862) (NA 49, Ξ-π-) • Θ+c(3100) (H 1, D*− p)
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(D 0 m+m-)<2. 4 10 -6 @ 90% C. L. (65 pb-1 data) Hera –B Br(D 0 m+m-)<2 10 -6 @ 90% C. L CDF and D 0 can trigger on dimuons promising Next future: CLEO-c sensitivity 106 Next to Next future BTe. V
Diquarks 3 x 3=6+3 Jaffe, Wilczek ⇒ qq in the antisymmetric colour state is attractive Energy favours spin=0 state (Cooper pairs), and Pauli requires antisymmetric flavour (⇒I=0 for SU(2), 3 F for SU(3)) [qq] = qq pair in the fully antisymmetric state [q q] = Cooper pairs at the Fermi surface of dense, large systems (n-stars? ) [q q] = tetraquarks: scalar nonet? Selex Ds(2632) → Ds+ η ? [q q] q = (10⊕ 8 flavour, JP=1/2+) Maiani et al Evidence for diquarks from LEP. The ud pair in the Λ 0 is in a [qq] state, contrary to the case of the Σ ⇒ Λ 0 production favoured
Physics program at the High Energy Storage Ring (HESR) J/ spectroscopy confinement glueballs (ggg) hybrids (ccg) strange and charmed baryons in nuclear field inverted deeply virtual Compton scattering hidden and open charm in nuclei fundamental symmetries: p in traps (FLAIR) CP-violation (D/ - sector)
Statistics is relevant! Although statistics might be a not sufficient condition, it is certainly necessary! PS 1013 p/sec @ 26 Ge. V/c SIS 100/300 1013 p/sec @29 Ge. V/c NEW PS 6 x 1014 p/sec @ 30 Ge. V/c
Future Muon Dipole Moment Measurements • at a high intensity muon source
SUSY connection between Dμ , μ → e (LFV)
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
Required m Fluxes
Summary on muons Ø Ø Ø Both g-2 and m. EDM are sensitive to new physics behind the corner Unique opportunity of studying phases of mixing matrix for SUSY particles Historically, limits on d. E have been strong tests for new physics models m. EDM would be the first tight limit on d. E from a second generation particle The experiments are hard but, in particular the m. EDM, not impossible A large muon polarized flux of energy 3 Ge. V (g-2) or 0. 5 Ge. V (m. EDM) is required
K decays Strangeness ⇒ SU(3) K εK ⇒ CP violation • • 0 0 K − K mixing/ FCNC ⇒ GIM, charm More: ε’/ε, CKM parameters, CPT tests (m(K) vs m(Kbar)), etc. − 10÷-11 New frontier: very rare decays, O(10 )
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
Guiding rationale In the SM: ∝ C mt 2 λ 5 , C=complex, λ=sinθc GIM suppression of light-quark contributions, dominated by high mass scales In Supersymmetry (similar examples in other BSMs): ∼ ∼ ∼∼ ∼ χ ∝ f(Δm∼q 2, λa ), a≥ 1 Sensitive to whether GIM suppression operates in the scalar quark sector: tests of scalar quark mixings and mass differences
A measurement of the 4 decay modes + + K →π νν 0 0 + − K L→π e e 0 0 K L→π νν 0 0 + − K L→π μ μ 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
0 K L →p 0 e + e - and 0 K L →p m m 0 + - Study Direct CP-Violation • Indirect CP-Violating Contribution has been measured (NA 48/1, see next slide) • Constructive Interference (theory) • CP-Conserving Contributions are negligible Direct CPV Indirect CPV CPC 0++, 2++
K 0 L→p 0 ee (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
K 0 L → p 0 n 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 KTe. V using p 0→eeg decay BR(K 0 → p 0 nn) < 5. 9 × 10 -7 90% CL Still far from the model independent limit: BR(K 0 → p 0 nn) < 4. 4 × BR(K+ → p+nn) ~ 1. 4 × 10 -9 Grossman & Nir, PL B 407 (1997)
