Super B The Super B Flavor Factory project

Super. B The Super B Flavor Factory project Guy Wormser LAL Orsay INSTR 08 conference February 29, 2008

Talk Outline • Physics motivation; Why is a very high luminosity needed? • A very exciting new idea on how to build a Super B factory. (first tests really encouraging!) • The Super. B detector • The super B site • The super B politics • Conclusions

The physics objectives of Super. B • The Super B is a “post-LHC” machine. The physics scene should be quite different from today’s. • The main objective should be to unravel the flavor structure of the New Physics and the physics mechanism causing its specific pattern • Double-prong attack on the quark and lepton sector 3 3

The flavour physics enigma • NP flavour effects are governed by – The scale of the new physics L – The effective couplings C’s • Different strengths (ie different interactions) • Different patterns (ie dictated by symmetries

Is there a no-loose theorem? • In the assumption of a MFV scenario, is the LHC mass range well covered? • Is the sensitivity in the leptonic sector meaningful in the LHC era? • The answer is PROBABALY YES if you can integrate at least 75 ab-1 • This require a luminosity in excess of 10 36 during 5 years

A conversation between Super. B, LHC and ILC • When evidence is found for New Physics at the LHC, attention will turn to understanding the details – Is it SUSY? What type of symmetry breaking? – Is it extra dimensions? Are they warped? • The ILC will eventually sharpen the picture by, for example, measuring slepton masses • Super. B will be crucial to an understanding of the flavor sector of any type of new physics – Is there charged lepton flavor violation? – Are there new CP phases ? – Is there a charged Higgs ? – Is there minimal flavor violation in the (s)quark sector? 6

Sensitivity extends to high mass scales MSSM + generic soft SUSY breaking terms 1 = (0. 026 ± 0. 005) In the red regions the d are measured with a significance >3 s away from zero New Physics contribution (2 -3 transition) ~g b ~ s s In this case the main constraints are b s 10 -1 ACP(b s )) Arg(d 23)LR=(44. 5± 2. 6)o 10 -2 1 10 1 Te. V ACP magenta B(sg) green B(sll) cyan All constr. blue 7

Lepton flavor violation (LFV) • Lepton flavor violation is unobservably small in the Standard Model • Neutrino mixing proves that there is neutral LFV • The next natural question is whethere is charged LFV? • Will the neutrino pattern be repeated? – If so, then LFV will be largest in 3 2 transitions • Best bets: 8

Charged lepton flavor violation in t decays LFV is expected in many Standard Model extensions SM + mixing SUSY Higgs SM + heavy Majorana R Lee, Shrock, PRD 16 (1977) 1444 Cheng, Li, PRD 45 (1980) 1908 Pham EPJ C 8 (1999) 513 Super. B sensitivity -1 For 75 ab Dedes, Ellis, Raidal, PLB 549 (2002) 159 Brignole, Rossi, PLB 566 (2003) 517 Cvetic, Dib, Kim , PRD 66 (2002) 034008 Non-universal Z’ Yue, Zhang, Liu, PLB 547 (2002) 252 � �� � 10 -54 – 10 -40 10 -14 10 -10 10 -7 10 -9 10 -10 10 -9 10 -8 SUSY SO(10) Masiero, Vempati, Vives, NPB 649 (2003) 189 Fukuyama, Kikuchi, Okada, PRD 68 (2003) 033012 10 -8 10 -10 m. SUGRA + Seesaw Ellis, Gomez, Leontaris, Lola, Nanopoulos, EPJ C 14 (2002) 319 Ellis, Hisano, Raidal, Shimizu, PRD 66 (2002) 115013 10 -7 10 -9 9

Sensitivity to models of LFV Goto, et al. ar. Xiv: 0711. 2935 v 2 10

Polarized t’s can probe the chiral structure of LFV Flipping the helicity of the polarized electron beam allows us to determine the chiral structure of dimension 6 four fermion lepton flavor-violating couplings Dassinger, Feldmann, Mannel, and Turczyk JHEP 0710: 039, 2007; [See also Matsuzaki and Sanda ar. Xiv: 0711. 0792 [hep-ph] 11

