desy/zeuthen, 7/8 feb. 06 · pdf filematter-antimatter puzzle as far as we can see in...

Brian Foster - The last decade in pp

1

Brian Foster

Oxford

What were the major developments of the lastdecade and what do they teach us about thefuture? - underpinning of SM by precision physics at LEP&SLD;- detailed structure of proton at HERA;- discovery of matter-antimatter asymmetry inb system;- discovery of non-zero neutrino mass.

Why and how the ILC??

DESY/Zeuthen, 7/8 Feb. 06

Particle physics over the last decade –the case for the International Linear Collider


2

Where were we in 1994?

The Standard Model was theoretically fully fledged - but experimentally still incomplete – neither ντ

nor the t quark had yet been discovered.

However, the tremendous success of the SM inexplaining such a wide variety of natural phenomenameant that everyone was sure that these discoverieswere imminent – indeed for t there had been severalfalse alarms.


3

Precision @ LEPLEP dominated the 90s and thereby the first half of the decadeof our review.


4

Precision @ LEPTwo stages – LEP I sat on the Z0 resonance from 1989 - 1995; after energy upgrade in 1995, energy increased every year upto 210 GeV in 2000.


5

Precision @ LEPSimply measuring the probability of the production of W pairsat LEP II is a triumphant confirmation of SM gauge structure.

only ν exchange

No ZWW vertex


6

Discovery of t quarkFor many years, we had excellent reasons to believe that thetop quark existed: the symmetry of the SM, and indirectprecision measurements at LEP, all told us that it had toexist, and even gave us a reasonable hint as to its mass, which,when it was discovered at Fermilab, was found to be spot on.


7

Precision @ LEP and tLEP searched – and sometimes thought it had found things –but left the Higgs and/or SUSY discovery for the future.

mH < 219 GeV at 95% CL

An historical aside – the false alarms of various LEP“discovery” proved need for more than 1 experiment.


8

Inside the proton

HERA @DESY in Hamburg


9

e p

Inside the proton

eq

e

pp remnant

e

e

qpp remnant


10

Inside the proton

At higher and higherresolutions, the quarksemit gluons, which also emit gluons, which emit quarks, which…….

Heisenberg’s UPallows gluons, and qqpairs to be produced for a very short time.

Low Q2 (large λ)Medium Q2 (medium λ)

Large Q2 (short λ)

At highest Q2, λ ~ 1/Q ~ 10-18 m


11

Inside the proton


12

Matter-antimatter puzzle

As far as we can see in universe, no large-scale antimatter. Sakharov conditions imply this needs CP violation.

Why does the Universe looks like

this not that?


13


This effect is large in Bdecays – but the interestingdecays are very rare => build a high luminosityB factory to produce manydecays and look at theirtime development


14



15


Simply count decays as function of t!

t2

Decay length ~ 1/4 mm

Second B decays

t1

First B decays

K0s

d s

J/ψcc

(or ) Asy(t) = N(B0→ J/ψ K0

s) - N(B0→J/ψ K0s)

N(B0→ J/ψ K0s) + N(B0→J/ψ K0

s)


16

Matter-antimatter puzzleCurrent state of the art from BaBar.

B and anti-B are indeed different & CP is violated.


17

Neutrino massFor many decades, Davis et al had measured the solarneutrino flux and found it to be only around half what the SSMpredicted. As the SSM was further and further refined, the probability grew that the explanation for this was that neutrinos have a mass and therefore can oscillate into each other, so that“active” types leaving a signal in detector oscillated into “inactive” types.


18

Neutrino mass

The pioneeringwork of Koshiba and SuperK (whichlike all the best particle physicsexperiment, was built to look at something completelydifferent)led to the discovery of ν mass.


19

Neutrino mass

SuperK results


20

Neutrino massBeautiful confirmation by SNO


21

Neutrino mass

SNO had first published results using pure D2O, which showeda clear deficit of νe coming from the Sun. By adding NaCl tothe water, the efficiency to detect n capture was greatly improved.

SNO can detect νe from Charged, Neutral and Elastic Scatteringvia the processes below:


22

Neutrino massSNO results


23

What did we learn?

We gained a lot by having complementary machines - hadron machines found top; leptonmachines found CP violation in Bs and establishedgauge structure of SM; lepton-hadron machineselucidated structure of proton. Neutrino physicsrequires specialist infrastructure.

The Standard Model has been a tough nut to crack.

