Summary of the 1 st Meeting of the Physics and Experiment Board

1. Summary of the 1stMeeting of the Physics and Experiment Board Patric Muggli Max Planck Institute for Physics Munich muggli@mpp.mpg.de https://www.mpp.mpg.de/~muggli

2. Structure Technical Board Technical Coordinator: Edda Gschwendtner Deputy Technical Coordinator : Chiara Bracco Management Board Physics and Experiment Board Coordinator: Patric Muggli Deputy: N.N. Collaboration Board Institutes Task Group Coordinators CERN AWAKE Project Project Leader: Edda G. Deputy Project Leader: Chiara Bracco WP3: Beam Lines WP Leader: Chiara Bracco WP5: Electron Source: WP Leader: N.N. WP1: Project Management WP Leader: Edda Gschwendtner WP4: Integration, Installation WP Leader: Ans Pardons WP2: SPS Beam WP Leader: Elena Chapochnikova

3. Physics and Experiment Board Mandate The Physics and Experiment Board (PEB) defines the physics goal of the experiment and co-ordinates and assesses activities concerning physics topics of interest. The PEB defines the needed performance of the experiment and the design of the plasma cell and the experimental detectors. It acts also, in close connection with the Speakers Committee, as the steering group for the preparation of physics publications, notes and oral presentations. The Physicsand Experiment Coordinator proposes in consultation with the Spokesperson the organization of the Physics and Experiment Board to the Management Board for confirmation. The PEB is composed of the Physics-Experiment Coordinator, his/her deputies, physicists appointed ad personam, and the task group leaders. The Management Board members are ex-officio members of the PEB. The PEB takes decisions on the performance of the experiment, the simulations, data analysis, conception and writing of papers. The PEB can formulate proposals to the MB and to the TB for the optimization of physics performances and the definition of running conditions. The meetings of the PEB are chaired by the Physics and Experiment Coordinator. The work and the decisions of the PEB are recorded in minutes, which are made available to the Collaboration.

4. Physics and Experiment Coordinator Mandate • Defining physics goals of the experiment. • Defining measurements parameters needed for proper physics evaluation. • Defining the measurement strategy of the experiment. • Formulating specifications in accordance with physics goals. • Defining requirements to the experimental setup based on simulations. • Defining the design of the plasma cell and the experimental detectors. • Responsible for proper simulation and evaluation of physics performance. • Defining data analysis tools and strategies. • Coordination of publications, notes and presentations.

5. Some Topics in the Physics and Experiment Board • Dependency of SMI on input parameters • Beam charge, length, ionization laser position, plasma density • Electron beam injection • Side-injection, on-axis injection, long bunch injection, short bunch injection • Electrons acceleration • Required/optimum parameters, parameters of the output beam (energy spectrum, emittance) • Production of high-quality electron bunches • Injection parameters and tolerances, beam loading • Plasma cell • Design, performance • Proton beam diagnostics • Detector design, proton beam at the diagnostics location, suitability of diagnostics, information obtained from diagnostics • Electron beam diagnostics • Detector design, required magnetic spectrometer characteristics • Experimental procedures • Procedure to maximize the likelihood of success for experimental measurements • Information required for physics understanding • Parameters/measurements required to understand physics • Publication strategy

6. Physics and Experiment Board TGC are active and engagedvolunteers A number of physics questions for each Task Group were proposed as seeds (to be included in the minutes)

7. ACTIONS Coordination meeting about simulations ASAPPM Coordination meeting with the Task Groups (at least coordinators) to define the tasks and seed coordinators activities PM + the ones from the Technical Board

8. ACTIONS For the next PEB meeting: Each task group coordinator will present the parameters he/she is considering for the experiment and which parameters need to be better defined. The PEB coordinator will circulate share these with the relevant people Goal: -converge towards towards AWAKE parameters sets (e-, p+, …) Ask Lawrence Deacon (Electron Spectrometer Task Group) to present his work on e- beam propagation for spectrometer downstream form the plasma Idea: -step towards end-to-end simulation: Plasma + spectrometer, diagnostics (e-, p+), etc. -”simulate” future experimental analysis from simulation data Longer term: -Generate data base of simulation results for AWAKE possible parameters -Organize a document that summarizes the finding of the TEB and thus the AWAKE Physics and Experiment program

