Particle physics with muonat J-PARC
KEK summer student programJuly 9, 2019
Tsutomu Mibe (IPNS)
g-2.kek.jpcomet.kek.jp
Particle physics after the Higgs discovery
• Enter a new chapter of the particle physics• The Higgs particle itself is a tool to explore New
Physics.• There are no clear signals beyond the Higgs particle
at the LHC experiment.• Indirect ways to look for new physics becomes
more and more important.
4
Y. Okada (cLFV 2019)
Approaches to new physics
Energy
frontier
experiments
Deviation
form the SM
predictions
Null or
suppressed
processes
LHCb, SuperKEKB/Belle II,
Kaon rare decays, muon g-2 … EDM, LFV, …
LHC->HL-LHC
Higgs factory, (ILC, …)
Higher energy pp collider
“Generic” vs “Specific”
6
Y. Okada (cLFV 2019)
4
Quarks
Leptons
up
downstrange
charm
bottom
top
electron
electron neutrino
muon
muon neutrino
tau
tau neutrino
Elementary particles
particle data group (2018)x 200 heavierthan electron
Weak decay(longer lifetime)
c.f.Lifetime of tau leptonis 0.3 ps.
Citation: M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)
LEPTONSLEPTONSLEPTONSLEPTONS
eeee J = 12
Mass m = (548.579909070 ± 0.000000016)× 10−6 uMass m = 0.5109989461 ± 0.0000000031 MeV∣
∣me+ − me−
∣
∣/m < 8 × 10−9, CL = 90%∣
∣qe+ + qe−
∣
∣
/
e < 4 × 10−8
Magnetic moment anomaly(g−2)/2 = (1159.65218091 ± 0.00000026)× 10−6
(ge+ − ge−) / gaverage = (−0.5 ± 2.1) × 10−12
Electric dipole moment d < 0.87 × 10−28 e cm, CL = 90%Mean life τ > 6.6 × 1028 yr, CL = 90% [a]
µµµµ J = 12
Mass m = 0.1134289257 ± 0.0000000025 uMass m = 105.6583745 ± 0.0000024 MeVMean life τ = (2.1969811 ± 0.0000022)× 10−6 sτ µ+/τ µ− = 1.00002 ± 0.00008
cτ = 658.6384 mMagnetic moment anomaly (g−2)/2 = (11659209 ± 6) × 10−10
(gµ+ − gµ−) / gaverage = (−0.11 ± 0.12) × 10−8
Electric dipole moment d = (−0.1 ± 0.9) × 10−19 e cm
Decay parametersDecay parametersDecay parametersDecay parameters [b]
ρ = 0.74979 ± 0.00026η = 0.057 ± 0.034δ = 0.75047 ± 0.00034ξPµ = 1.0009+0.0016
−0.0007[c ]
ξPµδ/ρ = 1.0018+0.0016−0.0007
[c ]
ξ′ = 1.00 ± 0.04ξ′′ = 0.98 ± 0.04α/A = (0 ± 4) × 10−3
α′/A = (−10 ± 20) × 10−3
β/A = (4 ± 6) × 10−3
β′/A = (2 ± 7) × 10−3
η = 0.02 ± 0.08
HTTP://PDG.LBL.GOV Page 1 Created: 6/5/2018 18:58
muon
electron
electron neutrino
muon neutrino
micro second
Spin
particle data group (2018)
Charged Lepton flavor is conserved (⇄ quark flavor, neutrino flavor)
Citation: M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)
µ+ modes are charge conjugates of the modes below.
