Forward Upgrade Meeting

1. Forward Upgrade Meeting Richard Seto-UCR BNLAug 18-19, 2004 Bridgeline x8383 rooms: 3-192/2-160/2-78/2-187

2. Status • Previous Meetings • usual Monday meetings • Had presentation to EC/DC (early May) • meeting at LANL (June 21-23) • EC/DC/PM letter is on its way to us • Funding • NSF proposal due in Jan (late Nov) • Scope? • Riken Funding-physics argument? • Design • Mu trigger – 2 options – RPC and Cathode readout • Not mutually exclusive • NCC – overall scheme chosen – details now • Simulations – Geant work beginning for NCC, Specific trigger and physics studies being done • More Collaborators [many possible – Bejing, Trieste, Prauge, ….] • Responsibilities?

3. Goals for this meeting Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?" • Muon trigger technology • Muon trigger funding • we must decide! • the NSF proposal (jan!!) • we must decide! • R and D plans and requests • steps toward CDR (s) • Apr 2005 ?? • Next major meeting? Agenda

4. Overview -rich -20 min EC/DC letter-discussion - rich 20 min Muon Trigger Physics motivation for Muon Trigger and performance requirements- Naohito - 30 min Muon Trigger Studies: Performance Issues -Wei 20 min Muon trigger and Pattern recognition - Vince - 20 min break 10:45 Case I - Using the Cathodes R&D studies in Kyoto - Naohito-10min Rejection Power of LVL-1 MuTr with fast cathode readout- Kazuya Aoki - 30 min Pulse shape analysis of Cathode signal from MuTr Chambers- Kohei Shoji - 20 mins Case II - case for the RPC's - Matthias - 45 min Discussion – Muon trig solution 30 min Lunch 1:00 Afternoon 2-160 2:00 Funding the muon trigger Overview of Costs for Muon trigger – Matthias/Naohito 30 min R and D request Discussion - Funding possibilitiesHideto/Matthias/Naohito 45 min Using the muon trigger+NCC in Spin Studies -Astrid 20 min Break 4:30 Measuring the Spin structure function and orbital angular momentum Ken - 30 min Agenda – Day 1 (9AM 3-192)

5. CMS Muon Trigger RPCs- Yajun Mao- 20 min NCC Review of NCC physics and studies done so far - rich 30 min NCC - update on costs and design Ed Kist - 45 min R and D request Break 10:45 NCC studies-Vassily - 45 min Status for Foreign Collaborators Matthias, Ed Kinney - 20 min Trigger Electronics for mu-trig+NCC -John L 30 min Integration Issues - Ed Kist - 30 min Lunch 1:00 Aug 19th Afternoon 2-187 2PM Guest speaker – the Hera-B calorimeter - 20 min Scope and Planning for NSF proposal Ken 20 min john hill- updat from ISU - 10 min discussion : the NSF proposal (45 min) Break 4:30 Disscussion and planning- toward the CDR(s): Charting the future for the NCC - Edward Kistinev, Rich Charting the future for the muon trigger - matthias/Naohito Close-out – Rich END: 6PM Agenda – Day 2 (9AM 2-78)

6. EC/DC/PM letter – reader’s digest version • We got the green light • 2 CDR’s • Work with forward Si (LANL), consider the GEM proposal too • Muon trigger • look at possible benefits of displaced vertex measurements • Make sure it can trigger at RHIC 2 heavy ions • Make sure it solves the pattern recognition problem • Choose a technology • be ready by FY 07 • NCC • look at combined charged tracking and calorimeter measurements- optimize design • Make sure it can take high occupancies • Find money! • Consider Hera B Calorimeter

7. NSAC Subcommittee Review of US Heavy Ion Physics Program (the “Barnes Committee”) Iraq $$$$$$ $$$$$$ your taxes Congress Pres of USA OMB $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$ dams roads $$ NSF? $$$$ the arts medicine DOE Office of Science $$$$$$ Japan? Europe? DOE Nuclear (Kovar) $$$ $$ $$ $ $ Barnes Committee upgrades NSAC

