Ozgur Ates Hampton University TREK Experiment “Tracking and Baseline Design” And OLYMPUS Experiment “Study of Systematics” 1

Secondary lines for  +, K +, or p beam 50 GeV/c proton beam to primary production target Secondary lines for  -, K -, or p beam The Hadron Hall at J-PARC 2

T ime R eversal violation E xperiment with K aons: Search for New Physics beyond the Standard Model by Measurement of T-violating Transverse Muon Polarization in K +  μ + π 0 ν μ Decays New official website: 3

Planar GEMs “C1” between CsI and C2, or in replacement of C2 Cylindrical device “C0” in replacement of C1 4

C1: Planar GEMs for TREK “ C1” To cover CsI gaps on the outside 5

Target and Tracking Better kinematical resolution Addition of C0 and C1 GEM chambers with - high position resolution - higher rate performance Larger C3-C4 distance Use of He bags New target E246J-PARC 6

Upgraded Trek Detector Apparatus 7

8

Geant4 Simulation 9 GOALS: Realistic geometry of upgraded TREK apparatus Realistic tracking performance Obtain design criteria for Sizes and locations of new elements Angular and spatial resolution of tracks at detector elements Which spatial detector resolution is adequate? Optimization of material budget

Got started with Geometry of Sci. target + C0 + C1 + C2, coded materials Full cylinders of target and C0 but only one of 12 sectors for C1,C2 Generate monoenergetic 100 MeV muons uniformly distributed over volume of target with opening angle according to muon gap size. Produce hits in detector elements of C0, C1, C2 Use multiple scattering or physics off Record hits along track and write set of variables (th, ph, z, y, p, edep. mom, etc.) to ROOT TREE Geant4 Simulation 10

11

12

Root Analyses Studied acceptance of tracks in C0, C1, C2. From this study, determined required geometric sizes of C0 and C1. Found out that; Length of C0 should be: 300 mm Width of C1 should be: 200 mm Length of C1 should be: 480 mm 13

Determination of Length of C0 14

15

Determination of Width of C1 16

Determination of Length of C1 17

Straight-Line Fit in 3D Recorded hit locations of Readout layers of C0, C1 and C2. Applied straight-line fit in 3D for each generated event. Reconstruct straight track from recorded hits with 3D straight- line fit Recorded fit parameters for each track, and locations of fitted track at each 3 readout layers. Closest distance of reconstructed track to origin of generated track (vertex difference)(1st column) Difference of generated hit position at detectors(C0,C1,C2) and that of the recons. track (2nd to 4th column) 18

RESIDUALS 19

Systematic Study of Resolution 20

21

OLYMPUS Exp.: The contribution of multiple photon exchange in elastic lepton-nucleon scattering Study of Elastic Scattering of Electrons and Positrons Luminosity Monitors Systematic Study of Resolutions Monte Carlo Studies and Root Analysis 22

23

24

25  All Rosenbluth data from SLAC and Jlab in agreement  Dramatic discrepancy between Rosenbluth and recoil polarization technique  Multi-photon exchange considered best candidate Jefferson Lab Proton Form Factor Ratio Dramatic discrepancy!

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Luminosity Monitors: Telescopes Forward telescopes 12 o 2 tGEM telescopes, 1.2msr, 12 o, R=187/237/287cm, dR=50cm, 3 tracking planes Proposed version included in OLYMPUS TDR Sept Geant4 simulation to optimize vertex resolution, solid angle and noise TOF 33

Triple Super Ratio Separately determine three super ratios Blinding of final result until put together Left-right symmetry = redundancy Ratio of acceptances (phase space integrals) Ratio of luminosities Ratio of counts 34

Forward Elastic Luminosity Monitor Forward-angle electron/positron telescopes with good angular and vertex resolution Coincidence with proton in opposite sector of main detector Single-arm tracks Two telescopes with 3 triple-GEM detectors, left-right symmetric High rate capability GEM technology MIT protoype: Telescope of 3 Triple GEM prototypes (10 x 10 cm 2 ) using TechEtch foils F. Simon et al., NIM A598 (2009)

Study of Elastic Scattering 36

Study of Elastic Scattering FOUR VECTORS: e=(E,Pe) E^2= (me^2) + (Pe^2) e’=(E’,Pe’) E’=|Pe’| and E=|Pe| p=(M,0), E=2 GeV and M=0.938 GeV p’=(Ep,Pp) CONSERVATION LAWS: Energy: E – E’ = Ep – M Transverse : E’ Sin(Te)=Pp Sin(Tp) Longitudinal: E – E’Cos(Te)=Pp Cos(Tp) *** Ep^2= Pp^2+M^2 37

Study of Elastic Scattering We have 4 variables: Pe, Pp, Te, Tp 3 constraints: 3 conservation equations 4 - 3= 1 (DEGREE OF FREEDOM) Then I can find out 12 Different Relations: Pp(Tp) inverse Tp(Pp) Pe(Te) inverse Te(Pe) Pp(Te) inverse Te(Pp) Tp(Te) inverse Te(Tp) Pp(Pe) inverse Pe(Pp) Tp(Pe) inverse Pe(Tp) 38

PeTp: Data Points(Pe:Tp) and Calculation(PeTp) 39

TpTe: Data Points(Tp:Te) and Calculation(TpTe) 40

Residuals: G4_Pe – Calc_PePp(G4_Pp) 41

Residuals: G4_Tp – Calc_TpTe(G4_Te) 42

Study of Resolutions For Proton Left Sector: Vertex Resolution in Z axis: 0.8 mm Polar Angle Resolution (Theta): 0.09 Degree Azimuthal Angle Resolution(Phi): 0.14 Degree Momentum Resolution: 36 MeV For Electron Left Sector: Vertex Resolutions in Z axis: 0.6 mm Polar Angle Resolutions (Theta): 0.08 D Azimuthal Angle Resolution(Phi): 0.10 Degree Momentum Resolution: 36 MeV 43

44

45

What is Next? Montecarlo Studies Study of Systematics Further (small) corrections for individual acceptances Effects by backgrounds and inefficiencies Effects from beam sizes, slopes and offsets Construction of GEM 46

Extra Slides 47

48

49

50