This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
11:20 11:50 Video with CERN Yurkewicz, Thioye, Tschann-Grimm
11:50 12:20 lunch
12:20 1:05 Tour of facilities
1:05 1:35 DØ calorimeter, Layer 0 Schamberger
1:35 2:05 DØ physics prospects Hobbs
2:05 2:35 Video with FNAL Tsybychev, Hu, Guo, Strauss et al
2:35 3:00 break
3:00 3:25 NN group; K2K, T2K McGrew
3:25 3:45 SuperK, UNO Yanagisawa
3:45 4:20 MARIACHI Takai
4:20 5:00 Executive session NSF/ consultants
5:00 5:30 Closeout NSF/ consultants/ PIs
Agenda
ATLAS
DØ
, p decay, DUSEL
Mariachi
The Stony Brook Group makeup – three NSF grants, two DOE tasks: Seen from within, the boundaries between grants are highly permeable. We are one unified HEP group.
Amalgamated by NSF in 1980’s into one group with these 7 senior physicists all working on DØ (and some remnants of other expts).
Today, 4 senior physicists (*) on NSFa grant (recent new faculty joined the DOE grants).
The university recently approved a new hire in HEP (ATLAS) – we propose that this person will join the NSFa grant.
Grannis to retire from teaching faculty to become research professor Jan. 2007 (summer support from grant).
NSFa Group profile:
Current students:
Jun Guo – DØ calorimeter, W mass in electron channel
Emanuel Strauss – DØ, data quality
Katy Tschann-Grimm – ATLAS calorimeter, production
Mustapha Thioye – ATLAS calorimeter (shared with DOE)
Jet Goodson – ATLAS calorimeter, missing ET
Current postdocs:
Yuan Hu – DØ preshower, trigger, bb final states
Dmitri Tsybychev – DØ Si Vtx leader, B physics
Adam Yurkewicz – ATLAS calorimeter/ missing ET, DØ W mass
New (replacement for N. Parua) – ATLAS
Physics Questions
Particle physics has not had such exciting prospects for many years. There are many fundamental problems on which it seems possible to make real advances with the next round of experiments: What are the small neutrino masses and large mixings telling us? Are neutrinos Majorana or Dirac? Do they imply a new high energy scale?
What generates the flavor matrices? Is there new physics in the flavor loops? Why baryon-antibaryon asymmetry in the universe?
Are there baryon lepton couplings? Is the proton stable?
What is origin of ultra-high energy cosmic rays?
Our colleagues in DOEb, NSFb, NSFc groups are addressing many of these questions; we benefit from our close interactions. See talks by Clark McGrew,
Chiaki Yanagisawa, HelioTakai.
Questions, cont’d.
Those of us in the NSFa and DOEa groups have primarily focussed on the last four questions for the past 20 years, and see great opportunity to make substantial progress in the coming years. Our past studies position us well to lead in these studies.
How can we characterize dark energy? Are there insights that could come from particle physics (e.g. study of spin 0 fields)?
What is dark matter – are WIMPs the whole story? Does it connect to new physics in the EWSB sector?
What generates the Electroweak symmetry breaking? Does the Higgs field exist?
How is the EW scale stabilized with respect to the GUT scale? What is the new non-SM physics that accomplishes this?
Is QCD unified with the EW interaction?
ratio
Mean initial luminosity
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
design
base
Integrated luminosity
Inte
grat
ed lu
min
osity
(fb
-1)
ratio
The DØ Program
Tevatron will run through FY2009; goal is 8 fb-1 accumulated by end of run. Now have ~2 fb-1. Tevatron is performing very well.
Primary goals for remaining DØ run: Search for Higgs; constrain SM through top and W mass; find evidence for new physics; explore the heavy b-quark states and rare decays.
Dean Schamberger, John Hobbs will discuss in more detail.
95% confidence exclusion at Higgs mass:
115 GeV
< 160 GeV
< 185 GeV
Discover Higgs at 115 GeV
SM Higgs boson search
From 2006 summer conferences: within factor ~5 of SM rate.
By end of run, DØ/CDF combined can rule out (95% CL) Higgs up to 185 GeV. 5 discovery for mH < 120 GeV.
SB involvement in Higgs search will continue – Grannis, Hobbs, Hu, students.
First definitive breakdown of EW Standard Model?
Measure W mass to 40 MeV in each experiment (McCarthy, J. Guo, Hobbs, Zhu, F. Guo). Expect each experiment to measure top mass to 2 GeV. (Note that improvement on mW is even more important than mt.)
The combination of decreasing errors on W and top masses, and extending the Higgs mass exclusion to higher mass can lead to a clear violation of the SM.
W mass: Hobbs, J. Guo, F. Guo, McCarthy
Observing the Higgs would be even better!
185
b-quark states – heavy systems, rare decays, Bs mixing
D. Tsybychev is a primary player in B physics studies.
First limit on Bs mixing (CDF did better)
DØ strengths are in lepton decay modes, larger acceptance, forward decays.
