muon (g-2) to 0.20 ppm

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 1/29

Muon (g-2) to 0.20 ppm

P969

B. Lee RobertsRepresenting the new g-2 collaboration:

Boston, BNL, BINP, Cornell, Illinois, James Madison, Kentucky, KVI-Groningen, LBL&UC-Berkeley, Minnesota, Yale

roberts@bu.edu http://physics.bu.edu/roberts.html

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 2/29

This is a new collaboration built on the foundation of E821

• Core of our expertise from E821 remains

• New institutes have joined and we are actively recruiting additional collaborators

• Our precision storage ring remains the centerpiece of the experiment

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 3/29

Standard Model Value for (g-2)from virtual radiative processes

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 4/29

Ongoing worldwide effort to improve knowledge of …

• Lowest order hadronic contribution• Hadronic light-by-light

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 5/29

1st-order hadronic from e+e- annihilation and decay

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 6/29

Update: August 2004 (ICHEP)• Precise e+e-and data are incompatible ...

especially at energies above the

• New KLOE data using radiative return support the CMD2 e+e- data

• Isospin correction issues for the data remain unresolved

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 7/29

• Comparison with CMD-2 in the Energy Range 0.37 <s<0.93 GeV2

(375.6 0.8stat 4.9syst+theo) 10-10

(378.6 2.7stat 2.3syst+theo) 10-10KLOECMD2

1.3% Error0.9% Error

a= (388.7 0.8stat 3.5syst

3.5theo) 10-10

2 contribution to ahadr

• KLOE has evaluated the Dispersions Integral for the 2-Pion-Channel in the Energy Range 0.35 <s<0.95 GeV2

• At large values of s (>m) KLOE is consistent with CMD and therefore

They confirm the deviation from -data!.

Pion Formfactor

CMD-2KLOE

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9s [GeV2]

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

45

0

KLOE, CMD2 Data on R(s)

Courtesy of G. Venanzone

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 8/29

A. Höcker at ICHEP04

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 9/29

aμ is sensitive to a wide range of new physics

• muon substructure

• anomalous couplings• SUSY (with large tanβ )

• many other things (extra dimensions, etc.)

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 10/29

Where we came from:

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 11/29

Today with e+e- based theory:

All E821 results were obtained with a “blind” analysis.

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 12/29

Discrepancy with e+e- based theory

• What might this mean?• New physics or a fluctuation?

– Consider a SUSY example

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 13/29

Courtesy K.Olivebased on Ellis, Olive, Santoso, Spanos

In CMSSM, a can be combined with b s, cosmological relic density h2, and LEP Higgs searches to constrain mass

Allowedband a(exp) – a(e+e- thy)

Excluded by direct searches

Excluded for neutral dark matter

Preferred

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 14/29

Current Discrepancy Standard Model

The CMSSM plot with error on aof 4.6 x 10-10

(assuming better theory and a new BNL g-2 experiment)

a=24(4.6) x 10-10 (discrepancy at 6 a0 (4.6) x 10-

10

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 15/29

Discrepancy with e+e- based theory

• What might this mean?• New physics or a fluctuation?

– Consider a SUSY example

• Either way, the muon (g-2) provides a wonderful test of the standard model

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 16/29

With a discrepancy like this…• You’ve got to keep working

– Either you confirm the discrepancy or– You show it’s not there…

• But you can’t ignore it! – The stakes are just too high.

• That’s why we’re here today.

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 17/29

The experimental concept remains the same:

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 18/29

And so does the ring

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 19/29

Strategy of the improved experiment• More muons – E821 was statistics limited

stat = 0.46 ppm, syst = 0.3 ppm– Backward-decay, higher-transmission beamline– New, open-end inflector – Upgrade detectors, electronics, DAQ

• Improve knowledge of magnetic field B– Improve calibration, field monitoring and measurement

• Reduce systematic errors on ωa

– Improve the electronics and detectors – New parallel “integration” method of analysis

