DOCSLIB.ORG

Proton Colliders: Tevatron and LHC

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proton Colliders: Tevatron and LHC Proton Colliders: Tevatron and LHC Why build bigger better accelerators? Why proton colliders? Fermilab’s Tevatron CERN’s LHC 1 The Standard Model describes: Matter... …and the forces that act on matter. Force: carrier: acts on: 2 However, the Standard Model does not explain everything, e.g.: • Why do particles have mass? • Why three generations of quarks and leptons? • Are quarks and leptons really fundamental? • Why the matter-antimatter asymmetry? • What is the "dark matter" in the cosmos? • How does gravity fit in? 3 The Higgs Boson • The Higgs Mechanism provides a way to give particles mass, but requires the existence of a particle - as yet unobserved - called the Higgs Boson. • Current (experimental) lower bound on the Higgs Boson mass is ~110 GeV • Upper bound on Higgs mass (set by theory) is ~1 TeV 4 Extensions to the Standard Model • Numerous theories exist to try to answer questions that the Standard Model leaves open. • Some of these theories predict the existence of other new particles at an energy scale of ~ 1 TeV. 5 Motivation for New Accelerators • Look for new particles • Study properties of known particles more and more precisely as any deviation from Standard Model predictions would signal new physics. 6 Tevatron and LHC • The world’s most powerful accelerator is the Tevatron at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago. – Proton-antiproton (‘p-pbar’) collider – centre-of-mass energy @ 2 TeV – running since 1987 • A new accelerator, called the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is being constructed at CERN near Geneva. – Proton-proton (‘p-p’)collider – centre-of-mass energy @ 14 TeV – start-up in ~2006 7 Key Properties of Accelerators • The type of particle to be accelerated • The energy to which the particles will be accelerated • Luminosity • The fraction of the beam energy that is useful for creating new particles 8 What type of particle to accelerate? • Particles must be – charged: • accelerated by electric fields • steered and focussed using magnetic fields – Long-lived which limits us to protons and electrons. • How to choose…? 9 Beam Energy • For high-energy beams, must do one of the following: – pass the particles through very large electric fields • Þ technological limitations... – pass them through many smaller electric fields placed in a line • Þ need many cavities and a long line... – pass them through the same smaller electric field many times • Þ circular path via dipole magnets placed around ring: p(TeV)=0.3 B(Tesla) * R(km) • For the last option: delicate balancing act required: particle energy constantly increasing, must increase electric and magnetic fields synchronously Þ ‘synchrotron’. 10 Synchrotron Radiation • As charged particles travel in a curved orbit, they lose energy; per-revolution energy loss is 2 3 4 DE = q b g / 3e0R • Note that since g=E/m, electrons lose energy about 1013 times faster than protons! • LEP was ~ at practical energy limit for e+e- – energy lost to synchrotron radiation had to be continuously replaced 11 Luminosity In circular accelerators, particles travel in bunches. Luminosity L = f n k2 / A (cm-2 sec-1) where: • f = the frequency of circulation • n = the number of bunches around the ring • k = the number of particles per bunch • A = the cross-sectional area of the bunch 12 Luminosity and Cross-Section • The number of events of a particular type in time T is N = s L T where s = the cross-section for the type of event (i.e. s is a measure of how likely it is that the process will occur.) • A note about units: – luminosity is measured in cm-2 sec-1 – cross-sections are measured in ‘barns’; 1 ‘barn’ = 10-28 m2 – Amounts of data (‘integrated luminosities’) are often measured in ‘inverse barns’ • e.g. in a good day, LEP could produce 3 pb-1 of data 13 p-p(bar) Luminosities and Cross-sections • Interesting events are rare (i.e. have very low cross- sections), so • Need L to be as high as possible to maximise number of interesting events available. 14 How much beam energy is really available for making new particles? In an e+e- collider: all of it. In a p-p(bar) collider: not so simple... 