p
µ− DECAY MODESµ− DECAY MODESµ− DECAY MODESµ− DECAY MODES Fraction (Γi /Γ) Confidence level (MeV/c)
e− νe νµ ≈ 100% 53
e− νe νµ γ [d] (6.0±0.5) × 10−8 53
e− νe νµ e+ e− [e] (3.4±0.4) × 10−5 53
Lepton Family number (LF ) violating modesLepton Family number (LF ) violating modesLepton Family number (LF ) violating modesLepton Family number (LF ) violating modes
e− νe νµ LF [f ] < 1.2 % 90% 53
e−γ LF < 4.2 × 10−13 90% 53
e− e+ e− LF < 1.0 × 10−12 90% 53
e− 2γ LF < 7.2 × 10−11 90% 53
ττττ J = 12
Mass m = 1776.86 ± 0.12 MeV(mτ+ − mτ−)/maverage < 2.8 × 10−4, CL = 90%Mean life τ = (290.3 ± 0.5) × 10−15 s
cτ = 87.03 µmMagnetic moment anomaly > −0.052 and < 0.013, CL = 95%Re(dτ ) = −0.220 to 0.45 × 10−16 e cm, CL = 95%Im(dτ ) = −0.250 to 0.0080 × 10−16 e cm, CL = 95%
Weak dipole momentWeak dipole momentWeak dipole momentWeak dipole moment
Re(dwτ ) < 0.50 × 10−17 e cm, CL = 95%
Im(dwτ ) < 1.1 × 10−17 e cm, CL = 95%
Weak anomalous magnetic dipole momentWeak anomalous magnetic dipole momentWeak anomalous magnetic dipole momentWeak anomalous magnetic dipole moment
Re(αwτ ) < 1.1 × 10−3, CL = 95%
Im(αwτ ) < 2.7 × 10−3, CL = 95%
τ± → π±K0S ντ (RATE DIFFERENCE) / (RATE SUM) =
(−0.36 ± 0.25)%
Decay parametersDecay parametersDecay parametersDecay parameters
See the τ Particle Listings for a note concerning τ -decay parameters.
ρ(e or µ) = 0.745 ± 0.008ρ(e) = 0.747 ± 0.010ρ(µ) = 0.763 ± 0.020ξ(e or µ) = 0.985 ± 0.030ξ(e) = 0.994 ± 0.040ξ(µ) = 1.030 ± 0.059η(e or µ) = 0.013 ± 0.020η(µ) = 0.094 ± 0.073
HTTP://PDG.LBL.GOV Page 2 Created: 6/5/2018 18:58
MEG(2016)
MEG(2016)
[d] (Eg>40 MeV)
Lepton flavore, νe μ, νμ τ, ντ
electron number 1 0 0muon
number 0 1 0tau
number 0 0 1
Particle
Flavor
Assign minus sign for anti-particles
particle data group (2014)
Charged Lepton flavor is conserved (⇄ quark flavor, neutrino flavor)
Citation: M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)
µ+ modes are charge conjugates of the modes below.
p
µ− DECAY MODESµ− DECAY MODESµ− DECAY MODESµ− DECAY MODES Fraction (Γi /Γ) Confidence level (MeV/c)
e− νe νµ ≈ 100% 53
e− νe νµ γ [d] (6.0±0.5) × 10−8 53
e− νe νµ e+ e− [e] (3.4±0.4) × 10−5 53
Lepton Family number (LF ) violating modesLepton Family number (LF ) violating modesLepton Family number (LF ) violating modesLepton Family number (LF ) violating modes
e− νe νµ LF [f ] < 1.2 % 90% 53
e−γ LF < 4.2 × 10−13 90% 53
e− e+ e− LF < 1.0 × 10−12 90% 53
e− 2γ LF < 7.2 × 10−11 90% 53
ττττ J = 12
Mass m = 1776.86 ± 0.12 MeV(mτ+ − mτ−)/maverage < 2.8 × 10−4, CL = 90%Mean life τ = (290.3 ± 0.5) × 10−15 s
cτ = 87.03 µmMagnetic moment anomaly > −0.052 and < 0.013, CL = 95%Re(dτ ) = −0.220 to 0.45 × 10−16 e cm, CL = 95%Im(dτ ) = −0.250 to 0.0080 × 10−16 e cm, CL = 95%
Weak dipole momentWeak dipole momentWeak dipole momentWeak dipole moment
Re(dwτ ) < 0.50 × 10−17 e cm, CL = 95%
Im(dwτ ) < 1.1 × 10−17 e cm, CL = 95%
Weak anomalous magnetic dipole momentWeak anomalous magnetic dipole momentWeak anomalous magnetic dipole momentWeak anomalous magnetic dipole moment
Re(αwτ ) < 1.1 × 10−3, CL = 95%
Im(αwτ ) < 2.7 × 10−3, CL = 95%
τ± → π±K0S ντ (RATE DIFFERENCE) / (RATE SUM) =
(−0.36 ± 0.25)%
Decay parametersDecay parametersDecay parametersDecay parameters
See the τ Particle Listings for a note concerning τ -decay parameters.