12

The pattern of deviations from SM values is diagnostic Model Bd Unitarity m. SUGRA (moderate tan ) Time-dep. Rare B decay CPV Other signals - - Bd mixing - B → (D)* b → s + − Bs → Bs mixing - B → KS B → K∗ - Bs mixing Bd mixing B → KS - - Split fermions in large extra dimensions Bd mixing - b → s + − mixing Bulk fermions in warped extra dimensions Bd mixing B → KS b → s + − Bs mixing - b → s + − b → s m. SUGRA (large tan ) SUSY GUT with R Effective SUSY KK graviton exchange Universal extra dimensions - ACP (b→s ) b → s + − LFV, n EDM Bs mixing - mixing K → 13

Ciuchini

Physics motivations conclusion • There is very exciting discovery potential at a Super B factory… • PROVIDED the integrated luminosity is large enough to cover the interesting physics range in the post-LHC era • Key discovery channels are LFV channels (with the help of polarisation) and a set of ~5 observables in the quark sector (sg, sll, s , sss. . )

The machine : A new “superb” idea! P. Raimondi’s idea to focus more the beams at IP and have a “large” crossing angle large Piwinski angle • Ultra-low emittance (ILC-DR like) • Very small at IP • Large crossing angle • “Crab Waist” scheme • Small collision area • Lower is possible • NO parasitic crossings • NO synchro-betatron resonances due to crossing angle Test started at DAFNE in November !!!

IP beam distributions for KEKB Beam envelopes KEKB Super. B I (A) 1. 7 2. y* (mm) 6 0. 3 x* (mm) 300 20 sy* (mm) 3 0. 035 sx* (mm) 80 6 sz (mm) 6 5 L (cm-2 s- 1. 7 x 103 1. x 1036 4 1) Here is Luminosity gain IP beam distributions for Super. B Raimondi

Super. B Accelerator Parameters

Weak-Strong Beam-Beam Simulation for DAFNE Upgrade Current per bunch 1. With the present DAFNE parameters (currents, bunch length etc. ) a luminosity in excess of 1033 cm-2 s-1 is predicted 2. With 2 A on 2 A more than 2 x 1033 is possible (110 bunches) 3. Beam-beam limit is well above the reacheable currents

Polarization at Super. B • The Super. B design includes a polarized electron beam – Super. KEKB does not, and cannot, have a polarized beam • Spins must be vertical in the ring spin rotators at the IP – Solenoid spin rotators appear best – 36. 6 Tesla-meters for 90 spin rotation in the LER e. g. 2. 5 Tesla x 14. 66 meters with 30 x 106 ampere-turns • Expected longitudinal polarization at the IP: 87%(injection) x 97%(ring)=85%(effective) David Hitlin P 5 Meeting - SLAC February 21, 2008 21

News from the « Crab waist » front Currents: e- 1 A, e+ 400 m. A Size 4 micron , length 10 mm Problems in increasing current. from vacuum (still scrubbing) and electron cloud (improving with solenoids and they continue to improve). Lumi (still monitor need good calibration) 10**32 (was 1. 6 10**32 maximum in the past) Crab waist IS WORKING: when sextupoles are on everithing all right, if switched off the beam blows up, lifetime to zero. Background with crab waist is reduced to 15% than before.

More detailed report (M. Biagini, INFN) 1) Beam coupling: in single beam we got 0. 5 % with the crab sextupoles ON at about 50% of the design value, less than 1% in collision with 90 bunches and about 500 m. A/beam. 2) Without crab sextupoles we have about 2% blow-up in the beam emittances. 3) We are going to measure this week the tune footprint 4) We manged to get very low background rates, but no absolute luminosity measurement yet since the commissioning of the luminometers is in progress. 5) Up to 60% of the design value the crab sextupoles do not induce any backgrounds or lifetime reduction. 6) We were able to collide 90 bunches with up to 400 m. A positrons against 1 A electrons. 7) We still have a limitation from poor lifetime in both beams and from the maximum achievable positron current (<500 m. A) due to an instability in the positron ring. 8) The Siddharta setup will be installed at the end of next week. 9) We hope to be able to mitigate our limitations (point 7) in about one month.

