1 / 24

Multiple Scattering

Multiple Scattering. CM34 @ RAL Timothy Carlisle. Intro. MICE performance predicted using the cooling formula ( CF ): G4MICE ≠ CF (see prev CMs) Simulation disagrees with C.F by up to 20%. MS calc. typically approx.: CF uses Rossi- Greisen (1941). Somewhat crude.

menefer
Download Presentation

Multiple Scattering

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. Multiple Scattering CM34 @ RAL Timothy Carlisle

  2. Intro. • MICE performance predicted using the cooling formula (CF): • G4MICE ≠ CF (see prev CMs) • Simulation disagrees with C.F by up to 20%. • MS calc. typically approx.: • CF uses Rossi-Greisen (1941). • Somewhat crude. • Rutherford scattering law - simplest description of MS. N

  3. Rutherford MS Rutherford tends to infinity at θ=0 Apply limits: Lower cut-off by Uncertainty Principle: (Thomas-Fermi model of the atom) Upper by rel. size of nucleus: Integrate, giving: • Rutherford Form. I • with hard limits for scattering

  4. Deriving the PDG form Definition of X0: Log terms cancel..., substitute X0into diff. eqn.  1941: Rossi-Greisen 1974 - PDG - log correction to R-G (by Highland) • removes strong path length dep. • *Z dep. remains however* PDG values for X0 include e- R-G implicitly incl. atomic e- scatters. However... Heavy particle scatters off e- have a rel. small max. angle. Limited by kinematics. Not incl. by R-G/PDG 4

  5. Scattering off Atomic electrons • e- collisions are significant, increasingly at low Z. • Include e- by using different limits for e- scatters. • ... integrate to get: However - Also need to include screening of the nuclear potential by e-s. • Rutherford Form. II • with sep. hard limits for nuclear & electron scatters

  6. Atomic Screening e- screened nucleus • Atomic e-s reduce nuclear charge seen by muon. • 1927: Wentzel assumed exponential scattering potential, used Born Approximation. • later corrected by Moliere N Integrate to get: Wenztel-Moliere Form.

  7. Comparison of Formulae R-G PDG Total – Rutherford w. hard limits nuclei (W-M) Total – Wentzel-Moliere electrons (W-M) • Mean Sq. Angle of scattering / X0 (Z). Muons at 200 MeV/c.

  8. Simulation of Multiple Scattering

  9. Scattering in simulation code • Geant4: several different scattering models! • Urban (default), Wentzel-VI & CoulombScattering model • Compared with MuScat in *, Urban ‘worst’ of the 3. • Urban used by LHC sim. exps., quoted as 1% precision. • Used by MAUS – now builds with the latest version G4.9.5.p01. • ELMS • Uses knowledge of photoabsorptioncooeffs to describe atomic structure. • Only for LH2, only useable through ICOOL at present... • Can we build a Monte Carlo using the Wentzel-Moliere Z-section? YES! * Geant4 models for simulation of multiple scattering V N Ivanchenkoet al 2010 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.219 032045

  10. Cobb-Carlisle Model • New Monte Carlo Model, based on Wentzel-Moliere X-section • Simulates muons fired through block of absorber material. • Predicts . • Integrate over angle and thickness • Gives Nnucleus & Nelectron scatters. • E.g. for 10.9cm LH2 ~ 36,000 scatters (total). • Nuclear scattering angles distributed as: • Integrate over angle, solve: • Sum for all collisions = total scat. angle. • Can compare with MuScat results...

  11. MuScat Absorbers

  12. Comparison for 10.9cm lh2 Probability / radian Cobb-Carlisle Model MuScat c2~12 c2~15 ELMS vs. MuScat Geant4.7.0p01

  13. Comparison for 0.15cm al Probability / radian Cobb-Carlisle c2~130 vs. MuScat MuScat Geant4.7.0p01

  14. Comparison with muscat Be C Al Fe

  15. ms measurements in Step IV [CM32] MICE Note #90 • Use MAUS to evolve tracks to downstream face of absorber. • Use tracker hits as starting values. • Scattering angle is the angle between two vectors. • Model tracker resolution by smearing. • Tracker code status?

  16. AFC + LH2 • No Smear • Smear 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

  17. Summary • Longstanding disagreement between Geant4/ICOOL & CF. • New Monte Carlo model. • Simple, uses 4 parameters. Doesn’t incl. energy loss correlations (unlike ELMS). • V. good agreement with LH2, less so at higher Z. • Unclear why! Thomas-Fermi model less accurate at low Z... • Need to explain atomic structure better  encapsulated by . • Eq. Emittance lower than CF, ~20% less for LH2 – consistent with Geant4. • New Geant4.9.5.p01 to be tested shortly. • How close to MuScat? • Step Length dependencies fixed? • Step IV can & should measure MS. • Complement MuScat measurements. • Test of physics models. • Resolution covered @ CM32 – to be revisited.

  18. Extras

  19. 1990 - Lynch & Dahl expression • “much better approximation...agrees with Moliere scattering to 2% for all Z” • ...Derivation / comparison with Highland / Moliere not supplied! • doesn’t seem to have replaced Highland…

  20. G4MICE: Step IV 63mm LiH Note: known Step Length problems at 1mm, as used in these simulations [old Geant4 version].

  21. DzLiH= 6.3 cm DzLH2 = 57.6 cm Note: known Step Length problems at 1mm, as used in these simulations [old Geant4 version].

  22. Eq. Emittance & Scattering Angle (Step Length) Pencil beams sent through absorber block

More Related