ρ(e or µ) = 0.745 ± 0.008ρ(e) = 0.747 ± 0.010ρ(µ) = 0.763 ± 0.020ξ(e or µ) = 0.985 ± 0.030ξ(e) = 0.994 ± 0.040ξ(µ) = 1.030 ± 0.059η(e or µ) = 0.013 ± 0.020η(µ) = 0.094 ± 0.073
HTTP://PDG.LBL.GOV Page 2 Created: 6/5/2018 18:58
MEG(2016)
MEG(2016)
[d] (Eg>40 MeV)
e µ t+2 -1 0+1 0 0+1 0 0+1 0 0
e µ t0 +1 0
e µ t0 +1 00 +1 00 +1 0
Adapted from: Marciano, Mori & Roney,Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2008 58:315–41
Charged Lepton Flavor Violation searchesCharged lepton flavor violation searches
Particle dipole moments
10
Magnetic Dipole Moment
Electric Dipole Moment
P,C,T-even P,T-odd (CP-odd)
Muon
200 times heavier than electronDecays in 2.2 μsec (conserving “lepton flavor”)Has a spin ½ (à dipole moments)Feels all interactions (including unknown ones if any)
e μ
11
Muon is
It should be noted that the negative NLO contribution resultsin an anticorrelation between its uncertainty and the uncer-tainty from the LO contribution, consequently resulting in aslight reduction in the overall uncertainty that has beenincorporated into Eq. (3.34).The hadronic LbL contributions, although small compared
to the hadronic vacuum polarization sector, have, in the past,beendetermined throughmodel-dependent approaches.Theseare based on meson exchanges, the large Nc limit, ChPTestimates, short distance constraints from the operator productexpansion, andpQCD.Over time, several different approachesto evaluating ahad;LbLμ have been attempted, resulting in goodagreement for the leading Nc (π0 exchange) contribution, butdiffering for subleading effects. A commonly quoted deter-mination of the LbL contribution is the “Glasgow consensus”estimate of ahad;LbLμ ðGlasgow consensusÞ ¼ ð10.5 $ 2.6Þ ×10−10 [101] (alternatively, see [102–105]). However, recentworks [106–108] have reevaluated the contribution toahad;LbLμ
due to axial exchanges, where it has been found that thiscontribution has, in the past, been overestimated due to anincorrect assumption that the form factors for the axial mesoncontribution are symmetric under the exchange of two photonmomenta [106]. Under this assumption, the determination in[102] previously found the axial vector contribution to beahad;LbL;axialμ ¼ð2.2$ 0.5Þ×10−10. Correcting this reduces thiscontribution to ahad;LbL;axialμ ¼ð0.8$ 0.3Þ×10−10 [106,107].Applying this adjustment to theGlasgow consensus result, theestimate in [108] finds
ahad;LbLμ ¼ ð9.8 $ 2.6Þ × 10−10; ð3:35Þ
which is the chosen estimate for ahad;LbLμ in this work. Thisresult is notably lower than the previously accepted LbLestimates and will incur an overall downward shift on aSMμ . Itis, however, still within the original uncertainties whencomparing with the original Glasgow consensus estimate.Alternatively, it should be noted that the estimate ofahad;LbLμ ¼ ð10.2 $ 3.9Þ × 10−10 [108,109], which is a resultthat is independent of the Glasgow consensus estimate,could be employed here. In addition, the recent work [105]has provided an estimate for the next-to-leading orderhadronic LbL contribution. It has found ahad;NLO-LbLμ ¼ð0.3 $ 0.2Þ × 10−10, which does not alter the hadronicLbL contribution significantly, but is taken into accountin the full SM prediction given below.Much work has also been directed at the possibility of a
model independent calculation of ahad;LbLμ to further consoli-date the SM prediction of aμ. One approach involves themeasurement of transition form factors by KLOE-2 andBESIII, which can be expected to constrain the leadingpseudoscalar-pole (π0, η; η0) contribution to a precision ofapproximately 15% [108]. Alternatively, the pion transitionformfactor (π0 → γ%γ%) canbecalculated on the lattice for thesame purpose [110]. New efforts into the prospects of
