1 / 42

Welcome to the workshop on forward calorimetry

Welcome to the workshop on forward calorimetry. Overview. Richard Seto. FO rward CAL orimeter. Welcome!. Overview of FOCAL Jan 19-Review recommendations Goals/purpose of workshop and agenda. NSAC milestones – Physics Goals. pA physics – nuclear gluon pdf.  G. -Jet AuAu. transverse

drake
Download Presentation

Welcome to the workshop on forward calorimetry

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Welcome to the workshopon forward calorimetry Overview Richard Seto FOrward CALorimeter

  2. Welcome! • Overview of FOCAL • Jan 19-Review recommendations • Goals/purpose of workshop and agenda

  3. NSAC milestones – Physics Goals pA physics – nuclear gluon pdf  G -Jet AuAu transverse spin phenomena

  4. Look for saturation effects at low x Measure initial state of Heavy Ion Collision measure gluon PDF’s in nuclei! (DM8) x pA physics – nuclear gluon pdf Saturation at low x RGPb Nuclear Gluon PDF’s : DM8 xG(x) direct  jets –x resolution forward η(low-x)

  5. x Longitudinal Spin G, g(x) : HP12 DSSV finds • g(x) very small at medium x (even compared to GRSV or DNS) • best fit has a node at x ~ 0.1 • huge uncertainties at small x Current data is sensitive to G for xgluon= 0.020.3 EXTEND MEASUREMENTS TO LOW x! Forward Measure x RHIC range 0.05· x · 0.2 direct  jets –x resolution forward η(low-x) 0 0 small-x 0.001· x · 0.05

  6. use -jet to measure Sivers determination of the process dependence of the Sivers effect in g+jet events So what does Sivers tell us about orbital angular momentum? Major new Thrust Transverse Spin Phenomena: HP13 Sivers direct  -jet 0 forward η(low-x) large η coverage

  7. Study the medium via long range correlations with jets are these correlations from a response by the medium? “jet” “ridge” STAR Preliminary Correlations with jets in heavy Ion collisions: DM10 for example ? leading EM shower EM - shower large η coverage Jet correlations in AuAu

  8. direct  and electromagnetic showers jet angles to obtain x2 0 s forward  to reach low-x has large  coverage To meet these goals we must have a detector that measures: now what do we build?

  9. Central Arms ||<0.3 Tracking PbSc/PbGl(EMC) PID VTX to come Muon arms 1.1<||<2.4 magnet tracking -ID FVTX to come Schematic of PHENIX central magnet MPC 3<||<4 calorimetry

  10. Perfect space for FOCAL! (but tight!) 40 cm from Vertex FOCAL • EM bricks • 14 HAD bricks • HAD behind EM 20 cm of space nosecone

  11. FOCAL Requirements • Ability to measure photons and π0’s to 30 GeV • Energy resolution < 25%/E • Compact (20 cm depth) • Ability to identify EM/hadronic activity • Jet angular measurement • High granularity ~ similar to central arms • small mollier radius ~1.4 cm • large acceptance – rapidity coverage x2 ~ 0.001 • Densest calorimeter -> Si W We wanted large  coverage what sort of coverage if we put a detector where the nosecones are?

  12. FOCAL FOCAL Muon tracking Muon tracking VTX & FVTX FOCAL a large acceptance calorimeter tracking EMC 0 f coverage 2p tracking EMC MPC MPC -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 rapidity What’s missing? FORward CALorimetery

  13. reach in x2 for g(x) and GA(x) log(x2) EMC+VTX EMC+VTX+FOCAL EMC+VTX+FOCAL+MPC X2  10-3

  14. FOCAL Design

  15. Overall Detector – stack the bricks “brick” supertower 6cm 17 cm 6cm 85 cm Note this ledge may not be in the final design