To go beyond the SM, we need to get to theenergy frontier - preferably with both lepton& hadron machines.


24

The LHC Project


25

The ATLAS hall now


26

The LHC GPDs

The discovery potential of the LHC is vast:


27

Why/what is ILC?


28

Why/what is ILC?I have no time for more than a bare outline ILC physics case. It rests on three legs:known phenomena thatILC will definitely study-top quark;

current δMW

the Higgs: for which there is very strong indirect evidence and if LHC doesn’t find it then ILC willbe essential to understand why;new particles forwhich there is verystrong theoreticalprejudice


29

Why/what is ILC?Furthermore the high precision of the ILC means that itis sensitive to phenomena far above its CM energy becauseof quantum corrections – as LEP proved.


30

Because radiated synchrotron-radiation power goes like m-5,circular e+e- colliders bigger than LEP (the previousCERN machine) are uneconomical. We didn’t know how to build complementary machines (like Tevatron (p-antip) and LEP) when LHC was proposed. Now we do – the ILC.

Why/what is ILC?

The ILC is a linear collider – thus there is no synchrotronradiation produced in bending e+e- in a circular orbit. Thechallenges stem from this – in circular machines, the beamspass through each other many times/ second, giving manychances for interaction – “luminosity”. In ILC, they passthrough each other once and then are dumped.

The only way to restore the luminosity is to crush the beamsto a tiny volume so that one pass gives all the particles thesame chance to interact that many passes gives less densebunches.

SLC

FFTB

TESLA

500 nm

50 nm

5 nm

1000 nm


31

Status of the ILCTESLA was the catalyst that in the last three years has movedthe ILC forwards very rapidly.There will only be one machine like this in the world – soit is essential that world-wide agreement be obtained. Thishas been in place for ~3 years.ECFA report:“..the realisation, in as timely a fashion as possible, of a world-wide collaboration to construct a high-luminosity e+e- linear collider with an energy range up to at least 400 GeV as the next accelerator project in particle physics; decisions concerning thechosen technology and the construction site for such a machine should be made soon”

HEPAP report:“We recommend that the highest priority of the U.S. program be a high-energy,high-luminosity, electron-positron linear collider, wherever it isbuilt in the world…. We recommend that the United States prepare to bid to host the linear collider, in a facility that is international from the inception.”

ACFA: “ACFA urges the Japanese Government to arrange a preparatory budget for KEK to pursue an engineering design of the collider, to study site and civil engineering, as well as to investigate the process for the globalization.”


32

Status of the ILCIn January 2004 the Science Ministers of the OECD met in Paris and, following the detailed work of a GSF Consultative Group on particle physics that produced a road Map,agreed a statement on the Linear Collider: Ministers

“acknowledged the importance of ensuring access to large-scale research infrastructure and the importance of the long-term vitality of high-energy physics. They noted the worldwide consensus of the scientific community, which has chosen an electron-positron linear collider as the next accelerator-based facility to complement and expand on the discoveries that are likely to emerge from the Large Hadron Collider currently being built at CERN. They agreed that the planning and implementation of such a large, multi-year project should be carried out on a global basis, and should involve consultations among not just scientists, but also representatives of science funding agencies from interested countries. Accordingly, Ministers endorsed the statement prepared by the OECD Global Science Forum Consultative Group on High-Energy Physics (see Appendix).”


33

Status of the ILCIn August 2004, group of “Wise Men”, chaired by B. Barish,chose the “cold”, superconducting, RF technology over thecompeting “warm” X-band RF.

Despite the fact that both US and Asian research had been in warm technology, both regions accepted the decision andunited behind cold technology; 18 months on, transition isnow complete.

ICFA moved ahead quickly to appoint a Global DesignEffort (GDE) to transform the technology decision into afull Technical Design Report, capable of being presented toworld governments for a decision to construct.

B. Barish appointed as GDE director, with three regionaldirectors:BF (Europe), F. Takasaki (Asia), G. Dugan (Americas)


34

GDE

– The Mission of the GDE

• Produce a design for the ILC in 3 stages - BCD, RDR and TDR, that includes a detailed design concept, performance assessments, reliable international costing, an industrialization plan , siting analysis, as well as detector concepts and scope.

• Coordinate worldwide prioritized proposal driven R & D efforts (to demonstrate and improve the performance, reduce the costs, attain the required reliability, etc.)