determining ahad;LbLμ using dispersive approaches are alsovery promising [111–116], where the dispersion relations areformulated to calculate either thegeneral hadronicLbL tensoror to calculate ahad;LbLμ directly. These approaches will allowfor the determination of the hadronic LbL contributions fromexperimental data and, at the very least, will invoke stringentconstraints on future estimates. Last, there has been hugeprogress in developingmethods for a direct lattice simulationof ahad;LbLμ [110,117–123]. With a proof of principle alreadywell established, an estimate of approximately 10% accuracyseems possible in the near future. Considering these develop-ments and the efforts of the Muon g − 2 Theory Initiative[124] to promote the collaborative work of many differentgroups, the determination of ahad;LbLμ on the level of theGlasgowconsensuswill, at thevery least, be consolidated anda reduction of the uncertainty seems highly probable on thetime scales of the new g − 2 experiments.Following Eq. (3.31), the sum of all the sectors of the SM
results in a total value of the anomalous magnetic momentof the muon of
aSMμ ¼ ð11659182.04 $ 3.56Þ × 10−10; ð3:36Þwhere the uncertainty is determined from the uncertaintiesof the individual SM contributions added in quadrature.Comparing this with the current experimental measurementgiven in Eq. (1.1) results in a deviation of
Δaμ ¼ ð27.06 $ 7.26Þ × 10−10; ð3:37Þcorresponding to a 3.7σ discrepancy. This result is comparedwith other determinations of aSMμ in Fig. 25. In particular, a
160 170 180 190 200 210 220
(aµSM x 1010)−11659000
DHMZ10
JS11
HLMNT11
FJ17
DHMZ17
KNT18
BNL
BNL (x4 accuracy)
3.7σ
7.0σ
FIG. 25. A comparison of recent andprevious evaluations ofaSMμ .The analyses listed in chronological order are DHMZ10 [84], JS11[85], HLMNT11 [9], FJ17 [79], and DHMZ17 [78]. The predictionfrom this work is listed as KNT18, which defines the uncertaintyband that other analyses are compared to. The current uncertaintyon the experimental measurement [1–4] is given by the light blueband. The light grey band represents the hypothetical situation ofthe new experimental measurement at Fermilab yielding the samemean value for aexpμ as the BNL measurement, but achieving theprojected fourfold improvement in its uncertainty [5].
MUON g − 2 AND αðM2ZÞ: A NEW DATA-BASED ANALYSIS PHYS. REV. D 97, 114025 (2018)
114025-23
Anomaly in muon g-2
Stan
dard
Mod
el
Expe
rimen
ts
12
E821 2004
A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D 97, 114025 (2018)
Note that electron g-2 is consistent with the SM.
stat. 460 ppbsyst. 280 ppb
Phys. Rev. D 73072003 (2006)
Why muon g-2 is important?
13
?
[x10-10]Numbers from A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D 97, 114025 (2018)
Anomaly effect as big as the weak contributions
Examples of New Physics diagrams
FPCP,07-05-2019 L.Galli,INFNPisa
Manychannels
�4
γ
e
γ
τ µ,e
γ
µ µ
Ze
µ e
µ� e� � � µ�� � e�
(g � 2)µ µ�N � e�Nµ� eee
µ,τ
b
d l
l
e e
eNPNP NP NP
NP
NP
B � ��̄�
B � ��̄�Xs
NP
µ e
q q
µ
Awidefieldofresearch
LFVdecaysofleptons
Anomalousmagne5cmomentfortheµ
Muon-to-electronconversion
LFVinmesondecays
●
HFAG−TauSummer 2016
10−8
10−6
e− γ
µ− γ
e− π
0µ− π
0e− η
µ− η
e− ηʹ(9
58)
µ− ηʹ(9
58)
e− K S0
µ− K S0
e− f 0(
980)
µ− f 0(
980)
e− ρ
0µ− ρ
0e− K
∗ (892
)0µ− K
∗ (892
)0e− K
∗ (892
)0µ− K
∗ (892
)0 e− φ
µ− φ
e− ω
µ− ω
e− e+ e−
µ− e+ e−
e− µ
+ µ−
µ− µ
+ µ−
e− µ
+ e−
µ− e+ µ
−e− π+ π−
µ− π+ π−
e− π+ K
−µ− π+ K
−e− K
+ π−
µ− K
+ π−
e− K
+ K−
µ− K
+ K−
e− K S0 K S0
µ− K S0 K S0
e+ π− π−
µ+ π− π−
e+ π− K
−µ+ π− K
−e+ K
− K−
µ+ K
− K−
π− Λ
π− Λ
K− Λ
K− Λ
pµ− µ
−pµ
+ µ−
90%
CL
uppe
r lim
its
● ATLAS BaBar Belle CLEO LHCb
Belle II J-PARCFermilab
J-PARCFermilab
PSIPSI
Three steps of g-2 measurement
1. Prepare a polarized muon beam.
2. Store in a magnetic field (muon’s spin precesses)
3. Measure decay positron
15
úúû
ù
êêë
é÷÷ø
öççè
æ+´+
´÷÷ø
öççè
æ-
---=cEB
cEaBa
me
!!!