  16. Pads Silicon Design Design Tungsten-Silicon Pads: 21 layers • 535 m silicon • 16 cells: 15.5mmx15.5mm X and Y Strips: 4 layers • x-y high resolution strip planes • 128 strips: 6.2cmx0.5mm γ/π0 Discriminator=EM0 segments= EM1 EM2 Supertower Particle Direction 6cm 4 planes of x-y “strips” (8 physical planes) 4 mm W Silicon “pads”

  17. Vital statistics • EM0= /0, EM1, EM2 segments • ~17 cm in length • 22 X0 ~ 0.9 • Strips – read out by SVX-4 • 8 layer *128 strips=1024 strips/super-tower • 1024 strips/super-tower*160 super-towers/side = 163,840 strips/side • 163840 strips/side (1detector/128 strips) = 1280 Strip Detectors/side • 163,840 strips /(128 channels/chip)= 1280 chips/side • Pads – read out by ADC– 3 longitudinal readouts • 160 supertowers/side*21 detectors/supertower= • 3360 Si pad detectors/side • 3360 detector*16channels/detector= 53760 pads/side • readout channels (pads) • 160 supe-rtowers/side *16 pads/tower*3 towers =7680 readouts/side • Bricks • 2x4 supertowers: 4 • 2x6 supertowers: 6 • 2x7 supertowers: 4

  18. Detection – how it works Some detector performance examples

  19. Status of simulations • Stand alone done w/ GEANT3/G4 to study • /0 separation, single track 0 (G4) • EM shower energy/angle resolutions (G4) • Full PISA • jet resolution (G3/PISA) • 2 track 0 (G3/PISA) • Several levels • Statistical errors, backgrounds, resolutions folded into Pythia level calculations • Full PISA simulation using old configuration • Transverse spin physics – task force formed – simulations in progress (early step is to put models etc into simulations) *PISA – PHENIX Geant3 simulation

  20. It’s a tracking device EM0 EM2 EM1 A 10 GeV photon “track” Pixel-like tracking: 3 layers + vertex Each “hit” is the center of gravity of the cluster in the segment Iterative pattern recognition algorithm uses a parameterization of the shower shape for energy sharing among clusters in a segment and among tracks in the calorimeter. vertex

  21. Energy Resolution (Geant4) New Geometry Excludes Strips no sampling fraction correction 0.00+0.20/√E adequate: we wanted ~ 0.25/√E

  22. /0 identification:Single track /0 50 GeV pi0 • for pt>5 GeV • showers overlap • use x/y + vertex to get opening angle • Energy from Calorimeter • Energy Asymmetry – assume 50-50 split as a first algorithm X-view 4-x, 2x Y-view 4-y, 3y invariant mass

  23. 10 GeV h~1.65 (Geant4-pp events) Assumed g region Assumed p0 region  0 • /0 identification: single track /0 • tested at various energies and angles, so far at pp multiplicities Fake g reconstruction: 20% Real p0 reconstruction: 50-60% Real g reconstruction: ~ 60% Fake p0 reconstruction ~ 5%

  24. Jan 19 – a review

  25. Jan 19 – review • Members • M. Grosse-Perdekamp (chair), Elke Aschenauer, Christine Aidala, Mike Leitch, Glenn Young • charge • assess the state of the plans for the FOCAL • physics justification - the potential impact of the physics program • technical design? adequate for physics objectives? • recommendations important guide for • a detector proposal • external project review • Timescale : in 9 to 12 months.

  26. Recommendations – from the exec summary • focus on the first three milestones for FOCAL proposal (dAu, Delta G, transverse physics) • measure parton distribution functions in nuclei at low x • physics critically depends on its ability to reconstruct  in p+p and d+Au

  27. Recommendations – physics groups • significant effort needed on simulations • form 4 FOCAL physics study groups (give freedom to leaders) • d-A • heavy ion • Delta-G • transverse spin • each group requires • an experienced group leader @ 0.2 FTE • With *great* urgency: provide sufficient manpower Delta-G (1 @0.5 FTE) • dAu (5 @ 0.5 FTE) • AuAu (2 @0.5 FTE) • transverse - group formed and working • proposal ready by September

