An Overview of the Heavy Photon Search Project John Jaros HPS Collaboration Meeting Jefferson Lab...

An Overview of the Heavy Photon Search Project

John Jaros HPS Collaboration Meeting Jefferson Lab May 26, 2011

Searching in Terra Incognita

• Holdum’s kinetic mixing mechanism provides us a portal to Nature’s hidden U(1)’s. The SM photon will mix with any hidden sector photons, and couple them to electric charge, letting us detect them.

• In a universe with so little mass-energy accounted for by Standard Model particles and forces, the existence of hidden U(1)’s may not be compulsory, but most certainly isn’t forbidden. There’s room.

• The (mA,) parameter space is largely unknown territory, and worth as comprehensive a search as we can mount. HPS has an exciting challenge before it.

• Another parameter space, characterizing neutrino masses and mixings, has yielded spectacular new physics to its explorers over the past decade and a half. Time for a repeat performance?

May 26, 2011 HPS Project Overview 2

In the beginning…• Nima, Neil, Max et al. invoked Holdum’s mechanism and suggested dark

matter annihilates to heavy photons, thereby explaining HE e+/e- in the cosmic rays.

• Bj, Philip, Natalia, and Rouven analyzed existing constraints on the mA, parameter space, explored the phenomenology of colliding beam and fixed target searches for heavy photons, and suggested possible experiments.

• Philip, Natalia, and Rouven pitched heavy photons door to door at Jlab and SLAC with considerable success.

• At SLAC’s Dark Forces Workshop (9/09), Takashi presented our first thoughts on the Heavy Photon Search. Active collaboration between Jlab and SLAC got started.

• HPS presentations to Hall B and Jlab management (1/10) lead to Jlab’s encouraging a proto-collaboration to present a HPS proposal.


…up to the present.• HPS presented its proposal to Jlab Management and reviewed its

ideas at Jlab’s New Gauge Boson Workshop (9/10).

• PAC37 issued a call for proposals. HPS revised its proposal to include two experimental stages and submitted it to the lab (12/1/10).

• HPS defended its proposal before PAC37, which approved the HPS Test Run Proposal. It also approved the full HPS Proposal contingent on Test Run performance. (1/14/11)

• Post PAC37 approval, DOE HEP requested a detailed HPS Test Run proposal in time for the FY11 budget process. The proposal was submitted 2/18/11.

• Heavy Photon Search Test Run proposal was defended at DOE Germantown on 3/1/11.


Full HPS


• Forward, compact spectrometer/vertex detector measures mass and decay length

• EM Calorimeter provides fast trigger and electron ID.

• 100% CEBAF duty cycle and high rate DAQ provide the sensitivity to search for rare processes

• All detectors crowd the hot electron beam and avoid the “wall of flame”.

Staging the HPS Proposal• Why Stage HPS?

* We realized that there was not enough time to mount the full HPS before the 2012 shutdown, but didn’t want to wait until 2015.

* DOE rules didn’t allow funding the full experiment by 2012, but could accommodate a two-step process.

* Full HPS depends on backgrounds and trigger rates being manageable very close to a hot beam. Worth an experimental check. And there was enough time and money to mount a test run by 2012.

* Test run in 2012 could allow critical tests, then time to finalize designs and build the full HPS for the CEBAF 12 GeV era.

• Earlier ideas presented to PAC37 were revised and developed, simulations performed, reach calculated, and a budget and schedule assembled for the DOE proposal.


Stage HPS to Answer Critical Questions

• Si occupancies and Radiation Damage?


• Trigger Rate Acceptable?

Need to confirm full GEANT4 and EGS5 Monte Carlo studies

Charged Particle Occupancy vs Height above Beam

Ecal Occupancies

1% @ 1.5 mm from beam

Stage I Develops HPS Hardware and DAQ .

• Use existing Hall B beamline and diagnostics.

• Use a simplified si tracker system (20 vs 106 modules for full HPS)

• Use existing PbWO4 crystal modules, but build new enclosure

• Use existing SLAC and Jlab DAQ architectures


Since the DOE Review• DOE Q: “Why fund HPS if Jlab doesn’t provide beam time?”

HPS A: “Test Run Contingency Plan” guarantees Test Run investment will be well-used. * Hall B beam time decision expected September 2011 * If no beam time allotted, install and run HPS parasitically in Hall B with photons (See Stepan’s talk) * Once HPS is successfully debugged, request (beg for?) 1 week electron run late Spring 2012 to study occupancies and trigger rate. * If it’s not possible to get electrons before the 12 GeV shutdown, move apparatus to SLAC test beam to remove PAC contingencies.