9. CONCLUSIONS We need the PEB!! Generate global excitement and global awareness Generate parameters useful to design and build (now) and (later) run the experiment Very strong interaction with the TB TB has already generated a list for requests for PEB! Action lists will be generated and they must be followed! Task Group Coordinator must take the initiative to organize Task Group meetings to make progress (same as electron spectrometer day, but TGL organized) The PEB, AWAKE and I are counting on Task Group Coordinators active participation! The PEB values original contributions, ideas, etc. P for PHYSICS … E for Experimental … B not for Bored …

10. METAL VAPOR SOURCE What is the out-gazing of vapor source tolerable? Rb pollution, less molecular flow, … Where does Rb go when the valves open? Laser energy absorption, plasma density, coating (mirror), … How does the laser beam propagate and ionize? Plasma radius, wakefields development … What laser energy do we really need? What is the effect of the neutral vapor index of refraction? LASER See above Beam propagation from laser to last turning mirror and vapor cell Damage, energy for ionization, …

11. DISCHARGE PLASMA SOURCE How/when will it reach ne=1014-1015 cm-3? What is the ne uniformity? What is the (electric) stored energy per unit length required? How to integrate it in a metallic accelerator environment? Scaling to very long length? HELICON PLASMA SOURCE Can it reach ne=1014-1015 cm-3? What is the ne uniformity? What is the RF-power per unit length?

12. SELF-MODULATION DIAGNOSTICS What are these diagnostics? OTR+SC, TCTR, “first day”, photon acceleration, Smith-Purcell? Others? What do they really measure? Occurrence of SMI Modulation frequency, depth, phase, … What are their potential, what are their limitations? CTR-TCTR (implementation) What beam parameters do they require? Transverse size, modulation depth, … Location …

13. ELECTRON SPECTROMETER • Summary Electron Spectrometer Day, 26 March 2014 (Compiled by Edda, reviewed by Rhodri and Patric) • Present: • EnricoBravin, Allen Caldwell (via Vidyo), Lawrence Deacon, EddaGschwendtner, Jan Hansen, Simon Jolly, Rhodri Jones, Patric Muggli, Ans Pardons, ChiaraPasquino, AlexeyPetrenko (via Vidyo), Matthew Wing. • Presentations: • The presentations can be found on indico at http://indico.cern.ch/event/309338/ • Outcome and list of Actions: • Action Patric, Alexey: • Provide a document that summarizes an electron beam parameter set, which can be used for the spectrometer design. This includes the electron beam parameters at the entrance of the plasma cell and also the beam parameters at the exit of the plasma cell. • Define (in the Physics and Experiment Board) the energy range and resolution we need to cover with the electron spectrometer. • Send design drawings of optical diagnostics to Ans. • Action Chiara, Alexey: • Define the proton beam size and aperture required at the electron spectrometer. • Action  Simon, Lawrence: • In awaiting the final spectrometer parameter list (see ACTION above) the numbers to be used for the studies on the spectrometer performance are: • On axis injection: • Energy 1.4GeV, energy spectrum FWHM 400MeV, 3e8 electrons, normalized emittance 500mm-mrad, Twiss parameters at the spectrometer entrance? • Side injection:  • Energy 2.1GeV, energy spectrum FWHM 100MeV, emittance not provided?

14. ELECTRON SPECTROMETER •  Actions: • Separate the spectrometer response and the readout response. • Do all calculations in steps and show the results for each step. • Provide the individual contributions to the spectrometer resolution as a function of detected energy coming from • transverse emittance (zero dispersion) • dispersion (point source): • For the 2 scenarios (on axis & side injection) detailed above, calculate the number of visible photons generated for a fixed magnetic field: • as a function of position along the scintillator screen • as a function of energy • Track the vertical beam size through the spectrometer to determine the vacuum pipe size. • Look at the influence of other effects that can limit the measurements. E.g. the fringe fields of the magnet, correlation between energy and emittance or size, etc… • Make a full comparison between having the scintillator inside and outside the vacuum, studying for example: • What is the maximum radiation length allowed in case the electron beam passes through a window. • If viewports of adequate size be found for the scintillator in vacuum case • Automate the generation of the results so that the expected energy spectra in the experiment can be systematically generated from various phase space distributions. • Specify the minimum needed vacuum level. • Send design drawings of the spectrometer to Ans • Action Ans: • Make first integration design of the entire area downstream the plasma cell. • Integrate design of the spectrometer and proton detectors • Send request for cables, racks, etc… to institutes