35

GDE – StaffingChris Adolphsen, SLACJean-Luc Baldy, CERNPhilip Bambade, LAL, OrsayBarry Barish, CaltechWilhelm Bialowons, DESYGrahame Blair, Royal HollowayJim Brau, University of OregonKarsten Buesser, DESYElizabeth Clements, FermilabMichael Danilov, ITEPJean-Pierre Delahaye, CERN, Gerald Dugan, Cornell UniversityAtsushi Enomoto, KEKBrian Foster, Oxford UniversityWarren Funk, JLABJie Gao, IHEPTerry Garvey, LAL-IN2P3Hitoshi Hayano, KEKTom Himel, SLACBob Kephart, FermilabEun San Kim, Pohang Acc LabHyoung Suk Kim, Kyungpook Nat’l UnivShane Koscielniak, TRIUMFVic Kuchler, FermilabLutz Lilje, DESY

Tom Markiewicz, SLACDavid Miller, Univ College of LondonShekhar Mishra, FermilabYouhei Morita, KEKOlivier Napoly, CEA-SaclayHasan Padamsee, Cornell UniversityCarlo Pagani, DESYNan Phinney, SLACDieter Proch, DESYPantaleo Raimondi, INFNTor Raubenheimer, SLACFrancois Richard, LAL-IN2P3Perrine Royole-Degieux, GDE/LALKenji Saito, KEKDaniel Schulte, CERNTetsuo Shidara, KEKSasha Skrinsky, Budker InstituteFumihiko Takasaki, KEKLaurent Jean Tavian, CERNNobu Toge, KEKNick Walker, DESYAndy Wolski, LBLHitoshi Yamamoto, Tohoku UnivKaoru Yokoya, KEK

49 members

New MembersPeter Garbincius (FNAL)Marc Ross (SLAC)Bill Willis (Columbia)Andre Seryi (SLAC)John Sheppard (SLAC)Ewan Patterson (SLAC)Maseo Kuriki (KEK)Kiyoshi Kubo (KEK)Nobuhiro Terunuma (KEK)Norihito Ohuchi (KEK)Susanna Guiducci (INFN)Deepa Angal-Kalinin (CCLRC)

TotalsAmericas 23Europe 23Asia 16


36

ILC Parameters

• Ecm adjustable from 200 – 500 GeV

• Luminosity ∫Ldt = 500 fb-1 in 4 years

• Ability to scan between 200 and 500 GeV

• Energy stability and precision below 0.1%

• Electron polarization of at least 80%• The machine must be upgradeable to 1 TeV


37

BCD overview

The ILC Baseline Design was completed in December 2005:

Process overseen by ILC Executive - B. Barish, G. Dugan, BF, F. Takasaki, T. Raubenheimer, N. Walker, K.Yokoya.


38

Damping rings Example - development from TESLA TDRto BCD - damping rings area in which technology has really advanced


39

Damping rings Three candidates emerged from Snowmass:


40

Damping rings Pulser development at KEK ATF

BCD has 2*6km e+, 6 km e-; dogbone backup.


41

Next steps for GDE RDR will take forward the BCD, refine thedesign and in particular gather industrialisation data in order to form the basis for reliable cost estimate with the RDR.

There are 3 new boards: Change ControlBoard; Global R&D Board; Design & CostBoard. The RDR will be produced using a matrixstructure of “area systems” and “technicalsystems” to account for the structure of theproject.


42

Next steps

New structures & people now in place for next step to RDR.

Progress will be reviewed in March in Bangalore.


43

Next steps ICFA FALC

FALC Resource Board

ILCSC

GDEDirectorate

GDEExecutive Committee

GlobalR&D Program

RDR Design Matrix

GDEChange Control Board

GDEDesign Cost Board

GDER & D Board


44

Change control The board has overseen the consolidation of the baseline design and the production of aWord document containing all the information. Has begun to deal with requests for changesto the baseline as further work and R&D is completed. Careful methodology developed - categorisesthe importance of the change, then assignsnumber of board members to review itdepending on importance.


45

Change control

During process, all GDE members can comment on proposed change.

N. Toge, chair, is very methodical and hasestablished good discipline in the group.

Now dealing with the fourth proposed changeto the BCD - this one quite a major one related to the RF frequency of the damping rings.


46

Change control

QuickTime and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.


47

Other boards

Design & cost board produced a (very)detailed programme of work to lead ustowards the most important deliverable of theRDR - a believable, robust and affordablecosting.

