ip crossing-angle and lc technology recommendation philip bambade lal, orsay 5 th itrp meeting,...
TRANSCRIPT
IP crossing-angle and LC technology recommendation
Philip BambadeLAL, Orsay
5th ITRP meeting, Caltech, USA Session on detector & physics issues
June 28, 2004
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
2
Context warm LC c [mrad] 20 , 7
cold LC c [mrad] 20 , 7 , 0• magnitude important aspect of machine design
• TRC recommended (R2 item) that the technical pros / cons of the TESLA head-on scheme – especially the extraction – be critically reviewed and to consider also designs with a finite c – e.g. 20, 7 mrad or eventually other possibilities (0.6 and 2 mrad)
• LC scope calls for 2 ee IR with similar energy and luminosity, one of which with c ~ 30 mrad to enable a future -collider option
Importance for detector & physics ?
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
3
ITRP crossing-angle questions1. “The presence of a crossing angle, while not fully correlated with
the technology choice, will have experimental impacts upon the precision of measurement of energy, energy-wtd luminosity, and polarization. Discuss physics consequences of having 0 crossing angle with no final beam measurements possible, versus a finite crossing angle, which permits measurements of the spent beam.”
2. “In the case of a crossing angle, the beam axes differ from the magnetic field direction. What complication does this cause for the experiments? Does it argue for keeping the crossing angle as small as possible?”
3. “Are there differences in the coverage dictated by differences in the final focus elements for the two technologies?”
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
4
Energy and polarization from beam-based measurements
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
5
BPMs
E/E ~ (1 – 2) 10-4
linac E spread dL/dE
also from Bhabhaanalyses
post – IP more difficult without large c
SPECTROMETRY pre – IP all designs
E/E ~ (1 – 2) 10-4
linac E spread with other pre-IP device
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
6
P/P ~ (2.5 – 5) 10-3
Compton scattering extrapolation
clearance from spent beam probes beam-beam effects
post – IP requires large c
POLARIMETRY pre – IP all designs
P/P ~ (2.5 – 5) 10-3
Compton scattering extrapolation
optics constraints
M. Woods et al. SLAC-PUB-10353
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
7
How important are additional post – IP spectrometer and polarimeter ?
Different systematics ! Errors Beam-beam effects correlations
21~
Physics needs : ~ 5 10-3 searches 2 10-3 HE SM
tests < 1 10-3 GigaZ
Precision of each pre- & post-IP measurement (1 – 2) 10-4 (2.5 – 5) 10-3
E P 2 10-4 mtop, mhiggs
5 10-5 mW , ALR
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
8
Full beam-beam effect ~ 3 - 4 lumi-weightedK. Mönig
• Post-IP can compare with / without collisions • Post-IP “magnifying glass” for beam-beam effect• Real conditions : must correlate to offsets, currents,...
mrad50 if P,S 0P,S
xx
x
x
0.0025
0.008
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
9
Effects from misalignment of solenoid and beam axes
steering and spin precession backgrounds
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
10
c 0 solenoid steers spin precesses
IP
IP y angle ~ 100 radIP y offset ~ - 20 m
(y) ~ 85 rad (y) ~ 3 nm
spin precession ~ 60 mrad if uncorrected ~ 0.2 % depolarization with perfect beams (or else larger)
c = 20 mrad
must compensate !
A.Seryi and B. Parker
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
11
• Adds ~ 0.01 of Bz along x in detector• TPC tracking map Bz to 0.0005 to control distortions• Larger backgrounds and steering of the spent beam
Option for local correction with extra dipole fields within the detector + before + after
IP
With compensation
IP
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
12
New TESLA design, K. Büsser and A. Stahl
Beam – beam pairs in instrumented mask / BeamCAL
T. MaruyamaTotal pair statistics
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
13
• c 20 mrad twice more energy from pairs in BeamCAL• Complex shapes, beam param. extraction more complicated
GeV / cm2 GeV / cm2
TESLA head-on TESLA c = 20 mrad
Cold head-on / c 20 mrad
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
14
GeV / cm2 GeV / cm2
TESLA head-on TESLA c = 20 mrad
• for crossing angle, smaller background enhancement wrt headon if outgoing hole is increased ; also helps relax collimation requirements• if collimation requirements impose to increase the exit hole, then the vertex detector radius would increase as well in the head-on case
Collimation exit hole radius vertex detector radius
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
15
Total pair energy in Warm / Cold c 20 , 7 , 0 mrad
• Warm / R2cm / 20mrad with Serpentine ~ Cold / R1.2cm / 0mrad • Smallest effects for Warm / 7mrad• Total pair energy can be used for luminosity monitoring in all cases
T. Maruyama
out-going hole radius [cm] out-going hole radius [cm]
cold: Rincoming = Routgoingcold: Rincoming = Routgoing
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
16
Forward Tracking Disks FTD
Hits on vertex detector
• Detector occupancies are up to factor 2 larger if c 20 mrad and the outgoing hole is not enlarged with respect to the head-on case• Still at tolerable levels • More on occupancies in H. Yamamoto’s talk on pile-up issues
c 20 mrad more backscattering into main
detector asymmetrical distributions Hits on forward chamber
New TESLA design, K. Büsser and A. Stahl
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
17
Reduction in SUSY coverage from IR geometries with c 0
scenarios with quasi – degenerate mass spectra
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
18
signal major background
ee 0 0 ee (e)(e) ~ 10 fb ~ 106 fb
Transverse view
Dark matter SUSY scenarios slepton & neutralino masses often very close (co-annihilation mechanism)
e.g. search & measure stau with m - 3 – 9 GeV
c 0 harder to eliminate signal – like - processes
P.B. et al. hep-ph/0406010
M. Battaglia et al. hep-ph/0306219
~
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
19
Preliminary result benchmark point D’ with m- = 12 GeV
signal efficiency ~ 80% spectrum end-points preserved
ms= 0.18 GeV and and m = 0.17 GeV for this benchmark point smallest ms- detectable as function of veto angle and quality ?