Experimental landscape • E 949 at BNL: stopped 2 K+→π+νν • Terminated by D 0 E after 12 weeks or run • CKM at FNAL: in flight K+→π+νν • “Deprioritized” by P 5 after PAC approval • K 0 PI 0 K 0 L→π0νν, at BNL AGS • Late stage of R&D, $30 M in ‘ 05 President’s budget • >40 events, S/B=2/1 • P 940, K+→π+νν, modified CKM based on KTe. V. • Proposal to PAC ‘ 05, Data taking at t=“Fundingapproval + 1 yr” • 100 events /2 FNAL yrs
• E 391 a at KEK, K 0 L→π0νν • First run ‘ 04, more data in ‘ 05. Sensitivity 10 -10 , below signal 0 0 • L-05 at JPARC, K L→π νν • Proposal to PAC ‘ 05, beam available Spring ‘ 08 • 100 events/3 yrs • L-04 at JPARC, K+L→π+νν • + + NA 48/3 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 NA 48/4 -5: K 0→π0 ll, π0νν, sensitivity dep on integrated Lum
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
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 e. V Majorana nature favoured theoretically (implications for 0ν 2 e β -decay): v v H • m=v 2/Λ v=O(100 Ge. V) Λ=O(MGUT) H 1/Λ ν ν 2 relative masses, one absolute mass scale, 3 mixing angles, 1 CKM phase δ, 2 relative phases if Majorana |Δm 223| Δm 212 ∼ 2. 6 x 10 -3 ~7 x 10 -5 m 1 ? sin 2θ 12 sin 2θ 23 sin 2θ 13 δi 0. 2 -0. 4 0. 3 -0. 7 ? <0. 05
Straightforward theoretical interpretation: entries of a 3 x 3 matrix Clear criteria driving the experimental design/optimization: source 2 P(νi→νj) = S x sin(Δm E / L) beam purity, Source power, backgrounds detector Volume location 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?
Layout (CDR 1)
Benefits of the SPL Replacement of the (40 years old !) 1. 4 Ge. V PSB by a 2. 2 Ge. V SPL ß J Radio-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 11 raised to 4 10 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
What about High Power Beams? High power beams: what for? t. Improve LHC beam (yet to be seen) t. High flux of POT for hadron physics t. Feed n-factory Main Ring Cycle
Consequences • Potential of 4 MW - 30 Ge. V RCS: – Driver for kaon physics If sharing the same target ! – Driver for n physics – Upgraded proton injector for LHC – Upgraded proton injector for a higher With adequate choice of RF energy synchrotron (SPS or super-SPS) • Limitation of 4 MW – 30 Ge. V 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 ?
CERN: b-beam baseline scenario Nuclear Physics SPL Decay ring Brho = 1500 Tm B=5 T Decay ISOL target & Ion source SPS ECR Cyclotrons, linac or FFAG Rapid cycling synchrotron PS Ring Lss = 2500 m
Long term: preliminary comparison INTEREST FOR Radioactive ion beams (EURISOL) Others ** LHC upgrade Neutrino physics beyond CNGS SPL * (>2 Ge. V – 50 Hz) Valuable Very interesting for super-beam + betabeam Ideal Spare flux Þ possibility to serve more users RCS (30 Ge. V – 8 Hz) Valuable Very interesting for neutrino factory No Valuable New PS (30 Ge. V) Valuable No No Valuable New LHC injector (1 Te. V) Very interesting for doubling the LHC energy No Potential interest for kaon physics No * Comparison should also be made with an RCS of similar characteristics. ** Input expected from the present workshop !
RCS PS Booster: ? ? M 1. 4→ 2. 2 Ge. V, 0. 01→ 4 MW RCS PS: ? ? M X M ? Precise BRs for rare K decays (up to 3 exp’s) Super. Compass (GPD, high rate charm physics and exotic spectroscopy, etc. ) ν to Frejus Super. CNGS ? θ 13 CPV? 1 Te. V SC 200 -400 M 1. 4→ 2. 2 Ge. V, 0. 01→ 4 MW 520 M βBeam 26→ 50 Ge. V, 0. 1→ 4 MW Super SPS SPL: NA 48/4: first attempt at K 0→π0νν 500 M Eurisol new PS: 50 Ge. V Optional? 200 -400 M Super SPS Te. V SC SC 11 Te. V Super LHC νFactory
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?