15 Phenomenology of p-p(bar) collisions Most p-p(bar) collisions are ‘soft’, i.e. due to large-distance collisions between the two incoming protons: – momentum transfer is small. – most of the final-state particles’ momentum is longitudinal (parallel to beam direction); p^ (transverse momentum) is small. – These are called ‘minimum bias’ events. – They are not interesting. 16 Phenomenology of p-p(bar) collisions, continued... The interesting events are due to ‘hard scattering’: small-distance interactions between two partons (constituent quarks and gluons) of the incoming protons: – momentum transfer is large so • massive particles can be created • final-state particles can have large p^ – very rare compared to minimum bias 17 A typical LEP event In an e+e- collision, leptons annihilate completely Þ e+e- events are very ‘clean’ ; interesting final- state particles only. 18 A typical LHC event Ü An event in an LHC detector: most tracks are due to minimum bias Ü The same event after requiring p^ > 2 GeV. 19 How massive can the created particles be? In p-p(bar) hard scattering, partons annihilate (not the whole proton) so the effective centre-of-mass energy is smaller than energy of the machine: ÖS = Ö(xaxbs) where xa and xb are the fractions of the proton momentum carried by the two colliding partons 20 What are these ‘colliding partons’? • Proton is made of many partons: – three valence quarks (uud), – and the sea: a colourless collection of quarks, anti-quarks and gluons. • At low momentum transfer (Q2): – sea partons carry little momentum – valence quarks share ~all proton momentum Þ xi distribution peaks at ~1/3 • At higher Q2: – sea begins to carry more momentum – xi spectra of valence quarks are shifted down – still possible to have xi @ 1/3, but less likely • A collision between high-energy beams can achieve higher Q2 than a collision between low-energy beams. 21 OK - So how massive can the created particles be? • Recall the effective centre-of-mass energy ÖS = Ö(xaxbs) • But xa and xb are probability distributions, not hard numbers… • …so there is no clear answer. 22 Fermilab’s Tevatron – Located near Chicago, Illinois (USA) – first p-pbar collisions in 1986 with: • Ös = 1.8 TeV • L = 1030 cm-2 sec-1 – Currently: • Ös @ 2 TeV • L @ 1032 cm-2 sec-1 – 1995: first observation of top quark ! 23 The Fermilab Chain of Accelerators – Cockcroft-Walton pre-accelerator: H Þ H- Þ 750 keV – linear accelerator: H- Þ 400 MeV Þ C foil Þ protons – Booster: protons Þ 8 GeV – Main Injector: protons Þ 120 GeV Þ pbar production p,pbar Þ 150 GeV – Tevatron: p,pbar Þ 1 TeV Þ collisions ! – Antiproton Recycler: takes pbar from Tevatron to use again 24 Tevatron Experiments: • CDF and DZero: general-purpose detectors – searches for new particles – precision measurements – first observers of top quark (1995) 25 CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) • being installed in LEP tunnel (27 km circumference) • to start operation in 2006 • p-p and heavy ion (e.g. Pb-Pb) collisions 26 The LHC in pp mode: – centre-of-mass energy (Ös) = 14 TeV – luminosity: • first few years: luminosity = 1033 cm-2 s-1 • design luminosity = 1034 cm-2 s-1 • TeV and LEP : ~1032 cm-2 s-1 – can search for new particles with masses in the TeV range 27 The LHC Proton Injection Chain – Linear accelerator: • protons Þ 50 MeV – Proton Synchrotron (PS): • 50 MeV Þ 26 GeV • Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS): • 26 GeV Þ 450 GeV • NB itself once the world’s most powerful synchrotron. W ±, Zo discovered here in early 1980’s. • LHC • 450 GeV Þ 7 TeV Þ collisions ! 28 LHC Experiments: – ATLAS and CMS • general-purpose pp experiments • searches for new particles • precision measurements – LHCb • b-hadron physics • CP violation – ALICE • study heavy-ion collisions 29 Why is LHC p-p, not p-pbar? • A p-pbar collider is mechanically simpler than a p-p collider: – beams have equal-and-opposite charge, so can use same beampipe, same magnets, same RF cavities, etc. • p-p is more complicated: – need 2 separate beampipes – need either a separate set of RF cavities and magnets, or very complicated ones – beam-crossing is trickier 30 p-p vs. p-pbar, continued • However: antiprotons are difficult to make. • Tevatron’s antiproton source: – 120 GeV protons collide with Nickel target – many secondary particles produced, including antiprotons, but only about 1-2 antiprotons per 105 protons! – Must then sort out the antiprotons from all the rest of the secondary particles... 