Measuring Multiple Scattering in Step IV Timothy Carlisle Oxford See MICE Note 374 for updated results.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

January 14, 2004 TJR - - UPDATED 1/25/04 1 MICE Beamline Analysis Using g4beamline Including Jan 25 Updates for Kevin’s JAN04 Beamline Design Tom Roberts.

Advertisements

Step IV.0  EMR analysis  Integration with Global PID?  Step IV.0 shakedown analysis  Make sure we’re ready to take data and do something with it before.

1 Progress report on Calorimeter design comparison simulations MICE detector phone conference Rikard Sandström.

CM31: Multiple Scattering in GEANT4 Timothy Carlisle University of Oxford.

Emittance definition and MICE staging U. Bravar Univ. of Oxford 1 Apr Topics: a) Figure of merit for MICE b) Performance of MICE stages.

FIGURE OF MERIT FOR MUON IONIZATION COOLING Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 28 July 2004.

TJR Feb 10, 2005MICE Beamline Analysis -- TRD SEPT041 MICE Beamline Analysis – TRD SEPT04 Tom Roberts Muons, Inc. February 10, 2005.

“Amplitude Cooling” in Step III & IV Timothy Carlisle.

Tracker Reconstruction Stuff Timothy Carlisle Oxford.

Cooling channel issues U. Bravar Univ. of Oxford 31-Mar-2004.

1 PID, emittance and cooling measurement Rikard Sandström University of Geneva MICE Analysis phone conference.

1 Downstream PID update Rikard Sandström PID phone conference

TJR Sept 22, 2004MICE Beamline Analysis -- SEPT041 MICE Beamline Analysis – SEPT04 Tom Roberts Muons, Inc. September 22, 2004.

Mar 31, 2005Steve Kahn -- Ckov and Tof Detector Simulation 1 Ckov1, Ckov2, Tof2 MICE Pid Tele-Meeting Steve Kahn 31 March 2005.

Alain Blondel MICE: Constraints on the solenoids 2.Field Homogeneity: or ? this will be dictated by the detector requirements. TPG will be.

1 PID Detectors & Emittance Resolution Chris Rogers Rutherford Appleton Laboratory MICE CM17.

1 PID status MICE Analysis phone conference Rikard Sandström.

MICE analysis meeting - (6/4/2006) 1 Update on MICE – step III M. Apollonio – University of Oxford.

1 Statistics Toy Monte Carlo David Forrest University of Glasgow.

March 31, Status of the TOF, Ckov and Virtual Detector Packages in G4Mice Steve Kahn Brookhaven National Laboratory Mice Collaboration Meeting March.

Chris Rogers, MICE CM16 Wednesday Plenary Progress in Cooling Channel Simulation.

Diffuser in G4MICE Victoria Blackmore 09/03/10 Analysis Meeting 1/8.

1 Losses in the Cooling Channel Malcolm Ellis PID Meeting 1 st March 2005.

1. Optical matching in MICE Ulisse Bravar University of Oxford 2 June 2004 Constraints Software MICE proposal mismatch MICE Note 49 (September 2004, Bob.

1 Downstream PID update - How cooling section affects TOF measurement Rikard Sandström PID phone conference

Mark Rayner, Analysis workshop 4 September ‘08: Use of TOFs for Beam measurement & RF phasing, slide 1 Use of TOFs for Beam measurement & RF phasing Analysis.

RF background simulations MICE collaboration meeting Fermilab Rikard Sandström.

1 RF background simulation: proposal for baseline simulation Video conference 22/9 -04 Rikard Sandström Geneva University.

Chris Rogers, Analysis Parallel, MICE CM17 Progress in Cooling Channel Simulation.

1 Chris Rogers MICE Collaboration Meeting 11th Feb 2005 Tracking and Cooling performance of G4MICE.

Stats update Was asked to provide comparison between toy mc and g4mice at two points along z (middle of first and third absorbers) 10,000 events, step.

May 12, 2004 TJR1 Effects of Upstream ParticleID Counters on MICE Good-Mu+ Rates Tom Roberts Illinois Institute of Technology May 12, 2004.

Analysis of MICE Chris Rogers 1 Imperial College/RAL Thursday 28 October, With thanks to John Cobb.

MICE magnetic measurements Sequence of events and MICE hall movements Alain Blondel – 10-April 2012 revision from 13 December 2012.

Timothy Carlisle, Oxford CM 28. Step 3 Matching Step 3  Step 3 rematched for 830 mm spool piece  Calc. B(z) & BetaFn with the following:  Minimize.

Report on the Analysis Group & Plans V. Blackmore MICE VC 163 Thursday, 12 th December /11.

Emittance measurement: ID muons with time-of-flight Measure x,y and t at TOF0, TOF1 Use momentum-dependent transfer matrices iteratively to determine trace.

Physics Program and Runs: Autumn 2011 & Step IV V. Blackmore MICE Project Board, 08/03/12.

CM37 Alain Blondel step IV physics success 1 « STEP IV operations : Physics »

Emittance measurement: ID muons with time-of-flight Measure x,y and t at TOF0, TOF1 Use momentum-dependent transfer matrices to map  path Assume straight.

Takashi Matsushita Imperial College T. Matsushita 1 Tracker performance Vacuum/helium/air.

Results from Step I of MICE D Adey 2013 International Workshop on Neutrino Factories, Super-beams and Beta- beams Working Group 3 – Accelerator Topics.

MICE magnetic measurements: AFC considerations Alain Blondel see a previous discussion for reference in CM35 (Feb 2013 slides by V. Blackmore, A. Blondel.