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 T 2 K-I measures non-zero θ 13, SB will come in late, and will be in competition with T 2 K-II if T 2 K-I fails, SB will at best detect a non-zero θ 13, but will not be in the condition to perform an accurate measurement, or to firmly establish CP violation the upgrade to a νFact appears unavoidable to 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
• 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
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.
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.
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 (FP 6 – CARE programme), to launch in the period 2004 -2006 different studies in cooperation with other laboratories.
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 Linac 4 (160 Me. V-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.
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.
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 Te. V. 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).
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.
BEAM ENERGY, BEAM CURENT, AND BEAM POWER OF WORLD’S PROTON MACHINES HIPS Current (m. A) JHF
n beams parameters
Sensitivity to q 13
Present EDM Limits Particle Present EDM limit (e-cm) n future exp *projected 10 -24 to 10 -25 SM value (e-cm)
aμ is sensitive to all virtual particles which couple to the muon, e. g. SUSY a toy model with equal susy masses gives: If SUSY is discovered at LHC, then (g-2) will give a 20% determination of tan β
W. G. : di cosa si è occupato. . . • Fisica ‘non LHC physics’ @ era LHC • Frontiera alta intensita’ vs frontiera ad alta energia • Formulazione di Physics Case • Necessita’ di nuove macchine, utilizzo delle esistenti facility e loro upgrade, competitivita’ mondiale (JParc, GSI, Fermilab Proton Driver), ruolo del CERN. . • Fisica dei kaoni • Fisica adronica • Fisica dei muoni • Fisica dei neutrini
• Scopi (oltre la discussione scientifica !!): –Contributo al Meeting di Villars (SPSC). –Fornire raccomandazioni al Gruppo I –Scrittura di un libro bianco ( Physics Report) Composizione WG riflette le relative competenze e attinge alle diverse CSN INFN (teorici inclusi!)
HIF Working Group D. Bettoni S. Malvezzi F. Bossi M. Mezzetto G. Catanesi F. Cervelli A. Ceccucci R. Mussa P. Migliozzi M. Ripani M. Dell’Orso F. Terranova U. Dosselli W. Scandale F. Ferroni M. Grassi E. Iacopini A. Guglielmi M. Sozzi F. Tessarotto A. Zoccoli G. Isidori
LHC is the highest priority • • This is the consensus of the HEP community We should ensure the fullest, safest and optimal exploitation and fulfillment of its physics potential We should aim at an early approval of its luminosity upgrade, and focus the AT resources towards an early, clear definition of the injector chain upgrade path Priorities to new SPS-based programmes should be assigned on the basis of the • potential to supplement the discoveries to be made by the LHC, adding to our ability to disentangle the nature of the new phenomena observed there • technical synergy and compatibility with the needs of the LHC upgrade • immediacy of the physics return: need to guarantee an alternative to the LHC, available during the time of LHC operation
The Renaissance in Hadron Spectroscopy q. Quite a number of new narrow states just in the last two years! qh’c from Belle, CLEO, Ba. Bar q Narrow Ds. J Ba. Bar, CLEO, Belle q X(3872) from Belle, CDF, D 0, Ba. Bar q Q+(1540) . . . a confused experimental scenario Evidence not confirmed q X+cc Selex q D+SJ(2632) Selex
Spectroscopy (Compass, p beam): • • • light mesons, glueballs, exotics (5 -quarks): • clarify outstanding issues (e. g. association of known resonances to glueballs): what are the new elements brought to light by these measurements? • study diffractive production dynamics • explore new issues (e. g. 5 -quark production mechanisms and spectroscopy): interesting, very active, open and competitive field doubly charmed baryons: confirm FNAL observation, increase statistics (x 50), improve accuracy of lifetime measurements, extend spectroscopy Timescales: • Compass: p runs from ‘ 06 on • Dedicated experiments at Super-PS / Super-SPS (charm): >2012 -’ 14: • clarify which improvements in our understanding (aside form simple statistics) can be achieved, vis a vis the timescale and the likely progress from other experiments • justify the request for such high intensities • detail a complete research programme, and explore synergies/competition with other potential activities (e. g. rare K decays)