8. Recommendations: Reader’s Digest • Recommendation 1 – Heavy Ions • run RHIC as much as possible • near-term detector upgrades of PHENIX and STAR • accelerator and detector R&D • EBIS • Recommendation 2 - Spin • Run polarized proton : gluon polarization • Accelerator and detector upgrades • flavor dependence of sea polarization from W-asymmetry • Recommendation 3 - LHC • comparable investment priority with the near-term upgrades

9. Recommendation 4 – Constant “effort” • Reduce RHIC running substantially. • Defer or stretch out detector upgrades • Very limited LHC heavy-ion program • PHOBOS and BRAHMS phased out earlier • BUT Invest in • STAR TOF and PHENIX Silicon Vertex Barrel. • RHIC accelerator and detector R&D. • Construction of EBIS. • Some participation in the LHC heavy-ion program. • Support at the present level for university and national laboratory • Recommendation 5 – Increase $$$ • 5% increase for RHIC running time. • another5%increment for • RHIC detector upgrades. • LHC heavy-ion physics program. • Experimental and theoretical research in heavy-ion physics.

10. Spares

11. EC/DC/PM letter • I’m pleased to inform you that the review of your letter of intent for upgrades to extend the forward physics capabilities of PHENIX was reviewed very positively in a joint meeting of the PHENIX detector council (DC) and executive council (EC). Based on their advice PHENIX project management wants to encourage you to move forward towards the development of two conceptual design reports (CDR), one for an upgraded muon trigger system and a second independent CDR for a forward calorimeter (NCC). • The proposed upgrade of the first level muon trigger with momentum resolution is critical for the planned W-measurement in polarized proton collisions at 500 GeV. The addition of a forward electromagnetic calorimeter will large enhance the PHENIX physics program by adding electron and photon measurement capabilities over a large acceptance combine with jet detection. • As a result of the review a number of issues and concerns have been identified which result in a list of action items and recommendations in three areas:

12. 1. Two verses one project: • The upgraded muon trigger and the electromagnetic calorimeter have been presented together in one LOI and both projects have been developed in close collaboration. PHENIX project management strongly encourages to keep up this close collaboration. However, PM also recognizes that the two components will be separate PHENIX subsystems with separate representation in the DC, they will likely be funded through separate sources, and will develop on independent time scales. Therefore independent CDR’s should be developed. • 2. Interplay of PHENIX forward detector upgrades: • At present the PHENIX upgrade plans foresee 3 new detector components in forward direction. The muon trigger upgrade and the NCC, presented in the letter of intent, and a forward silicon vertex tracker which has been presented and endorsed at an earlier time. In order to optimize the physics performance for forward physics the interrelation of these detectors should be studied and the results should be reflected in the CDR’s for all three future subsystems. • In particular, the present close collaboration of the groups working on the muon trigger and the NCC should be extended to include also the forward silicon detector. • Concerning the muon trigger, possible benefits of the trigger system from displaced vertex measurements used to veto muons from pion or kaon decays should be investigated. • The physics potential of the combined charged tracking and calorimeter measurements should be studied. Based on these results the requirements for both systems should be review and adapted if necessary. • Resent discussions of adding GEM tracking stations around the interaction point should also be considered

13. 3. Issues specific to the muon trigger upgrade: • The muon trigger upgrade, though primarily proposed to improve the single muon trigger for W-physics, should also improve the muon trigger for heavy ion running to a level that it provides the necessary rejection for heavy ion running with RHIC II luminosities. In addition, new muon trigger detectors should also help to solve any remaining pattern recognition problems of the muon tracking. At the time of the presentation neither the requirements for heavy ion triggering nor the performance of the muon tracking were clearly established. Both issues need to be addressed as soon as possible to settle the performance requirements for the new trigger detectors. • Many options for hardware solutions have been presented. Once the requirements are fully established the group should present a path how to establish a technology choice. • Because of the importance of the muon trigger upgrade for pp running at 500 GeV and expected overall improvement of the muon triggering and tracking, PM suggest to pursue this project on an aggressive time scale. Ideally the system should be in place for the runs in FY07/FY08 when the next large Au-Au and the first large pp run at 500 GeV are expected.