R&D board has to try to impose a structureand discipline on inherently chaotic system- R&D - eliminating wasteful duplication while preserving & enhancing necessary duplication.


48

Test facilities

TTF exists at DESY, SMTF (FNAL), STF (KEK):

Stimulate SCindustry in theregions -collaborate onSC technology


49

Test facilities

ATF @ KEK has been a great success. Timefor further improvement:


50

ILCCommunications

• Launch of New ILC Website @ Snowmass

www.linearcollider.org

• “One Stop Shopping”– electronic data

management system (EDMS), news, calendar of events, education and communication


51


52

European GDE

European GDE met in Oxford on 25/10/05.Discussed obviously regional issues:- how to get more resources from inside Europe, in particular the EU;- regional outreach - Europe has particulardifficulties & challenges here.

The European GDE does NOT discuss thetechnical issues of the BCD or take up European positions on them - these arematters for the full GDE.


53

European GDE

Two meetings in CERN to explore in particular the similarity between LHC and ILC cryogenics and to utilise CERNexpertise, particularly in civil engineering.

Very encouraged by the great interest onthe ground in CERN in the project, thevery constructive and positive meetingswe have had and the growing involvementof CERN staff in the ILC.


54

European GDE

European Outreach group re-established atOrsay meeting. B. Warmbein will join theteam shortly as communicator/PA to EGDE director, based at DESY.

EGDE director’s advisory group also meetlast week at Orsay. Discussed plans for FP7initiative for European cryogenic RFdevelopment centre based probably at oneof big labs. BF visiting CERN next week todiscuss with DG.


55

Political scene CERN Council strategy group now fullyactive. Plenary meeting in Orsay last weekwas I think quite successful. Usual suspectssaid usual things. Nothing startlingly new. Some particular points:- L. Foa said: “we did it 4 years ago - physics hasn’t changed - our conclusions stand.”

Ground rules of the group say that the current Council position as laid out in theRome meeting will be “reiterated”.


56

Political scene

Sterile argument about whether we need towait for LHC results keeps rearing itshead. As a scientist I keep charging in tojoin it. As a politician, I should keep mytrap shut.

Tendency to talk up direct competitionbetween ILC and Neutrino Factory perhapssomewhat increased.

Tendency to talk up CLIC as direct competitor to ILC perhaps somewhat diminished.


57

Political scene

The Zeuthen meeting will be very important -on the assumption that it does the sensiblething, it does give a chance to really tie inthe European governments to a brightfuture for pp.

At Lisbon special CERN Council meeting, we will start to see the process by which the governments will hopefully put theirmoney where their mouths are.


58

Political scene

US affairs perhaps starting to look somewhatrosier. State of Union message had major science initiative, “American Competetiveness Initiative” (ACI). Aim is toinvest $136B over 10 years - “Doubling the Federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years”


59

Political scene

2007 HEP budget request is an increasefrom ~$720M -> $775M. The ILC playsa prominent part in the rhetoric of thebudget justifying the increase - but otherthings are also in there.

Such an increase would be very welcome, buta lot more needs to be done before an ILCbased in the US could be considered realistic.

GDE Plan & Schedule

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Global Design Effort Project

Baseline configuration

Reference Design

ILC R&D Program

Technical Design

Bids to Host; Site Selection;

International Mgmt

LHCPhysics; CLIC


61

PostscriptInteresting historical note – something else which has happennedin the last decade is:

The Financial Times a few months ago did a poll of the most influential Europeans in the last 25 years:

1. The Pope

2. Mikhail Gorbachev

3. Margaret Thatcher

4. Gro Harlem Brundtland

5. Helmut Kohl

6. Tim Berners-Lee

7. Jacques Delors


62

SummaryThe last decade has seen both the strengthening of theexperimental basis of the Standard Model and the firstsigns of cracks in it. We are at the threshold of a decade of major discoveriesin particle physics, through the LHC and hopefully at theend of the period the linear collider, which will surelychange our understanding of the forces and particles thatdrive the Universe.

The next decade promises to be even more exciting than the last.

The GDE is driving the ILC towards completing a TDRin 2008; progress is on schedule. We need to ensure thatthe political ground is properly laid as well as the technical;and that the community speaks with one voice; having clearpriorities, but also more than LHC + ILC.

desy/zeuthen, 7/8 feb. 06 · pdf filematter-antimatter puzzle as far as we can see in...

Documents