!!!!
bhbg
w µµ 2112
π+ μ+νμ
spin 0
neutrino� left handed
helicity�−� helicity�−�
μ+
e+
spin
μ+
B
spin
PrecessionSpinningaxis
Gravity
Precession
Dipolemoments
B or E field
Precession
17
Fermilab E989 experiment
Photo courtesy of Fermilab E989
B= 1.45 T
14m
µ+ (3 GeV)
Conventional muon beamproton π+ μ+
pionproduction
decay
emittance~1000π mm�mrad
Strong collimationStrong focusingMuon lossBG π contamination
18
Muon beam at J-PARC
Reacceleratedthermal muon
proton π+ μ+
pionproduction
decay
cooling μ+
emittance~1000π mm�mrad
emittance1π mm�mrad
Strong collimationStrong focusingMuon lossBG π contamination
Free from any of these
19
20
Thermal muoniumproduction,Ionization laser
Muon storagemagnet(3 T)
MLF muon experimentalfacility (H-line)
Positron trackingdetector
Proton beam (3 GeV)
Surface muon (4 MeV)
Ultra-slow muon (25 meV)
Reaccelerated muon(212 MeV)
3D spiral injectionMuon LINAC
Muon g-2/EDMexperimentat J-PARC
Features:• Low emittance muon beam (1/1000)• No strong focusing (1/1000) & good injection eff. (x10)• Compact storage ring (1/20) • Tracking detector with large acceptance• Completely different from BNL/FNAL method
21
The J-PARC g-2/EDM collaboration
Collaboration meeting at J-PARC, May 2018
Seoul National University, June 24-27, 2019
116 members (Canada , China, Czech,France, Japan, Korea, Russia, USA)
Bird’s eye photo in Feb. 2008 22
H-line being constructed!
23
Photo by T. Yamazaki
To g-2/EDM
RF acceleration of Mu- for the first time!
24
J-PARC MLF D2 area, October 2017 Slide by M. Otani
25
J-PARC MLF D2 area, October 2017 Slide by M. Otani
S. Bae et al.,Phys. Rev. AB 21, 050101 (2018).
RF acceleration of Mu- for the first time!
Muon storage magnet and detector
26
Cryogenics
e+ trackingdetector
2900 mm
Muon storage orbit
Iron yoke
Super conducting coils
666 mm
Drawn by Hitachi Co.
M. Abe et. al., Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research A 890, 51 (2018)
Positron tracking detector
27
Si-stripsensors
Assembly (Kyushu + KEK)
Test module (Kyushu + KEK)
Great help from ATLAS and Belle II group at KEK
Comparison of g-2 experimentsProg. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2019, 053C02 (2019)
Completed Running In preparationFull approval by the lab(March, 2019)
Searches for muoncharged Lepton Flavor Violation
(cLFV)
Examples of New Physics diagrams
FPCP,07-05-2019 L.Galli,INFNPisa
Manychannels
�4
γ
e
γ
τ µ,e
γ
µ µ
Ze
µ e
µ� e� � � µ�� � e�
(g � 2)µ µ�N � e�Nµ� eee
µ,τ
b
d l
l
e e
eNPNP NP NP
NP
NP
B � ��̄�
B � ��̄�Xs
NP
µ e
q q
µ
Awidefieldofresearch
LFVdecaysofleptons
Anomalousmagne5cmomentfortheµ
Muon-to-electronconversion
LFVinmesondecays
●
HFAG−TauSummer 2016
10−8
10−6
e− γ
µ− γ
e− π
0µ− π
0e− η
µ− η
e− ηʹ(9
58)
µ− ηʹ(9
58)
e− K S0
µ− K S0
e− f 0(
980)
µ− f 0(
980)
e− ρ
0µ− ρ
0e− K
∗ (892
)0µ− K
∗ (892
)0e− K
∗ (892
)0µ− K
∗ (892
)0 e− φ
µ− φ
e− ω
µ− ω
e− e+ e−
µ− e+ e−
e− µ
+ µ−
µ− µ
+ µ−
e− µ
+ e−
µ− e+ µ
−e− π+ π−
µ− π+ π−
e− π+ K
−µ− π+ K
−e− K
+ π−
µ− K
+ π−
e− K
+ K−
µ− K
+ K−
e− K S0 K S0
µ− K S0 K S0
e+ π− π−
µ+ π− π−
e+ π− K
−µ+ π− K
−e+ K
− K−
µ+ K
− K−
π− Λ
π− Λ
K− Λ
K− Λ
pµ− µ
−pµ
+ µ−
90%
CL
uppe
r lim
its
● ATLAS BaBar Belle CLEO LHCb
Belle II J-PARCFermilab
J-PARCFermilab
PSIPSI
New physics couplings