31 p-p vs. p-pbar, p. 3 Also - remember xi? – at low Q2: • valence quarks carry most of the proton’s momentum: • p-pbar @ quarks-on-antiquarks; more likely to annihilate than p-p (@ quarks-on-quarks) – at high Q2: • sea quarks and antiquarks become more ‘visible’: • p-pbar loses some of its advantage over p-p 32 LHC is p-p, not p-pbar, because: • Luminosity must be as high as possible • The easiest way to boost luminosity is to increase the number of particles per bunch, but – antiprotons are hard to make... – ...and anyway as energy increases p-p cross-sections begin to look like p-pbar cross-sections. P-p starts looking better than p-pbar for very high energies. 33.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interactions of Antiprotons with Atoms and Molecules
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln US Department of Energy Publications U.S. Department of Energy 1988 INTERACTIONS OF ANTIPROTONS WITH ATOMS AND MOLECULES Mitio Inokuti Argonne National Laboratory Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdoepub Part of the Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Commons Inokuti, Mitio, "INTERACTIONS OF ANTIPROTONS WITH ATOMS AND MOLECULES" (1988). US Department of Energy Publications. 89. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdoepub/89 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Energy at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in US Department of Energy Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. /'Iud Tracks Radial. Meas., Vol. 16, No. 2/3, pp. 115-123, 1989 0735-245X/89 $3.00 + 0.00 Inl. J. Radial. Appl .. Ins/rum., Part D Pergamon Press pic printed in Great Bntam INTERACTIONS OF ANTIPROTONS WITH ATOMS AND MOLECULES* Mmo INOKUTI Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439, U.S.A. (Received 14 November 1988) Abstract-Antiproton beams of relatively low energies (below hundreds of MeV) have recently become available. The present article discusses the significance of those beams in the contexts of radiation physics and of atomic and molecular physics. Studies on individual collisions of antiprotons with atoms and molecules are valuable for a better understanding of collisions of protons or electrons, a subject with many applications. An antiproton is unique as' a stable, negative heavy particle without electronic structure, and it provides an excellent opportunity to study atomic collision theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Supersymmetry Searches at the Tevatron
    SUPERSYMMETRY SEARCHES AT THE TEVATRON For CDF and DØ collaborations R. Demina Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, USA, 14627 CDF and DØ collaborations analyzed up to 200 pb-1 of the delivered data in search for different supersymmetry signatures, so far with negative results. We present results on searches for chargino and neutralino associated production, squarks and gluinos, sbottom quarks, gauge mediated SUSY breaking and long lived heavy particles. Supersymmetry1 is a popular extension of the Standard Model originally suggested over 25 years ago. It postulates the symmetry between fermionic and bosonic degrees of freedom. As a result a variety of hypothetical particles is introduced. With presently available experimental data physicists were able to prove that if supersymmetric particles exist they must be heavier than their Standard Model partners2. In other words the Supersymmetry is broken. One possible exception is supersymmetric top quark (stop), which still has a chance to be lighter or of the same mass as top quark. With 2-4 fb-1 of data Tevatron experiments will be able to extend the limit on stop mass above that of top quark or discover it and thus establish the Supersymmetry3. Theory suggests several possible scenarios of Supersymmetry breaking mediated by gravitational or gauge interactions. In gravity mediated scenarios the number of free parameters in the model is reduced to five because of the unification of masses and couplings imposed at the grand unification scale. These parameters are M0 (M½) – masses of all bosons (fermions) at GUT scale, A0- trilinear coupling and µ0 – something Higgs and tan(β) – ratio of vacuum expectations of the Higgs doublet.
