David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison
description
Transcript of David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison
![Page 1: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
David M. WebberFor the MuLan Collaboration
University of Wisconsin-MadisonFormerly University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
August 12, 2011
A part-per-million measurement of the positive muon lifetime and determination of the Fermi constant
![Page 2: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The predictive power of the Standard Model depends on well-measured input parameters
What are the fundamental electroweak parameters (need 3)?
8.6 ppm0.00068 ppm 23 ppm 650 ppm 360 ppma GF MZ sin2qw MW
Obtained from muon lifetime
Other input parameters include fermion masses, and mixing matrix elements:CKM – quark mixing
PMNS – neutrino mixing
* circa 2000
![Page 3: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Dq
In the Fermi theory, muon decay is a contact interaction where Dq includes phase space, QED, hadronic and radiative corrections
The Fermi constant is related to the electroweak gauge coupling g by
Contains all weak interaction loop corrections
3D. M. Webber
In 1999, van Ritbergen and Stuart completed full 2-loop QED corrections reducing the uncertainty in GF from theory to < 0.3 ppm (it was the dominant error before)
![Page 4: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Kicker On
Fill Period
Measurement Period
The experimental concept…
time
Num
ber (
log
scal
e)
-12.5 kV
12.5 kV
Real data170 Inner/Outer
tile pairs
MHTDC(2004)
450 MHzWaveFormDigitization(2006/07)
![Page 5: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
MuLan collected two datasets, each containing 1012 muon decays
• Two (very different) data sets– Different muon stopping targets– Different blinded clock frequencies used– Revealed only after all analyses of both data sets completed– Most systematic errors are common– Datasets agree to sub-ppm
Ferromagnetic Target, 2006 Quartz Target, 2007
![Page 6: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Leading systematic considerations:Cha
lleng
ing
![Page 7: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
170 scintillator tile pairs readout using 450 MHz waveform digitizers.
2 Analog PulsesWaveform Digitizers
1/6 of system
1 clock tick = 2.2 ns
7D. M. Webber
x2
![Page 8: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Gain variation vs. time is derived from the stability of the peak (MPV) of the fit to pulse distribution
8
4100.3N
δN
0 10 20 ms
If MPV moves, implies greater or fewer hits will be over threshold
Carefully studied over the summer of 2010. Gain correction is 0.5 ppm shift with 0.25 ppm uncertainty.
![Page 9: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Raw waveforms are fit with templates to find pulse amplitudes and times
Normal Pulse
>2 x 1012 pulses in 2006 data set >65 TBytes raw data
9D. M. Webber
Two pulses close together
A difficult fitinner
outer
ADTTemplate
![Page 10: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Leading order pileup to a ~5x10-4 effect
Measured t vs. Deadtime
Raw Spectrum
Pileup Corrected
• Statistically reconstruct pileup time distribution• Fit corrected distributionFill i
Fill i+1
1/t – 2/t
2/t Pileup Time Distribution
Normal Time Distribution
![Page 11: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Pileup to sub-ppm requires higher-order terms• 12 ns deadtime, pileup has a 5 x 10-4 probability at our rates
– Left uncorrected, lifetime wrong by 100’s of ppm• Proof of procedure validated with detailed Monte Carlo simulation
1 ppm
150 ns deadtime range
Artificial Deadtime (ct)
R (ppm)
Pileup terms at different orders …
uncorrected
![Page 12: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
The pileup corrections were tested with Monte-Carlo.
D. M. Webber 12
Monte-Carlo Simulation, 1012 eventsagrees with truth to < 0.2 ppm
1.19 ppm statistical uncertainty
![Page 13: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Lifetime vs. artificially imposed deadtime window is an important diagnostic
1 ppm
150 ns deadtime range
• A slope exists due to a pileup undercorrection
Extrapolation to 0 deadtime is correct answer
13D. M. WebberPileup Correction Uncertainty: 0.2 ppm
![Page 14: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Explanations of R vs. ADT slope
• Gain stability vs. Dt? – No. Included in gain stability systematic uncertainty.
• Missed correction?– Possibly– Extrapolation to ADT=0 valid
• Beam fluctuations?– Likely– Fluctuations at 4% level in ion source exist– Extrapolation to ADT=0 valid
D. M. Webber 14
![Page 15: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
2006: Fit of 30,000 AK-3 pileup-corrected runs.
22 ms
ppm tm + Dsecret
2007: Quartz data fits well as a simple sum, exploiting the symmetry of the detector. The mSR remnants vanish.