An upgrade of BABAR works well at Super. B Since currents are in the PEP-II range, a detector upgrade is straightforward - R&D on Super. B upgrade components is underway 24

Super. B’s a busy bee 2007 • March: CDR Published – Physics, Accelerator, Detector • May 4: CDR presented to INFN • May 9 -11: Workshop in Paris • June: International Review Committee setup • July: CDR presented to ECFA • Sept: Accelerator retreat at SLAC • Nov 12 -13: First presentation to IRC • Dec: Accelerator test started at LNF 2008 • Jan 7 -15: Physics retreat at Valencia • Feb 14 -16: Detector R&D workshop at SLAC • April 3 -4 : IRC Final committee meeting • May 31 st - June 3: Super. B Meeting in Elba • . . . www. pi. infn. it/Super. B

Detector • • There is little doubt that we can build performing detector Reuse critical parts of BABAR : magnet, DIRC bars, Cs. I(Tl) crystals, iron Very similar R&D as the one described yesterday for Super. KEKB Biggest risk is the background level – Simulation work has been going on – Need to fully update with latest accelerator parameters Detector simulation group growing R&D activities ongoing in several groups and subsystems – Funding from INFN and other agencies Super. B is part of the Dev. Det Proposal – European FP 7 Integrating Activity – Fund improvements on Infrastructures for detector R&D – Sponsored by ECFA: includes LHC, ILC, Neutrino, Super. B

The Super. B location on the Tor Vergata campus f DA NE 30

Super. B footprint at Tor Vergata SPARX FEL Super. B Ring ( circumference 1800 m) Super. B Injector (~ 400 m) Roman Villa 100 m Super. B Main Building 31

How much will Super. B cost? From the Super. B CDR* EDIA M$ Labor M$ M&S M$ Total M$ Net replacement value [M$] Accelerator 68 29 278 375 184 Site (Lazio region) 18 14 154 186 - Detector 42 16 59 117 68 128 59 187 678 252 Total *In the Super. B CDR costs were presented “ILC-style”, with labor in man-months, M&S in €. This table translates costs into US accounting and converts to $. Value of reusable items from PEP-II and BABAR Disassembly, crating, refurbishment and shipping costs are included in project costs 35

Super. B uses many PEP-II components Quadrupoles Dipoles Lmag (m) 0. 45 5. 4 Lmag (m) 0. 56 0. 73 0. 43 0. 7 0. 4 PEP HER - 194 PEP HER 202 82 - - - PEP LER 194 - PEP LER - - 353 - - Super. B HER - 130 Super. B HER 165 108 - 2 2 Super. B LER 224 18 Super. B LER 88 108 165 2 2 Super. B Total 224 148 Super. B Total 253 216 165 4 4 Needed 30 0 Needed 51 134 0 4 4 + RF (cavities, klystrons, . . . ) + vacuum components + accelerator expertise + BABAR as the foundation of an upgraded detector 36

Super B politics • The Italian process – International Review Committee reporting to R. Petronzio, INFN president • The European process – The CERN Council Strategy – ECFA • The US process – P 5 10 -year planning presently ongoing • Interferences with KEK roadmap?