FPCP,07-05-2019 L.Galli,INFNPisa
Newphysics*couplings
�8
µ e
γ
µ µ
µ
e
e
γ
e
e/qe/q
e/q e/q
dipoletransiMonµ→eγfavoured
fourparMcleinteracMonµN→eN,µ→eeefavoured
*Modelindependentapproach Calibbi and Signorelli, Riv. N. Cimento, 2017
Effective parameterization
FPCP,07-05-2019 L.Galli,INFNPisa
Effec/veparametrisa/on
�10
current limit future limit
µ->eγ 4.2x10-13 6x10-14
µN->eN 10-12 - 10-13 3x10-17
µ->eee 10-12 10-15 - 10-16
de Gouvea and Vogel, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 2013
effec/veLagrangian
func*onoftheNPscaleΛandNPnaturethroughκ
dipoletransi/on
BR(µ->eγ)/BR(µN->eN)≈10-2
fourfermioninteracMon
µN->eNfavoured
Fromcurrentandfutureexperiments103TeVnewphysicsscalesensi/vity
Muon cLFV searches
FPCP,07-05-2019 L.Galli,INFNPisa
MuoncLFV:background
�14
Muon cLFV searches
FPCP,07-05-2019 L.Galli,INFNPisa
MuoncLFV:background
�14
DC beam Pulsed beam DC beam
MEG II (PSI) COMET (J-PARC)mu2e (Fermilab)
mu3e (PSI)
COMET Overview
muon to electron conversion in a muonic atom
µ� +N ! e� +N(charged lepton flavor violation)
Slide by Y. Kuno
Bird’s eye photo in Feb. 2008 36
COMET Phase-I
proton beam power=3.2 kW
detector
muon beamline
proton target
muon target
current limit:
< 6x10-13
aimed sensitivity: < 6x10-15
!(10−15)
x100 improvementSlide by Y. Kuno
COMET Phase-II
Decisions andCOMET
Ewen Gillies
New Physics& CLFV
COMETDesignPrinciples
New TrackingTechniquesNeighbour-LevelGBDTHoughTransformTrack-LevelGBDT
Backup
Phase II Geometry
46
proton beam power=56 kW
electron spectrometer
detectormuon beamline
proton target
muon target
original sensitivity: 2.6x10-17
!(10−17)
x10,000 improvement 10 times ΛSlide by Y. Kuno
Pion Capture Solenoid
CyDet and StrECAL for COMET Phase-I
Y. Fujii @ CLFV2016
COMET Phase-I
10
StrECAL
Straw Tube Tracker
ECAL
• Construct the first 90 degree of the muon transport solenoid• Perform the μ-e conversion search with a sensitivity of 10
-15 using CyDet
• Measure the beam directly using StrECAL as a Phase-II prototype detector
CyDet
Cylindrical Drift Chamber
Trigger Hodoscope
Muon Stopping Target
CyDet
StrECALSlide by Y. Kuno
41
CDC under Cosmic-ray Tests1. Introduction!3
CDC Cosmic-Ray Test
MIDAS
DAQ Trigger
Slow Control Analysis
CDC
HV, Gas flow rate, Valve, Pressure, Temperature, Humidity
Performance evaluation,Detector response, Calibration framework
Good collaborative field among sub-groups !!
FC7, FCT, I/F
HV: 1850 V Gas mixture: He/i-C4H10=90/10 flow rate: 100 ccm
Cylindrical drift chamber (CDC) takes more data
at the Fuji experimental hall
2a.Cabling(HVside)
7
Slide by Y. Kuno
The COMET collaboration
5
~200 members,41 institutes from 17 countries
Still growing!
Jan 2018, COMET collaboration at Osaka University
Slide by W. Chen
Projection in next 10 yearsL. Galli, FPCP 2019
g-2Fermilab
g-2/EDMJ-PARC
Summary• Muon offers rich physics cases to study beyond the
standard model in quantum loops.
• Muon g-2/EDM– More than 3s deviation from the SM.– Fermilab muon g-2 experiment is taking physics run.– J-PARC muon g-2/EDM experiment is in preparation with
completely different method.
• Muon cLFV– J-PARC COMET and Fermilab mu2e experiments are in
preparation.– PSI MEG II experiment will start soon.
• Many new results will come in next 10 years. 45
Top Related