15. ELECTRON SPECTROMETER • Action  Jan: • give limits and recommendations for proposed vacuum window (Mylar window or Silicon window (MPP)) • Note: • CERN has reserved a fellow in the beam instrumentation group (BE-BI) to study AWAKE BI issues. After the spectrometer day, a meeting took place between CERN and UCL where it was agreed that a close collaboration between CERN and UCL would be setup where UCL would concentrate on studies of the spectrometer response and the CERN fellow would concentrate on the readout response. • Action Edda, BI, UCL:A type of MoU will be setup between BE-BI and UCL where the work-package and the responsibilities will be described. • Action  BI in collaboration with UCL: • Come up with what you need in terms of resolution for the detector response. • How many electrons do we expect? • What is the spatial resolution needed on the screen? • Study the trade-off between sensitivity and life-time of the screens. • Which camera is needed? • What is the maximum radiation length allowed in case the electron beam passes through a window. • Study the response of the spectrum in the detectors. • Use the real camera binning. • Is an intensifier needed? • Give absolute results. • Consider radiation levels in calculations • Study scintillating fibres and PMs, collector plates. • Use an optical line to move streak-camera out? There is no streak. camera in the spectrometer, this is for the relative timing of the various beams …

16. ELECTRON GUN ELEMENTS Energy booster parameters DATA ANALISYS Not yet active …

17. BEAM LINES Sensitivity of arrival time to energy spread (e-) Min.-max. size at injection point Merging of e- and p+ beams SPS BEAM Expected variations in beam parameters Timing, length, size, charge, etc. Impact ionization of Rb by p+ beam ELECTRON SOURCE PHIN nominal parameters PHIN possible parameters How short, maximum current, energy chirp for compression

18. SIMULATIONS Detailed results must be available (not just publications and summary slides)!! • Phase-space of the proton bunch along the plasma • Determine the “average” beam size as well as radius of the outmost particle • Determine proper pipe size and/or radiation/activation produced • Phase-space of the proton bunch at the end of the plasma to be propagated balistically after the plasma to determine: • “average” beam size as well as radius of the outmost particle • proper pipe size and/or radiation/activation produced • transition radiation foils diameter • possible proximity of electro-optic probes • amplitude of coherent transition radiation (CTR) and transverse CTR fields • spectrum of the CTR/TCTR • optimum position/depth of modulation for SMI diagnostics • beam size all the way to dump apertures • Phase-space of the electron bunch along the plasma • Determine energy gain depending on actual plasma length • Phase-space of the electron bunch along the end of the plasma to be propagated balistically after the plasma to determine: • the electron beam size and emittance after the plasma • energy spectrum as it may be observed with the electron spectrometer • the interaction between the electron and the proton beam after the plasma and in the spectrometer • The above data should be saved and labeled and archived for every simulation that is ran with enough confidence in the results. The physical parameters (beam and plasma, all of them) should be attached for each case.

19. SIMULATIONS • In addition specific runs should be performed within the parameter range that will be available in the experiment (to the best of the current knowledge). For example: • plasma density 1014-1015 cm‑3 • plasma length up to 10m • plasma radius 1-2mm • proton bunch number 1-3x1011 • proton bunch length 8-12cm • some variation of the seed position (a fraction of 12cm) • proton bunch radius (what can we expect, either as fluctuations or a variations that we can impose?) • With at least seven parameters and assuming a number of runs needed for each parameter range (at least three, low, medium, high) this is already potentially 36=729 runs. • This is a large number and priorities may have to be determined. Computers may have to be purchased … • It is very important to have results for non-optimized cases in order to understand how to maximize the chances to be able to run the experiment as detect something. An experiment becomes much easier when there is a signal to play with and optimize. This is a main concern when planning. Detailed results must be available (not just publications and summary slides)!!

20. SIMULATIONS • Injection: • How do trapping htrap, eN, E, ∆E depend on electron beam waist size (OAI)? Preliminary From A. Petrenko • Detailed results must be available (not just publications and summary slides)!! • Need a repository for simulation results containing: • Input parameters • Proton beam phase space, at least at plasma exit (diag., beam line design, radiation, …) • Electron beam phase space (spectrometer design, other diag.) • Other figures/plots that can be generated automatically for each simulation • Large size repository (MPP, CERN, BNP, …)

21. FROM TEB Action: Electron Spectrometer TG, Simon Jolly

22. FROM TEB Action: simulations + New TG, beams interaction, DESY? Action: simulations + All

23. FROM TEB Action: PEB?

24. FROM TEB Action: Vapor Source, Erdem Oz Action: New task group, INFN?

26. THE END

27. Technical Coordinator Mandate • Coordinating the design, installation, integration and interfaces of the experiment. • Providing a resource loaded planning and milestone tracking of the experiment. • Providing specifications for the technical implementation of the experiment. • Monitoring, on behalf of the Collaboration, on a regular basis the technical progress of the different tasks through technical reviews, test results and site visits. • Organizing and steering the hardware and beam commissioning of the experiment. • Organizing and preparing the operation of the experiment.