    [Show full text]
  • Proton Driven Plasma Wakefield Acceleration in AWAKE
    Proton Driven Plasma Article submitted to journal Wakefield Acceleration in Subject Areas: AWAKE Plasma Wakefield Acceleration, 1 1 Proton Driven, Electron Acceleration E. Gschwendtner , M. Turner , **Author List Continues Next Page** Keywords: AWAKE, Plasma Wakefield Acceleration, Seeded Self Modulation In this article, we briefly summarize the experiments Author for correspondence: performed during the first Run of the Advanced Insert corresponding author name Wakefield Experiment, AWAKE, at CERN (European e-mail: [email protected] Organization for Nuclear Research). The final goal of AWAKE Run 1 (2013 - 2018) was to demonstrate that 10-20 MeV electrons can be accelerated to GeV- energies in a plasma wakefield driven by a highly- relativistic self-modulated proton bunch. We describe the experiment, outline the measurement concept and present first results. Last, we outline our plans for the future. 1 Continued Author List 2 E. Adli2,A. Ahuja1,O. Apsimon3;4,R. Apsimon3;4, A.-M. Bachmann1;5;6,F. Batsch1;5;6 C. Bracco1,F. Braunmüller5,S. Burger1,G. Burt7;4, B. Buttenschön8,A. Caldwell5,J. Chappell9, E. Chevallay1,M. Chung10,D. Cooke9,H. Damerau1, L.H. Deubner11,A. Dexter7;4,S. Doebert1, J. Farmer12, V.N. Fedosseev1,R. Fiorito13;4,R.A. Fonseca14,L. Garolfi1,S. Gessner1, B. Goddard1, I. Gorgisyan1,A.A. Gorn15;16,E. Granados1,O. Grulke8;17, A. Hartin9,A. Helm18, J.R. Henderson7;4,M. Hüther5, M. Ibison13;4,S. Jolly9,F. Keeble9,M.D. Kelisani1, S.-Y. Kim10, F. Kraus11,M. Krupa1, T. Lefevre1,Y. Li3;4,S. Liu19,N. Lopes18,K.V. Lotov15;16, M. Martyanov5, S.
    [Show full text]
  • NRP-3 the Effect of Beryllium Interaction with Fast Neutrons on the Reactivity of Etrr-2 Research Reactor
    Seventh Conference of Nuclear Sciences & Applications 6-10 February 2000, Cairo, Egypt NRP-3 The Effect Of Beryllium Interaction With Fast Neutrons On the Reactivity Of Etrr-2 Research Reactor Moustafa Aziz and A.M. EL Messiry National Center for Nuclear Safety Atomic Energy Autho , Cairo , Egypt ABSTRACT The effect of beryllium interactions with fast neutrons is studied for Etrr_2 research reactors. Isotope build up inside beryllium blocks is calculated under different irradiation times. A new model for the Etrr_2 research reactor is designed using MCNP code to calculate the reactivity and flux change of the reactor due to beryllium poison. Key words: Research Reactors , Neutron Flux , Beryllium Blocks, Fast Neutrons and Reactivity INTRODUCTION Beryllium irradiated by fast neutrons with energies in the range 0.7-20 Mev undergoes (n,a) and (n,2n) reactions resulting in subsequent formation of the isotopes lithium (Li-6), tritium (H-3) and helium (He-3 and He-4 ). Beryllium interacts with fast neutrons to produce 6He that decay 6 6 ( T!/2 =0.8 s) to produce Li . Li interacts with neutron to produce tritium which suffer /? (T1/2 = 12.35 year) decay and converts to 3He which finally interact with neutron to produce tritium. These processes some times defined as Beryllium poison. Negative effect of this process are met whenever beryllium is used in a thermal reactor as a reflector or moderator . Because of their large thermal neutron absorption cross sections , the buildup of He-3 and Li-6 concentrations ,initiated by the Be(n,a) reaction , results in large negative reactivities which alter the reactivity , flux and power distributions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Large Hadron Collider Lyndon Evans CERN – European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland
    34th SLAC Summer Institute On Particle Physics (SSI 2006), July 17-28, 2006 The Large Hadron Collider Lyndon Evans CERN – European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland 1. INTRODUCTION The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN is now in its final installation and commissioning phase. It is a two-ring superconducting proton-proton collider housed in the 27 km tunnel previously constructed for the Large Electron Positron collider (LEP). It is designed to provide proton-proton collisions with unprecedented luminosity (1034cm-2.s-1) and a centre-of-mass energy of 14 TeV for the study of rare events such as the production of the Higgs particle if it exists. In order to reach the required energy in the existing tunnel, the dipoles must operate at 1.9 K in superfluid helium. In addition to p-p operation, the LHC will be able to collide heavy nuclei (Pb-Pb) with a centre-of-mass energy of 1150 TeV (2.76 TeV/u and 7 TeV per charge). By modifying the existing obsolete antiproton ring (LEAR) into an ion accumulator (LEIR) in which electron cooling is applied, the luminosity can reach 1027cm-2.s-1. The LHC presents many innovative features and a number of challenges which push the art of safely manipulating intense proton beams to extreme limits. The beams are injected into the LHC from the existing Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) at an energy of 450 GeV. After the two rings are filled, the machine is ramped to its nominal energy of 7 TeV over about 28 minutes. In order to reach this energy, the dipole field must reach the unprecedented level for accelerator magnets of 8.3 T.