  28. recommended schedule • April, 2009 • to PM: schedule and leadership + manpower for the physics study groups. (initial org chart) • to PM: organizational structure for the hardware side of the project (sub tasks, sub task leaders, institutional responsibilities) • Review of FEE, DAQ & trigger (TBD – in sync with ongoing run) • May, 2009: • to DC: FOCAL technology and design choice. simulation plans, goals, manpower and structure of physics study groups. • PM: review overall organizational structure (sub-tasks, sub-task managers, institutional responsibilities, FTE available, FTE needed etc.) • June, 2009: • PHENIX internal FOCAL budget review. • workshop on Forward Physics with the PHENIX detector upgrades. (this meeting and July Collab meeting) • July, 2009: FOCAL collaboration meeting: beam test results, simulation progress, simulation tasks left open? writing assignments. • September, 2009: proposal to PHENIX DC&EC. • October, 2009: External review.

  29. Goals for workshop • Physics • Solidify, clarify, and make more specific physics goals for proposal • Situation now • Theory status • Next measurements needed • How can the FOCAL contribute? • What is the competition? • What simulations needed? • introduce simulations to everyone • Fully determine physics groups • Who will do what • Discuss hardware interests • Set goals for funding strategy Be thinking 10 years!

  30. Agenda • 9:00-9:30 Welcome/intro to FOCAL –Rich Seto • Introductory Talks • 9:30-10:00 Questions in Spin Physics - Elke Aschenauer • 10:00-10:30 Transverse Physics theory - Andreas Metz • Topics in Forward Physics • 10:30-11:00 Measuring Delta G - Mickey Chiu • 11:00-11:15 Break • 11:15-11:45 Transverse physics - John Lajoie • 11:45-12:15 pA - Mike Leitch • 12:15-12:45 AuAu - Justin Franz • 12:45-1:45 Lunch Afternoon-focus on PHENIX/FOCAL • 1:45-2:15 Status of FOCAL hardware - Edouard Kistenev • 2:15-2:45 Triggering and Electronics - Andrey Sukhanov • Simulations • 2:45-3:15 Questions to attack - Yongil Kwon • 3:15-3:45 Status - Ondrej Chvala • 3:45-4:00 Spin readiness - Richard Hollis • 4:00-4:15 Break • 4:15-4:30 Funding/Schedule - Rich Seto • 4:30-5:30 Discussion Introductory talks the physics (groups) the hardware Organization and planning

  31. Backup

  32. Resolutions • EM shower • energy – 20%/E • angular – 6mr • Jet angular resolution • 60 mr @ pt=20 GeV jet angular resolution Full PISA simulation PT

  33. occupancy high energy em shower ? • 0 singe track 0

  34. CAD guidance (29-dec-08) p+p

  35. CAD guidance (29-dec-08) Au+Au

  36. sum total over all years

  37. /0 identification: pp 2 track 0 pT<5 GeV E=6-10 GeV pt=2.-2.5 y=1-1.5 pt=1.-1.5 y=1-1.5 pt=4.-4.5 y=1-1.5 pt=1.5-2.0 y=1.5-2.0 pt=0.5-1.0 y=2-2.5 pt=0.5-1.0 y=1.5-2.0

  38. x2 resolution – no radiationDetector smearing only we will assume lowest x is xgluon log(x2) Note: radiative smearing is at least as big as detector smearing (use NNLO QCD) x2~ resolution 15% can pick out regions of x2

  39. Design (4 x-y planes) [backup] • EM0= /0, EM1, EM2 segments, leaves 4-5 cm • no room for hadronic segment • 22 X0 0.9 (originally NCC was 14 X0 +28 X0 (HAD) 1.4) old “NCC” γ/π0 Discriminator=EM0 segments= EM1 EM2 Supertower Particle Direction 4 mm W 4 planes of x-y “strips” (8 physical planes) Silicon “pads”

More Related