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 20/29

E821: Forward decay beam

Pions @ 3.115 GeV/c

Decay muons @ 3.094 GeV/c

Pedestal vs. Time

Near side Far side

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 21/29

P969: Backward decay beam

Expect for both sides

Pions @ 5.32 GeV/c

Decay muons @ 3.094 GeV/c

No hadron-induced prompt flash

Approximately the same muon flux is realized

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 22/29

Muon capture and transmission in decay section will double by doubling quads

Lattice doubled

E821 lattice

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 23/29

Improved transmission into the ringInflector

Inflector aperture

Storage ring aperture

E821 Closed End P969 Proposed Open End

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 24/29

Systematic Error Evolution

• Field improvements will involve better trolley calibrations, better tracking of the field with time, temperature stability of room, improvements in the hardware

• Precession improvements will involve new scraping scheme, lower thresholds, more complete digitization periods, better energy calibration

Systematic uncertainty (ppm) 1998 1999 2000 2001 E969Goal

Magnetic field – p 0.5 0.4 0.24 0.17 0.1

Anomalous precession – a 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.21 0.1

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 25/29

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 26/29

E821: Precession Measurement

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 27/29

E969: Precession Measurement

• Expect 5 x more rate– Segment calorimeters – 500 MHz waveform digitization– Greatly increased data volume for DAQ

• Introduce parallel “Q” method of data collection and analysis– Integrate energy flow vs. time

T Method

Q Method

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 28/29

Fast, dense and segmented W-SciFi calorimeters

• 20-fold segmentation• 0.7 cm X0

• 14%/Sqrt(E)

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 29/29

Schedule• FY 2005

– R&D as funding permits• FY 2006-2007

– Construction• FY 2008

– Fall, pulse on demand, debugging– Spring, 3 week engineering run

• FY 2009– 2100 hours data collection

(26 weeks @ 80 hr/wk)

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 30/29

Conclusions:With a 2.7 σ discrepancy …

• We can and must press ahead to the systematic limit of the technique

• The considerable investment to date at BNL can be further extended by modest upgrades

• We expect: 0.54 ppm → 0.2 ppm (projected) – In parallel, the theory effort continues and will improve

to perhaps 0.3 ppm• Muon (g-2) continues to address the most

fundamental questions in our field

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 31/29

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 32/29

Systematic errors on ωa (ppm)

σsystematic 1999 2000 2001 E969Pile-up 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.07AGS Background 0.10 0.10 *Lost Muons 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.04Timing Shifts 0.10 0.02 0.02E-Field, Pitch 0.08 0.03 * 0.05Fitting/Binning 0.07 0.06 *CBO 0.05 0.21 0.07 0.04Beam Debunching 0.04 0.04 *Gain Change 0.02 0.13 0.13 0.03total 0.3 0.31 0.21 0.11

Σ* = 0.11

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 33/29

Goal for ωp systematic errorsE969

(i)(I)

(II)

(III)

(iv)

*higher multipoles, trolley voltage and temperature response, kicker eddy currents, and time-varying stray fields.

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 34/29

a(had) from hadronic decay?

• Must assume CVC, no second-class currents, make the appropriate isospin breaking corrections. decay has no isoscalar piece, while e+e- does

Let’s look at the branching ratio and Fπ from the two data sets:

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 35/29

Tests of CVC (A. Höcker – ICHEP04)

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 36/29

Comparison with e+e- theory (from ICHEP04)(from F. Teubert’s summary talk.)

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 37/29

F. Teubert, ICHEP04 – E-W plenary summary talk

Field Uncertainties - HistorySource of

Uncertainty 1998 1999 2000 2001

Absolute Calibration 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Calibration of Trolley 0.3 0.20 0.15 0.09

Trolley Measurements of B0 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.05

Interpolation with the fixed probes 0.3 0.15 0.10 0.07

Inflector fringe field 0.2 0.20 - -

uncertainty from muon distribution 0.1 0.12 0.03 0.03

Other* 0.15 0.10 0.10

Total 0.5 0.4 0.24 0.17

* higher multipoles, trolley voltage and temperature response, kicker eddy currents, and time-varying stray fields.

(I)

(II)(III)

(IV)

B. Lee Roberts, BNL PAC 9 September 2004 - p. 39/29

Field Shimming

2001