    [Show full text]
  • Il Nostro Mondo
    IL NOSTRO MONDO THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND PERFORMANCE OF THE CERN INTERSECTING STORAGE RINGS (ISR) A RECOLLECTION OF WORLD’S FIRST PROTON-PROTON COLLIDER KURT HÜBNER CERN, Geneva, Switzerland 1 Design which had a beam energy of 160 MeV. The interaction points to increase the collision rate The concept of colliding beams appeared design of these colliders started in 1957. but without special lattice insertions as one first in a German patent by Rolf Widerøe In 1961, the Accelerator Research Group would use these days. registered in 1943 and published in 1952. Division was expanded into the Accelerator Combined-function magnets were chosen However, at that time the intensity of beams Division as experienced manpower had as in the PS, i.e. the main magnets had a was too low for an exploitable collision rate as become available after the running-in of the magnetic dipole field to bend the beam and a beam accumulation had not yet been invented. PS in 1960. At the same time it was decided quadrupole field to focus the beam. This type The first ideas of a realistic design were to construct a small accelerator to test rf of magnet provided space for the elaborate published in 1956 by Gerard O’Neill and by the stacking, a technique to be experimentally pole-face windings foreseen to control the MURA Group lead by Donald Kerst in the USA. proven, as it was essential for the performance magnetic field to a very high precision. It also MURA had come up with beam accumulation and success of the ISR.
    [Show full text]
  • ANTIPROTON and NEUTRINO PRODUCTION ACCELERATOR TIMELINE ISSUES Dave Mcginnis August 28, 2005
    ANTIPROTON AND NEUTRINO PRODUCTION ACCELERATOR TIMELINE ISSUES Dave McGinnis August 28, 2005 INTRODUCTION Most of the accelerator operating period is devoted to making antiprotons for the Collider program and accelerating protons for the NUMI program. While stacking antiprotons, the same Main Injector 120 GeV acceleration cycle is used to accelerate protons bound for the antiproton production target and protons bound for the NUMI neutrino production target. This is designated as Mixed-Mode operations. The minimum cycle time is limited by the time it takes to fill the Main Injector with two Booster batches for antiproton production and five Booster batches for neutrino production (7 x 0.067 seconds) and the Main Injector ramp rate (~ 1.5 seconds). As the antiproton stack size grows, the Accumulator stochastic cooling systems slow down which requires the cycle time to be lengthened. The lengthening of the cycle time unfortunately reduces the NUMI neutrino flux. This paper will use a simple antiproton stacking model to explore some of the tradeoffs between antiproton stacking and neutrino production. ACCUMULATOR STACKTAIL SYSTEM After the target, antiprotons are injected into the Debuncher ring where they undergo a bunch rotation and are stochastically pre-cooled for injection into the Accumulator. A fresh beam pulse injected into the Accumulator from the Debuncher is merged with previous beam pulses with the Accumulator StackTail system. This system cools and decelerates the antiprotons until the antiprotons are captured by the core cooling systems as shown in Figure 1. The antiproton flux through the Stacktail system is described by the Fokker –Plank equation ∂ψ ∂φ = − (1) ∂t ∂E where φ the flux of particles passing through the energy E and ψ is the particle density of the beam at energy E.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Extra Mirror Or Sequential Families: a Case for Heavy Higgs and Inert Doublet