M ULTIPLE S CATTERING RAL Timothy Carlisle 1.

Multiple Scattering (MSC) in Geant4 Timothy Carlisle Oxford.

Update Chris Rogers, Analysis PC, 13/07/06. State of the “Accelerator” Simulation Field model now fully implemented in revised MICE scheme Sanity checking.

MICE at STFC-RAL The International Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment -- Design, engineer and build a section of cooling channel capable of giving the.

Marco apollonio/J.CobbMICE coll. meeting 16- RAL - (10/10/2006) 1 Transmittance, scraping and maximum radii for MICE STEPVI M. Apollonio – University of.

MCS: Multiple Coulomb Scattering Sophie Middleton.

Step IV Studies Timothy Carlisle Oxford. Intro. CM28 – Step III vs Step IV Cooling formula & G4MICE disagree on – Also observed in ICOOL (note #199 –

RF background, update on analysis Rikard Sandström, Geneva University MICE Analysis phone conference, October 30, 2007.

Simulating the RFOFO Ring with Geant Amit Klier University of California, Riverside Muon Collaboration Meeting Riverside, January 2004.

Re-tuning MICE June 1 st 2010 Tim Carlisle. Intro At the moment MICE coil currents optimized for: central Pz = 0 RF No LH2 want to rematch M1 & M2 in.

18 th March 2008Measuring momentum using the TOFsSlide 1 Measuring momentum using TOF0 and TOF1 Progress report Mark Rayner (Oxford/RAL) Analysis Meeting,

Mark Rayner – Analysis SessionCM25, 4 November Beam characterization by the TOFs Mark Rayner The University of Oxford MICE CM25.

M. Ellis - MICE Collaboration Meeting - Wednesday 27th October Sci-Fi Tracker Performance Software Status –RF background simulation –Beam simulation.

This presentation will describe the state of each element in the beam line with regards to the current update being undertaken. Firstly, it will describe.

MICE Step IV Lattice Design Based on Genetic Algorithm Optimizations Ao Liu on behalf of the MICE collaboration Fermilab Ao Liu on behalf of the MICE collaboration.

(one of the) Request from MPB

MICE S TEP IV P HYSICS ‘D ELIVERABLES ’ V. Blackmore MAP 2014 Spring Meeting 30 th May, /15 AKA “What will we learn from Step IV?”

CM Nov 2009 DOES MICE NEED STEP III ? Somewhat hard to understand MICE Schedule… –If the gods are (un)kind it’s possible that SS1, SS2 & FC1 are.

Brunel University London Field-off LiH Energy Loss Rhys Gardener CM45 – July 28th.

C. Rogers, ASTeC Intense Beams Group Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Step IV Physics Paper Readiness

Beam Energy-Loss measurement

MICE Step IV Lattice Design Based on Genetic Algorithm Optimizations

Field-on measurement of multiple scattering

Using MICE to verify simulation codes?

Global PID MICE CM43 29/10/15 Celeste Pidcott University of Warwick

Completing the Step IV Programme

Presentation transcript:

Measuring Multiple Scattering in Step IV Timothy Carlisle Oxford See MICE Note 374 for updated results

Intro. Step IV will measure  0 in various materials. G4MICE finds  0 up to 30% less than predictions:  Standard PDG Scattering angle expression: Potential term actually scales with Z. Can we use the trackers to measure MS directly ?

Scattering Angle comparison Note:  z LiH = 6.3 cm  z LH2 = 57.6 cm

G4MICE: Step IV 63mm LiH Related studies (1) Cooling Eqn. vs G4MICE

Method (1) Simulate in G4MICE Step IV fields, no Trackers in sim. geometry Four runs: Empty channel & AFC 35cm LH 2 & 63mm LiH Trk. Rec. still in the pipeline. Apply a smear instead, Gaussian, given: Trk. Rec. to give 6D particle vectors at Trk. Ref Planes: MICE Note #90

Method (2) Re-simulate in an empty geometry (just fields) Track downstream beam up to the absorber – Flip momenta – Flip particle sign also – No energy losses Track upstream beam down through the absorber: Track vectors back to the downstream edge of the absorber position Upstream TRP Downstream TRP No AFC, no material

Method (3) i)Take vectors at DS edge of Absorber position ii)Calc. angle between them: iii)Plot histogram for all particles. iv)Note:

No AFC (empty geometry) Smear  errors onGeant4 tracking No Smear

AFC, no Absorber Smear No Smear

AFC + LH 2 Smear No Smear

AFC + LiH Smear No Smear

Paraxial beams in G4MICE 35 cm LH 2 63 mm LiH

Results No Smear Smear PDGPencil beam No AFC 3.23e-51.73e-2 AFC (windows) 8.69e-31.96e-2 LH e e-21.87e-28.9e-3 LiH 2.15e e-22.46e-22.03e-2    0 mm)   = 2.5 mm)

Summary PDG ~ 2x more scattering than G4MICE. Smearing may require further thought re: correlations LH 2 & LiH indistinguishable after smear. LiH measurement < PDG angle. See MICE Note 374 for updated results

EXTRAS

G4MICE output - 35 cm LH 2

Related studies (2) Step IV: LH 2 Step IV: LiH From CM28

paraxial beams in G4MICE 35 cm LH 2 63 mm LiH

V.L. Highland, Nucl. Instrum. Methods 129, 497 (1975)

AFC + LH 2 Smear No Sear

AFC + LiH Smear No Smear