International Review IRC Members • John Dainton – UK/Daresbury, chair • Jacques Lefrancois – F/Orsay • • Antonio Masiero – I/Padova • Rolf Heuer – D/ Desy • • Daniel Schulte – CERN • Abe Seiden – USA/UCSC • • Young-Kee Kim – USA/FNAL • Hiroaki Aihara – Japan/Tokyo First meeting Nov 12 -13 Next meeting April 3 -4 Final Report expected in April • Will focus on the physics case (*)Slides available at: https: //agenda. infn. it/conference. Display. py? conf. Id=16 3

Situation in Italy (as far as I can see) • R. Petronzio mentioned several times in public that : – If he received a positive message from the Review Committee – If he received a positive message from the crab waist test He would push very hard for a Super B machine in Italy by submitting the proposal to the Italian government and to the European Strategy process Caveat : There is no more a government in Italy (new elections in April)

The European process • European strategy for particle physics established in July 2006 (the Lisbon document) under the aegis of the CERN Council acting as an « European particle physics parliament » • Recognized as such in the multidisciplinary ESFRI roadmap established at the EU level • ECFA role as a facilitator for new initiatives

Flavour physics The European Strategy for particle physics

My personal translation • The Super B factory is already part of the approved European strategy process, provided if it is mostly promoted as a single country initiative – Recent example of this : XFEL (or FAIR) • Similar opinion expressed by R. Heuer at the recent P 5 meeting in the US

Rolf Heuer, during his talk on the “European View on the Future”, presented the new idea of the Italian Super. B machine design, and said it was currently under review. In discussion, he said that following a successful completion of the INFN review process, it would go to the CERN Strategy Group, (a sub-committee of CERN Council), and they would review it, as part of the new process. His feeling was that if the funding did not present a threat to the international programs, it would be approved.

The US process • HEP in US currently undertaking a 10 -year strategic planning , within a few budget scenarios, under the aegis of P 5/HEPAP – The lowest budget scenario is the present (very bad) FY 08 budget plus inflation • Very recent presentation of Super. B project to P 5 (D. Hitlin at SLAC meeting Feb 21) • P 5/HEPAP output expected in June

What does US Super. B involvement entail? • The Super. B design uses many PEP-II components – Recognizing that there is internal competition for some of these items, a DOE HEP contribution of PEP-II magnets, RF and vacuum components, as well as of BABAR, as the basis for a detector upgrade, to Super. B would give the US a central position in a new high quality, high visibility project, for very little additional capital investment • SLAC would then be the natural center for US Super. B activities, in a role that only a national lab can play – Accelerator design and some component construction – Detector design and system construction – Physics: computing and analysis • There are different possible levels of participation 45

US participation levels US Project Costs FY 08 M$ Total 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 4. 6 2. 2 6. 8 23 11 34 Fair share role Accelerator Detector Total 10. 2 5. 2 15. 4 51 26 77 Leadership role Accelerator Detector Total 20. 8 7. 2 28. 0 104 36 140 Minimal role Accelerator Detector Total 46

Steve Kahn’s presentation to P 5 gave the lab’s priorities for the accelerator HEP Program to be first, ATLAS and the upgrade effort, and then … Super. B. He justified this choice in terms of the energy reach of the physics, through loop effects, and its complimentarity to the LHC experiments in helping to fully understand the new physics that may emerge there. The core competences of the lab, and the importance of the staff to the success of that project were also driving items. There has to be serious discussions between the lab and INFN to understand staffing levels and the technical requirements of the project. However he clearly stated that if P 5 includes Super. B in their program plan, and the project gets Italian government approval, … SLAC wants to be a player in Super. B in Italy. The was less clarity on the budget implications in his presentation – but let’s wait for the P 5 output now.

Interferences with KEK roadmap? • • • Since a few years, general assumption that there will be only one Super. B factory in the world. Are we heading for 2? My concern, shared by many Super. B colleagues, is that the proposed Super. KEKB is not ambitious enough to fully address the physics program in a post LHC era (in addition to the complexity of very high currents that we know from BABAR experience are really delicate to handle) For Super. B (real) believers, the proposed KEKB upgrade is not really a competition since the integrated luminosity cross-over will be fast (2017 or so) according to present plans. (cf CLEO vs BABAR/BELLE in 1999) So, for me , the true question is: Will a crab-waist based machine with luminosity in excess of 10 36 by 2015 be proposed at KEK? It will be interesting to see what common members of Super B and Super KEKB review committees will say!

