Summary of Washington DOE Review J. Seeman SLAC SuperB Frascati Meeting September 28, 2010

US SuperB Team for the Detector and Accelerator Proposals J. Corlett D. Hitlin H. Jawahery D. Leith D. MacFarlane B. Ratcliff J. Seeman M. Sullivan W. Wisniewski

US Team Planning for Washington SuperB Talks in July

Process of the Washington DOE Review 1) Review three US proposed projects related to flavor physics by a single committee: g-2 experiment at FNAL in the US SuperB in Italy KEKB Upgrade in Japan 2) Each group submitted a “proposal” by July 1, 2010. 3) The group presentations were made in closed sessions on August 10 and 11. Committee deliberated on August 12. 4) The committee consisted of prominent particle physics members around the US. About 10 members plus a half a dozen DOE staff people. 5) Each committee member then provided written comments to the DOE Office of High Energy Physics (OHEP). 6) DOE will combine the results and produce a summary and conclusions in “October 2010”.

First Day

Second Day

Seeman: US SuperB Accelerator Outline Accelerator consortium Overview of SuperB technical design SuperB CDR, INFN/AE-07/2, SLAC-R-856, LAL07-15, March 2007. SuperB CDR2 (White Paper), June 2010, SLAC-R-953. Main accelerator physics features of SuperB Reusing PEP-II components US accelerator proposal: Accelerator physics Interaction region RF and Longitudinal feedback Spin Diagnostics Extended scope possibilities Conclusions

SuperB Accelerator Consortium

History of SuperB Accelerator 2001: Early designs emerge for SuperB with high currents 2005: High current design prove difficult to build and afford the power. 2007: Italian scheme (Raimondi et.al.) show that very small by* with crab waist will work. 2007: CDR-1 completed. SuperB accelerator workshops held every 3 to 5 months. 2008: First accelerator Mini-MAC meeting reviews SuperB design 2009: Second accelerator Mini-MAC endorses SuperB concept. 2010: SuperB CDR-2 completed.

SuperB Layout on the INFN Frascati Site

SuperB at 1036 with Different and Flexible Parameters Baseline 1258 m 17 MW Low emittance 13 MW High Current 31 MW Energy (GeV) (LER/HER) 4.2/6.7 by* (mm) 0.20/0.25 0.15/0.18 0.24/0.29 ex (nm) 2.5/2.0 0.9/1.0 sy(mm) 0.036 0.021 0.054 xy 0.095 0.089 0.068 sz (mm) 5 Ibeam (A) 2.4/1.9 1.9/1.5 4.0/3.1 Nbunches 978 1956 Luminosity (1034 cm-2 s-1) 100

Reusable PEP-II Components

SuperB Magnet List Most from PEP-II HER SuperB LER Notes Dipoles (L =5.4 m) 194 80 - +114 Dipoles (L =4. m) 22 -44 Dipoles (L =2.8 m) 10 6 -16 Dipoles (L =0.45 m) 202 328 -126 (-63)* Quads (L =0.56 m) 107 81 +14 Quads (L =0.73 m) 54 +27 Quads (L =0.215 m) Quads (L =0.43 m) 106 353 200 +47 Sexts (L =0.25 m) 2 76 86 -12 Sexts (L =0.30 m) 104 84 +20 Sexts (L =0.35 m) 8 -8 Sexts (L =0.4 m) 4 Need to build 135 magnets out of 1256 needed.

US Accelerator Physics Proposal (base research program) Lattice design Instability calculation and remediation Beam-beam calculations Vibration calculations and suppression Machine Detector Interface High Order Mode calculations and mitigation

US Accelerator Proposal: IR Magnets Design and build IR magnets within +/-2 m from IP Two permanent quadrupole magnets Ten superconducting quadrupole magnets Four solenoid compensation magnets Build IR polarization measurement Build luminosity monitor Matches US expertise in magnet design and manufacturing Match US IR design capabilities Enhanced program: Build cryostat for these magnets (allows US testing) and beam vacuum chambers (allowing final product delivery).

US Accelerator : RF System Provide guidance to send PEP-II RF system to Italy. Design new coupler box for RF cavities to provide better power usage. Design new longitudinal feedback system for SuperB Enhanced proposal: Build longitudinal feedback system for the SuperB-project.

US SuperB Polarization Proposal LER beam lifetime is 5 to 10 minutes which is too short to polarize naturally. Inject vertically polarized electrons into the LER ring Polarized gun (longitudinal) similar to that at SLC. Transport and manipulate spin to the vertical for ring injection IR spin manipulation studies Ring depolarization studies Polarimeter design and construction

US Contributions to SuperB: Conclusions Overall SuperB project: Accelerator design is converging with aspects looking feasible. Lattice, beam parameters, and beam dynamics optimization work is continuing for better performance and with added flexibility. Component and lattice tolerances with corrections are being studied. Polarization is progressing studying beam-beam depolarization, polarized gun, and spin measurements. US contributions were selected to match US desires and strengths: 1) Optimized reused PEP-II components (magnets, supports, RF, vacuum) 2) Design and build new IR PM and SC magnets 3) New Compton polarized beam monitor 4) RF and low level control system design 5) Longitudinal feedback system design 6) If possible, enhanced project to include constructing IR cryogenic system, IR vacuum chambers, and longitudinal feedback electronics: natural extensions.