![Page 16: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Variations in tm vs. fit start time are within allowed statistical deviations
D. M. Webber 16
![Page 17: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Final Errors and Numbers Effect 2006 2007 Comment Kicker extinction stability 0.20 0.07 Voltage measurements of plates Residual polarization 0.10 0.20 Long relax; quartz spin cancelation Upstream muon stops 0.10 Upper limit from measurements Overall gain stability: 0.25 MPV vs time in fill; includes: Short time; after a pulse MPVs in next fill & laser studies Long time; during full fill Different by PMT type Electronic ped fluctuation Bench-test supported Unseen small pulses Uncorrected pileup effect gain Timing stability 0.12 Laser with external reference ctr. Pileup correction 0.20 Extrapolation to zero ADT Clock stability 0.03 Calibration and measurement Total Systematic 0.42 0.42 Highly correlated for 2006/2007 Total Statistical 1.14 1.68
ppm units
t(R06) = 2 196 979.9 ± 2.5 ± 0.9 pst(R07) = 2 196 981.2 ± 3.7 ± 0.9 ps
t(Combined) = 2 196 980.3 ± 2.2 ps (1.0 ppm)Dt(R07 – R06) = 1.3 ps
![Page 18: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Results
The Result
t(R06) = 2 196 979.9 ± 2.5 ± 0.9 ps t(R07) = 2 196 981.2 ± 3.7 ± 0.9 ps
t(Combined) = 2 196 980.3 ± 2.2 ps (1.0 ppm) Dt(R07 – R06) = 1.3 ps
New GF
GF(MuLan) = 1.166 378 8(7) x 10-5 GeV-2 (0.6 ppm)
![Page 19: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
The lifetime difference between tm+ and tm in hydrogen leads to the singlet capture rate LS
log(
coun
ts)
timeμ+μ –
%16.0D + mmt
1.0 ppm MuLan ~10 ppm MuCap
m ++m np
MuCap nearly complete
gP 11 )()( ++ LLL
mmmmttS
The singlet capture rate is used to determine gP and compare with theory
![Page 20: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
In hydrogen: 1/tm-)-(1/tm+) = LS gP now in even better agreement with ChPT*
*Chiral Perturbation Theory
Using previous tm world average
20
Shifts the MuCap result
Using new MuLan tm average
![Page 21: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
MuLan Collaborators
20072006
2004
21D. M. Webber
Institutions:University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of California, BerkeleyTRIUMFUniversity of KentuckyBoston UniversityJames Madison UniversityGroningen UniversityKentucky Wesleyan College
![Page 22: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Conclusions• MuLan has finished
– PRL published. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 041803 (2011)– 1.0 ppm final error achieved, as proposed– PRD in preparation
• Most precise lifetime– Most precise Fermi constant
• Influence on muon capture– Shift moves gP to better agreement with theory– “Eliminates” the error from the positive muon lifetime, needed in
future m- capture determinations (e.g. MuCap and MuSun) t(R06) = 2 196 979.9 ± 2.5 ± 0.9 ps t(R07) = 2 196 981.2 ± 3.7 ± 0.9 ps
t(Combined) = 2 196 980.3 ± 2.2 ps (1.0 ppm) Dt(R07 – R06) = 1.3 ps
GF(MuLan) = 1.166 378 8(7) x 10-5 GeV-2 (0.6 ppm)
![Page 23: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Backup
D. M. Webber 23
![Page 24: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
For 1ppm, need more than 1 trillion (1012) muons ...
πE3 Beamline, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
![Page 25: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Gain is photomultiplier tube type dependent
D. M. Webber 25
Deviation at t=0
Artifact from start signal
0 10 20 ms
1 ADC = 0.004 V
Sag in tube response
![Page 26: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
pileup
Introducing higher-order pileup
D. M. Webber 26
hit
time
Artificial deadtime
hit
time
Artificial deadtimeInner tile
Outer tile
Artificial deadtime
Artificial deadtime
tripleA B C D E F G
![Page 27: David M. Webber For the MuLan Collaboration University of Wisconsin-Madison](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062811/56816150550346895dd0d91b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
The push – pull of experiment and theory• Muon lifetime is now the largest uncertainty on GF ;
leads to 2 new experiments launched: MuLan & FAST– Both @ PSI, but very different techniques– Both aim at “ppm” level GF determinations– Both published intermediate results on small data samples
Meanwhile, more theory updates !!