DOE satisfied.

• DOE Request: “Send in Field Work Proposals ASAP” * FWPs are needed prior to transferring funds to labs * Jlab and SLAC sent in FWPs 4/25/11. * Expect fund transfers June 1, 2011.

Not yet confirmed.



DOE Review Report Received 5/16/11

DOE Review Report Conclusionstight schedule, modest contingencies require tight management

• Science Scientific merit is high. Try to run at 1 GeV to cover g-2 region of parameter space

• Technical Readiness Basically in good shape Demanding tasks: FADC, CTP programming, DAQ integration

• Cost and Schedule Tight schedule, insufficient detail given, milestones not listed Lack of scheduled beam time is largest single risk DAQ integration task needs more help and coordination Project Leader needed to coordinate and integrate all activities

• Cost and Schedule Contingencies Allowed schedule float is minimal Cost contingency is on the low side What are contingencies for in kind contributions? Appoint a Project Engineer with control of contingency funds


HPS Response

HPS needs to respond to comments and recommendations made in

DOE’s Review Report by June 6.

• Ask subsystem leaders to review and respond to important comments.

• Use outcome of this meeting to improve on present planningAdd schedule detail, list manpower needs, establish milestones, identify float, and include key contributed components to subsystem schedules

• Propose HPS Project Management Team and Procedures

These are steps we need to take anyway and steps we are already taking in this meeting.


To do list for this Meeting

• Finalize and review subsystem engineering designs

• Refine and detail HPS Test Run schedule and milestones

• Establish the HPS Test Run management organization

• Agree on internal review procedures

• Begin forming the HPS Collaboration

• Engage and match new collaborators to HPS jobs


Review Procedure Proposal

Before cutting metal, review engineering designs:

1. Engineer and Subsystem leader sign off

2. Design is reviewed in a subsystem meeting.

3. If no substantial questions or concerns are expressed within a day of the meeting, the design is approved.


Straw Man HPS Project ManagementCan we use the Collaboration Management Structure to satisfy DOE

management requests? Discuss later in this meeting.• Test Run Coordinators

DOE Speak HPS Collaboration Speak

“Test Run Coordinator” Chair of Coordinating Committee “Project Engineer” Project Manager (new position)

• HPS Working Group leaders Coordinating Committee

Beamline/Target SVT, Readout, and DAQ Ecal , Readout, and DAQ

DAQ Trigger and Integration Simulation/Reconstruction


Form the HPS Collaboration

• Stepan has circulated a first draft of the HPS Collaboration Charter, which he derived from the CLAS Collaboration Charter

• We’ll discuss it later in this meeting

• We’ll hope to form an ad hoc “Charter Committee” which will work toward finalizing a draft for acceptance at our next collaboration meeting.


Engage New collaboration Members

• Rules of engagement haven’t yet been adopted. We’re thinking that if you are not already actively involved, we’ll ask for a statement of commitment which lists your intended contribution.

• Please use this meeting to see where you can fit in. Talk to working group leaders/speakers about your interests and jobs that need doing.

• New physics possibilities with HPS data need to be explored. Full HPS will have trillions of tridents to study. Defining new subject areas and new measurement possibilities is an excellent way to enter the collaboration. We’ll hear about one such topic, “true muonium”, later in the meeting.

• Speakers,


Preparing for Full HPS Activity Time Frame

Engineer, build, and test apparatus Now through Fall, 2011

Install and test apparatus November, 2011-February, 2012

Integration & Commissioning March-April, 2012

Electron Data HPS Test May, 2012

Remove PAC Contingencies June - August, 2012

Final HPS Proposal to PAC? August, 2012/Jan 2013

Proposal & Budget to DOE Jan 2013

Secure Funding Spring 2013

Engineer and Build full HPS Spring 2013-Fall 2014

Install full HPS in Hall B Fall 2014?

Run full HPS 2015 Lots to do!

Test run data

Satisfying the PAC contingencies

Revising the full HPS proposal

Propose full HPS to PAC and DOE

Just do it


But first things first:

We must

engineer, build, and test

the HPS Test Run apparatus and software.


An Overview of the Heavy Photon Search Project John Jaros HPS Collaboration Meeting Jefferson Lab...

Documents

Transcript of An Overview of the Heavy Photon Search Project John Jaros HPS Collaboration Meeting Jefferson Lab...