After requiring N=2 Normalized for L=500fb-1
Same performance for both head-on and crossing-angle collisions
P.B. et al. hep-ph/0406010
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
20
Preliminary resultbenchmark point D’ with m- = 5 GeV
Thrust axis angle in 3-dim
PT wrt thrust axisin the transverse plane
Azimuthal dependence of the transverse momentum
head-on crossing-angle
efficiency ~ 11 % ~ 8 %
Effect of 2nd hole after re-optimizing the analysis
P.B. et al. hep-ph/0406010
c 20 mrad
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
21
Luminosity, ECM and efficiency optimization benchmark point D’ with m- = 5 GeV mass precision wrt efficiency effect from 2nd hole only
Relative mass precision from cross-section measurements near the production threshold with negligible background
8%11%
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
22
Importance of high veto efficiency BeamCAL
ee 0 0 ee (e)(e)
~ 10 fb ~ 106 fb
analysis ~ 1 fb ~ 600 fb
analysis + veto ~ 1 fb ~ 0.7 fb
veto ~ 0.999
S/N ~ 1
10 mrad
m - 5 GeV
~
S / B depends crucially on VETO for the HE electron superimposed on the pairs
c 20 mrad factor 2 increase in deposited pair background energy
Potential additional effects from pile-up will be addressed in K. Mönig’s and H. Yamamoto’s talks
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
23
Summary : post-IP diagnostics• Post-IP energy spectrometry is desirable to complement the pre-IP
calibration and to give another handle on the luminosity spectrum. • It will be important to reach, together with analyses of dedicated
physics calibration channels, ultimate SM measurement precision. • The design of a post-IP spectrometer is more difficult without a
large enough c .• The same is true for post-IP polarimetry. A design seems quasi-
impossible in this case without a large enough c .• A post-IP polarimeter, correlated with other measurements of the
spent beam (orbits, intensities,…) is important to probe beam-beam depolarizing effects, in order to validate the simulation and assist in controlling the systematics involved.
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
24
Summary : solenoid / c
• Steering and spin precession from the solenoid with c 20 mrad must be corrected.
• Adding steering dipoles within, before and after the detector can compensate for these effects. The additional B field must be taken into account in the tracking, especially in the context of correcting distortions in a TPC.
• For c 20 mrad, pair deposition in the instrumented mask and backscattering in the detector increase by factors 1.5 - 2, from the solenoid and beam axes misalignment and additionally from the compensating steering.
• Occupancies remain tolerable though some hit distributions become asymmetrical and contain structures complicating the interpretation.
• Such effects are less important for c 7 mrad.
Philip Bambade LAL/Orsay
x-angle & LC technology choice ITRP 28/6/2004
25
Summary : hermeticity• To enable precise mass measurements in SUSY models with
degenerate spectra typical of scenarios proposed to explain Dark Matter, it is critical to tag forward high energy electrons very well.
• The slepton detection efficiency and mass measurement precision are reduced for c 20 mrad , because of the 2nd hole for the in-coming beam and because of larger pair background.
• The reduction strongly depends on the mass difference between the sparticle considered and the lightest SUSY particle (the neutralino). It is largest for the smallest mass differences.
• In a realistic case study with stau (smuon) mass 5 (12) GeV heavier than the neutralino, efficiency losses from the 2nd hole were 25% (negligible), after re-optimizing the analysis.
• Meaningful estimates of further losses from the increased pair background, taking into account an appropriate optimization of the electron veto algorithm, are not yet available.