    Three Extra Mirror or Sequential Families: a Case for Heavy Higgs and Inert Doublet Homero Mart´ınez,1 Alejandra Melfo,2, 3 Fabrizio Nesti,4 and Goran Senjanovi´c2 1CEA, Saclay, DSM-IRFU-SPP, France 2ICTP, Trieste, Italy 3U. de Los Andes, M´erida, Venezuela 4U. di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy (Dated: October 24, 2018) We study the possibility of the existence of extra fermion families and an extra Higgs doublet. We find that requiring the extra Higgs doublet to be inert leaves space for three extra families, allowing for mirror fermion families and a dark matter candidate at the same time. The emerging scenario is very predictive: it consists of a Standard Model Higgs boson, with mass above 400 GeV, heavy new quarks between 340 and 500 GeV, light extra neutral leptons, and an inert scalar with a mass below MZ . PACS numbers: 14.65.Jk, 12.60.Fr, 14.60.Hi, 14.60.St Introduction. It may not be well known that the idea with regard to high precision analysis they behave exactly of parity restoration in weak interactions is as old as as ordinary fermions, and thus a reader who is uncom- the suggestion of its breakdown. In their classic paper, fortable with the above setbacks can view our study as Lee and Yang [1] proposed the existence of what we will referring to the more general question of whether the SM call mirror fermions, so as to make the world left-right can host three (or more) extra families. symmetric at high energies. By this they meant another If one defines the SM by its structure, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Anomalous Muon Magnetic Moment, Supersymmetry, Naturalness, LHC Search Limits and the Landscape
    OU-HEP-210415 Anomalous muon magnetic moment, supersymmetry, naturalness, LHC search limits and the landscape Howard Baer1∗, Vernon Barger2†, Hasan Serce1‡ 1Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA 2Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 USA Abstract The recent measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment aµ ≡ (g − 2)µ=2 by the Fermilab Muon g − 2 experiment sharpens an earlier discrepancy between theory and the BNL E821 experiment. We examine the predicted ∆aµ ≡ aµ(exp) − aµ(th) in the context of supersymmetry with low electroweak naturalness (restricting to models which give a plausible explanation for the magnitude of the weak scale). A global analy- sis including LHC Higgs mass and sparticle search limits points to interpretation within the normal scalar mass hierarchy (NSMH) SUSY model wherein first/second generation matter scalars are much lighter than third generation scalars. We present a benchmark model for a viable NSMH point which is natural, obeys LHC Higgs and sparticle mass constraints and explains the muon magnetic anomaly. Aside from NSMH models, then we find the (g − 2)µ anomaly cannot be explained within the context of natural SUSY, where a variety of data point to decoupled first/second generation scalars. The situation is worse within the string landscape where first/second generation matter scalars are pulled arXiv:2104.07597v2 [hep-ph] 16 May 2021 to values in the 10 − 50 TeV range. An alternative interpretation for SUSY models with decoupled scalar masses is that perhaps the recent lattice evaluation of the hadronic vac- uum polarization could be confirmed which leads to a Standard Model theory-experiment agreement in which case there is no anomaly.
    [Show full text]
  • Bright Prospects for Tevatron Run II
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS CERN COURIER VOLUME 43 NUMBER 1 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003 Bright prospects for Tevatron Run II JLAB Virginia laboratory delivers terahertz light p6 ^^^J Modular and expandable power supplies WÊ H Communications via TCP/IP içert. n_.___910S.CAEN '^^^*aBOKS^^^^ • ÊÊÊ WÊÊÊSêSê É TÏSjj à OPC Server to ease integration in DCS J Directly interfaced to JCOP Framework p " j^pj ^ ^^^^ Wa9neticFie,dand^ ^^HTJHj^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^E' ' tfHl far IM Éfefi-*il * CAEN: your largest choice of HV & LV )^ H MULTICHANNEL POWER SUPPLIES CONTENTS Covering current developments in high- energy physics and related fields worldwide CERN Courier (ISSN 0304-288X) is distributed to member state governments, institutes and laboratories affiliated with CERN, and to their personnel. It is published monthly, except for January and August, in English and French editions. The views expressed are CERN not necessarily those of the CERN management. Editors James Gillies and Christine Sutton CERN, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland Email [email protected] Fax+41 (22) 782 1906 Web cerncourier.com COURIER Advisory Board R Landua (Chairman), F Close, E Lillest0l, VOLUME 43 NUMBER 1 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003 H Hoffmann, C Johnson, K Potter, P Sphicas Laboratory correspondents: Argonne National Laboratory (US): D Ayres Brookhaven, National Laboratory (US): PYamin Cornell University (US): D G Cassel DESY Laboratory (Germany): Ilka Flegel, P Waloschek Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (US): Judy Jackson GSI Darmstadt (Germany): G Siegert INFN