14. 4. Forward calorimeter specific related issues: • The review committee was impressed by the large number of new physics measurements possible with the NCC. This technologically challenging device will add significant new physics potential to PHENIX. Concerns were raised about the performance of the device in the high occupancy environment of heavy ion collisions. A more thorough investigation of its capabilities in central Au-Au collisions should be performed. • Because of the tight budget situation for any proposed RHIC upgrades an the large number of projects already being proposed to BNL and DOE it is unlikely that the NCC can be build with DOE funding on the proposed time scale before the run in FY08. We encourage the collaboration to continue the successful recruiting of new groups and to seek funding sources outside of the US to realize this project. • Recently another option, namely an electromagnetic calorimeter from H1 (?), has been discussed as possible alternative. Benefits and draw backs of this alternative device in terms of physics performance, cost and schedule should be investigated.

15. Recommendation #1 – Heavy Ions • A new and complex form of dense QCD matter has been discovered at RHIC. To investigate and understand the properties of this matter, we recommend full exploitation of the existing RHIC facility and investment in future research tools. The flexibility of this dedicated collider, coupled with detector and luminosity upgrades, sustains RHIC's unique discovery potential. RHIC should run for as many weeks per year as possible, compatible with the following: • Invest in near-term detector upgrades of the two large experiments, PHENIX and STAR, to take full advantage of the existing accelerator capabilities. • Invest now in accelerator and detector R&D, in preparation for RHIC II to enable crucial measurements of this new form of dense matter using rare probes. • Construct EBIS as quickly as possible to improve the reliability and increase the capabilities of the heavy-ion injection system and to realize the projected reduction in RHIC operating cost.

16. Recommendation 2 - Spin • In addition to its unique role in producing dense QCD matter, RHIC is poised to become a leading hadronic physics facility through a study of the structure of the proton using high-energy polarized proton-proton collisions. Its goals go well beyond current and expected results at other facilities. In order that this program succeed we recommend that: • Polarized proton-proton running remain an integral part of the RHIC program; In the near term, polarized proton-proton running time be sufficient to allow measurement of the gluon polarization on a reasonable time scale; • Accelerator and detector improvements proceed at a rate that allows a timely determination of the flavor dependence of the quark antiquark sea polarization through W-asymmetry measurements.

17. Recommendation 3 - LHC • The LHC offers outstanding opportunities for new discoveries in relativistic heavy-ion physics, driven by a large increase in center-of-mass energy, different initial conditions, and a larger kinematic reach for hard probes. Parallel studies at RHIC and LHC provide a synergy important for global understanding of the properties and dynamics of dense QCD matter. We recommend that: • Participation at the LHC should become a component of the U.S. Heavy-ion program. This participation should receive comparable investment priority with the near-term upgrades for each of the two large RHIC detectors.

18. Recommendation 4 – Pain (possibly) • The Committee finds that it is impossible to realize the compelling scientific opportunities identified in Recommendations #1-3 within a constant-effort budget. However, within such a budget, the long-term scientific impact of the heavy-ion program can be best maintained by a balanced program that includes elements from all three recommendations. This can only be done through painful cuts. Specifically: • RHIC running will have to be reduced substantially. • Compelling near-term RHIC detector upgrades will need to be stretched out or deferred. • Participation in the LHC heavy-ion program can only be funded at very limited level. • PHOBOS and BRAHMS may need to be phased out earlier than envisioned in the BNL 20-year plan. • Even within a constant-effort budget, we recommend that certain essential investments must be made. These include: • Construction of the STAR Time-of-Flight Barrel and the PHENIX Silicon Vertex Barrel. • RHIC accelerator and detector R&D. • Construction of EBIS. • Participation in the LHC heavy-ion program. • Support at the present level for university and national laboratory

19. Recommendation 5 – Increase $$$ • The Committee concludes that additional resources above the constant effort level are essential to exploit outstanding opportunities in heavy-ion and spin physics that would be otherwise lost. The Committee considered two possible budget increments over constant effort: • An increment of up to 5% over constant effort should be devoted to increased RHIC running time. This should permit operation of the RHIC accelerator at least as many weeks per year as envisioned within the recent BNL 20-year plan. • Additional funds beyond a 5% increment should be allocated in comparable amounts to: • RHIC detector upgrade investments to maximize the scientific potential of RHIC in the era prior to the luminosity upgrade. • U.S. participation within the LHC heavy-ion physics program. • Experimental and theoretical research in heavy-ion physics.