Conclusions • Super. B presents an very exciting opportunity with a broad and deep physics program: results will be crucial to understanding new physics uncovered at the LHC • A superb new idea to build a machine of unprecented luminosity. First tests are very encouraging. • Review process ongoing in Italy, Europe and US • I believe that there is a real chance that this project be approved provided it is very vigorously pushed by the new italian government: wait and see on that point • Will there any positive or negative interferences with KEK roadmap plans? Next step: if OK, prepare TDR for 2010 (First beams then in 2015) 49

Backup slides David Hitlin P 5 Meeting - SLAC February 21, 2008 50

Schedule Four year construction, preceded by 2 -3 years of design and prototyping, which overlaps organizational and funding activities David Hitlin P 5 Meeting - SLAC February 21, 2008 51

David Hitlin P 5 Meeting SLAC February 21, 2008 52

David Hitlin P 5 Meeting SLAC February 21, 2008 53

IRC Questions I • The Super. B CDR and the reports of the proponents during our meeting of Nov. 12 at LNF have provided a thorough analysis of the sensitivity reach of the Super. B for: i) rare B physics ( with and without CP violation), ii) LFV and CP violation in tau decays iii) FCNC charm physics. A (less detailed) discussion on the comparison of Super. B reach w. r. t. present B factories and LHCb has been also provided. An analogous comparative analysis with the super. KEK B ( with 2 * 10^35 luminosity) is not present at the moment. • The analysis of the Super. B reach sensitivity points out that the following three major achievements are foreseeable in such a high luminosity machine ( given a 10^36 luminosity and 5 Snowmass years of operation, i. e. reaching 75 ab^-1): – improvements of factors 5 – 7 w. r. t. 2 ab^-1 B factories on the precision of the vast array of relevant observables listed in tables 2. 1 and 2. 2 concerning B physics; – improved sensitivity by almost one order of magnitude on the BR of LFV tau decays ( the possibility to use polarization to get access to CP violation in tau physics is mentioned but not detailed) – possibility to have at disposal a vast sample of rare decay channels with several opportunities to obtain redundant determination of relevant observables ( for instance, in the case of UT angles, although LHCb may reach a similar precision on their determination, at Super. B one will be able to measure such angles with a wider range of decay channels, hence making important consistency checks).

IRC Questions II • If the above mentioned discussion on the precision and sensitivity reach at Super. B is satisfactorily conducted, it seems to us that what could be further investigated is its “discovery potential”. • Namely, one should address questions like : “ What are the most relevant processes ( golden processes) to “discover” new physics, how does such discovery potential compare with that one can achieve at B and super. KEKb factories or at LHCb, which kind of Te. V new physics can be discovered by Super. B, etc. ? ”. • In other words, we think that it would be important, after emphasizing how much the Super. B can improve the existing limits and/or precisions, to identify the main “discovery” targets of this machine. Something similar has been recently done for LHC, in particular in connection with its discovery potential for low-energy SUSY. • A few significant points (passing all possible available constraints including those deriving from the Giorgi DM

IRC Questions III • Obviously, in the case of the “LHC Snowmass points” no particular flavour structure was detailed ( in other words one could take universal sfermion masses with the possible exception of the s-top masses). • In the Super. B exercise such flavour content should be discussed. Just as an example, we think that one could consider some of the Snowmass points just assuming MFV ( flavour universality), possibly having three cases with small, intermediate and large tanb. • Subsequently, one could consider such points, but with some non-vanishing D F changing insertions ( including some imaginary parts in relation with possible CP violation effects) in order to remove the MFV hypothesis. • In particular, it would be nice to see whether points of the SUSY parameter space which lead to “observable” SUSY at LHC would yield also “discoverable” rare B or tau physics at Super. B and whether this would be unique Giorgi for Super. B or other flavour experiments ( B factories,