    [Show full text]
  • Hadron Collider Physics
    KEK-PH Lectures and Workshops Hadron Collider Physics Zhen Liu University of Maryland 08/05/2020 Part I: Basics Part II: Advanced Topics Focus Collider Physics is a vast topic, one of the most systematically explored areas in particle physics, concerning many observational aspects in the microscopic world • Focus on important hadron collider concepts and representative examples • Details can be studied later when encounter References: Focus on basic pictures Barger & Philips, Collider Physics Pros: help build intuition Tao Han, TASI lecture, hep-ph/0508097 Tilman Plehn, TASI lecture, 0910.4182 Pros: easy to understand Maxim Perelstein, TASI lecture, 1002.0274 Cons: devils in the details Particle Data Group (PDG) and lots of good lectures (with details) from CTEQ summer schools Zhen Liu Hadron Collider Physics (lecture) KEK 2020 2 Part I: Basics The Large Hadron Collider Lyndon R Evans DOI:10.1098/rsta.2011.0453 Path to discovery 1995 1969 1974 1969 1979 1969 1800-1900 1977 2012 2000 1975 1983 1983 1937 1962 Electric field to accelerate 1897 1956 charged particles Synchrotron radiation 4 Zhen Liu Hadron Collider Physics (lecture) KEK 2020 4 Zhen Liu Hadron Collider Physics (lecture) KEK 2020 5 Why study (hadron) colliders (now)? • Leading tool in probing microscopic structure of nature • history of discovery • Currently running LHC • Great path forward • Precision QFT including strong dynamics and weakly coupled theories • Application to other physics probes • Set-up the basic knowledge to build other subfield of elementary particle physics Zhen Liu Hadron Collider Physics (lecture) KEK 2020 6 Basics: Experiment & Theory Zhen Liu Hadron Collider Physics (lecture) KEK 2020 7 Basics: How to make measurements? Zhen Liu Hadron Collider Physics (lecture) KEK 2020 8 Part I: Basics Basic Parameters Basics: Smashing Protons & Quick Estimates Proton Size ( ) Proton-Proton cross section ( ) Particle Physicists use the unit “Barn”2 1 = 100 The American idiom "couldn't hit the broad side of a barn" refers to someone whose aim is very bad.
    [Show full text]
  • Tevatron Accelerator Physics and Operation Highlights A
    FERMILAB-CONF-11-129-APC TEVATRON ACCELERATOR PHYSICS AND OPERATION HIGHLIGHTS A. Valishev for the Tevatron group, FNAL, Batavia, IL 60510, U.S.A. Abstract Table 1: Integrated luminosity performance by fiscal year. The performance of the Tevatron collider demonstrated FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 continuous growth over the course of Run II, with the peak luminosity reaching 4×1032 cm-2 s-1, and the weekly Total integral (fb-1) 1.3 1.8 1.9 2.47 -1 integration rate exceeding 70 pb . This report presents a review of the most important advances that contributed to Until the middle of calendar year 2009, the luminosity this performance improvement, including beam dynamics growth was dominated by improvements of the antiproton modeling, precision optics measurements and stability production rate [2], which remains stable since. control, implementation of collimation during low-beta Performance improvements over the last two years squeeze. Algorithms employed for optimization of the became possible because of implementation of a few luminosity integration are presented and the lessons operational changes, described in the following section. learned from high-luminosity operation are discussed. Studies of novel accelerator physics concepts at the Tevatron are described, such as the collimation techniques using crystal collimator and hollow electron beam, and compensation of beam-beam effects. COLLIDER RUN II PERFORMANCE Tevatron collider Run II with proton-antiproton collisions at the center of mass energy of 1.96 TeV started in March 2001. Since then, 10.5 fb-1 of integrated luminosity has been delivered to CDF and D0 experiments (Fig. 1). All major technical upgrades of the accelerator complex were completed by 2007 [1].
    [Show full text]