28. Technical Board The Technical Board (TB) is the principal steering group in all matters of technical coordination and is chaired by the technical coordinator. The TB is composed of the Task-Group Coordinators (TGCs), CERN Work-package leaders (WPL) and sub-work-package leaders (SWPL). Members of the MB and the Deputy Technical Coordinator are ex-officio members of the TB. In the spirit of the mandate of the Technical Coordinator (TC) the TGCs, WPLs and SWPLs work together with and report to the TC on all issues covered by the mandate of the TC. The TC may set up, in consultation with the TB and on an ad-hoc basis, special working groups or task forces to address specific technical issues or advise on certain technical solutions. The TB is authorized to take technical decisions, which the TB deems not to have a significant impact on performance or cost of the AWAKE experiment. More important technical decisions are prepared in the form of a proposal by the TB for discussion at and decision by the MB. The Technical Coordinator or, in his absence, the Deputy Technical Coordinator chairs the TB. The TB meets regularly, typically once a month. The TC may call for extraordinary meetings of the TB to deal with specific or urgent topics. The decisions of the TB are recorded in minutes, which are made available to the Collaboration.

29. Technical Board Technical Board

30. Some Topics in the Technical Board • On-off axis injection • Integration, beam-line design, plasma cell, vacuum, mechanical engineering, simulation • Laser and laser-beam • Laser, laser beam-line, vacuum, mechanical engineering, integration • Fast valve • Plasma cell, vacuum, interlock • RF synchronization • RF, laser, electron source, timing • Proton diagnostics • Beam instrumentation, vacuum, mechanical engineering, detectors • Electron spectrometer • Electron spectrometer, diagnostics, vacuum, mechanical engineering, integration • Controls – DAQ • Diagnostics, plasma cell, controls, interlock, logging • Infrastructure needs of the experiment (gas, cables, …) • Electron source: • linear structure, beam diagnostics, magnets • Commissioning steps

31. New AWAKE Collaboration Organization

32. Motivation • Based on the experience in the last months (since the AWAKE experiment got approved), there is an urgent need to restructure and better organize the AWAKE collaboration in order to meet the experimental goal of having first proton beam to the plasma cell in 2016 and electron acceleration in 2017. • Too many parallel issues/contacts • Lack of information distribution • Integration of the experiment at CERN covers every equipment from institutes. • We need an institution where all issues concerning the design, installation and integration of the AWAKE experiment are coordinated and defined: • Follow-up the technical progress of the different groups/tasks: • Groups/institutes explain what they do and issues must be made aware to all concerned. • The work is justified in front of the collaboration and put on the table. • Providing specifications of the technical implementation. • Milestone tracking and scheduling. • Take technical decisions. • Follow-up and documentation (minutes, reviews) • We need an institution where the the required performance of the experiment and the physics goals are defined: • Defining measurements parameters and measurement strategy of the experiment. • Perform simulation and evaluation of physics performance. • Defining requirements to the experimental setup based on simulations. • Defining the design of the plasma cell and experimental detectors. • Defining data analysis tools and strategies. Technical Board Physics and Experiment Board

33. Proposal for the AWAKE Collaboration Management Board 2014 Old Management Board (2013) Spokesperson: Allen Caldwell (MPI Munich) Deputy Spokesperson: Matthew Wing (UCL) Accelerator, Experimental Area, Infrastructure Coordinator: Edda Gschwendtner (CERN) Experimental Aspects Coordinator: Patric Muggli (MPI Munich) Simulation/Theory Coordinator: Konstantin Lotov (Budker) New Management Board (2014) Spokesperson: Allen Caldwell Deputy Spokesperson: Matthew Wing Technical Coordinator: Edda Gschwendtner Physics and Experiment Coordinator: Patric Muggli Simulation Coordinator: Konstantin Lotov