Bs → search
New b state spectroscopy
ATLAS Program Bob McCarthy, Rod Engelmann, Michael Rijssenbeek will discuss in more detail.
Our ATLAS group is relatively not as large as Stony Brook was in DØ, so we will focus more tightly.
Our primary technical responsibilities:
Design, construction, installation of the liquid argon calorimeter HV feedthroughs
Calorimeter commissioning
Calorimeter tests & calibrations
Stony Brook now in CERN to commission, ATLAS – Rijssenbeek, Yurkiewicz, Tschann-Grimm, Thioye (Goodson) + 1 new postdoc. Weekly meetings by video.
Formulating Stony Brook/ATLAS physics program
Physics program will follow our belief that EWSB is the most important broad topic and will connect to our calorimeter responsibilities.
Early analysis efforts will center on topics that develop key competencies: Direct photon production. These extend QCD tests, help
develop the EM object algorithms, and provide the data sample for jet energy scale calibration ( + jet transverse momentum balance). Jets + missing ET. This aims at the first order SUSY search
(cross section for scalar sum of jet ET + MET). Also an
opportunity for calibrating and optimizing MET resolution. Lead to longer term possibilities, e.g.:
H → WW* → qq l H → () Squark/gluino search in multijets + MET Extra dimensions in qq/gg → jets + MET due to graviton into bulk
etc.
International Linear Collider
We expect that the Tevatron and LHC will make dramatic discoveries that extend our understanding of the Electroweak scale and its connection to the GUT/Planck scales. We should also expect that these discoveries require more precise studies to understand what they mean.
The ILC can provide new discoveries and illuminate those from LHC.
Couplin
g t
o H
iggs
→
String inspired supersymmetry
Ratios of Higgs BRs to SM
1
1.2
0.8
SM predictio
n
e.g. LHC will not measure Higgs branching ratios accurately. Deviations of these BRs from SM prediction can tell us whether it is SM Higgs or some other model. ILC can achieve the required precision.
axial coupling
vecto
r cou
plin
g
dimuon mass
p
rou
cti
on
rate
ILC error
ILC
Another example of LHC – ILC synergy: Suppose LHC sees a heavy Z’ state decaying to dileptons. It could be Kaluza Klein state from extra dimensions, or one of many variants of new strong coupling models. ILC can determine what it is through accurate measurement of V and A couplings.
LHC discovery
+
+
+
ILC detectors:
ILC detectors are challenging in complementary ways to LHC; need to identify quarks (high quality pixel vertex detectors) and give very good resolution for jet energy (goal is E/E = 30%/√E). This may be achieved with ‘particle flow calorimetry’ with very fine segmentation and new pattern recognition algorithms for clustering deposits.
These calorimetric techniques have not yet been demonstrated – they need test beam validation, software development, benchmarking of full simulation Monte Carlos. We expect to contribute to this program with supplemental funding from ILC detector funds.
e+e- → ZZ x
e+e- → WW x
ILC engagement
Grannis has been broadly involved in ILC for years:
Co-chair of Americas Linear Collider Physics Group (physics and detectors)
International Technology Review Panel (technology choice)
Chair, GDE Director search committee
ILC Program Manager for ILC: responsible for Americas region accelerator and detector oversight; developing budget; liaison within US government
FALC (Funding Agencies Large Colliders) and FALC Resource Group; subgroup to document technological benefits from ILC R&D.
Bob McCarthy, Helio Takai will talk more on educational outreach efforts. We have also given numerous talks to describe our science to public audiences.
yr 1 2 3 yr 1 2 3 yr 1 2 3 yr 1 2 3
Engelmann 100 100 100
Grannis 30 50 50 70 50 50
McCarthy 50 40 30 50 60 70
Schamberger 80 80 40 10 10 10 10 10 10
(New faculty) 50 100 100
Hu 100 100 100
Tsybychev 100 100 100
Yurkiewicz 100 100 100
(Parua) 100 100 100
DØ ATLAS ILC Mariachi
Proposed disposition of effort
Senio
r PIs
post
docs
Individual postdocs may leave; replacements fill in as shown.
Grad students now 50% DØ, 50% ATLAS; will become predominantly ATLAS at end of 3 yr period. Expect new students to work on ILC R&D during first two years while taking courses.
NSFa 3 year budget proposal:
Yr 1: $1.23M Yr 2: $1.31M Yr3: $1.37M (add new faculty summer salary in year 2)
Salaries, fringe benefits are ~80% of direct costs
Net overhead rate (weighted on/off campus rates): 40.5%
Equipment: $15K, $15K, $22K (1 new analysis desktop/yr; upgrade video conference equipment; spectrum analyzer for LHC upgrade design work)
Travel: ~$32K/yr domestic; $45K →$58K/yr foreign (including station allowance for students/postdocs at CERN)