SuperB The Super B Flavor Factory project Guy Wormser LAL Orsay INSTR08 conference February 29, 2008 

Talk Outline Physics motivation; Why is a very high luminosity needed? A very exciting new idea on how to build a Super B factory. (first tests really encouraging!) The SuperB detector The super B site The super B politics Conclusions

The physics objectives of SuperB The Super B is a “post-LHC” machine. The physics scene should be quite different from today’s. The main objective should be to unravel the flavor structure of the New Physics and the physics mechanism causing its specific pattern Double-prong attack on the quark and lepton sector 3 3

The flavour physics enigma NP flavour effects are governed by –The scale of the new physics  –The effective couplings C’s Different strengths (ie different interactions) Different patterns (ie dictated by symmetries

Is there a no-loose theorem? In the assumption of a MFV scenario, is the LHC mass range well covered? Is the sensitivity in the leptonic sector meaningful in the LHC era? The answer is PROBABALY YES if you can integrate at least 75 ab -1 This require a luminosity in excess of during 5 years

A conversation between SuperB, LHC and ILC When evidence is found for New Physics at the LHC, attention will turn to understanding the details – Is it SUSY? What type of symmetry breaking? – Is it extra dimensions? Are they warped? The ILC will eventually sharpen the picture by, for example, measuring slepton masses SuperB will be crucial to an understanding of the flavor sector of any type of new physics –Is there charged lepton flavor violation? –Are there new CP phases ? –Is there a charged Higgs ? –Is there minimal flavor violation in the (s)quark sector? 6

Sensitivity extends to high mass scales 7 s ~ New Physics contribution (2-3 transition) In this case the main constraints are b  s  A CP ( b  s   ) A CP magenta B(s  ) green B(sll) cyan All constr. blue MSSM + generic soft SUSY breaking terms In the red regions the  are measured with a significance >3  away from zero Arg(  23 ) LR =(44.5± 2.6) o = (0.026 ± 0.005) 1 TeV g b b s ~ ~

Lepton flavor violation (LFV) Lepton flavor violation is unobservably small in the Standard Model Neutrino mixing proves that there is neutral LFV The next natural question is whether there is charged LFV? Will the neutrino pattern be repeated? –If so, then LFV will be largest in 3  2 transitions Best bets: 8

LFV is expected in many Standard Model extensions  SM + mixing Lee, Shrock, PRD 16 (1977) 1444 Cheng, Li, PRD 45 (1980) 1908 Pham EPJ C8 (1999) – SUSY Higgs Dedes, Ellis, Raidal, PLB 549 (2002) 159 Brignole, Rossi, PLB 566 (2003) SM + heavy Majorana R Cvetic, Dib, Kim, Kim, PRD66 (2002) Non-universal Z’Yue, Zhang, Liu, PLB 547 (2002) SUSY SO(10) Masiero, Vempati, Vives, NPB 649 (2003) 189 Fukuyama, Kikuchi, Okada, PRD 68 (2003) mSUGRA + Seesaw Ellis, Gomez, Leontaris, Lola, Nanopoulos, EPJ C14 (2002) 319 Ellis, Hisano, Raidal, Shimizu, PRD 66 (2002) Charged lepton flavor violation in t decays Super B sensitivity For 75 ab -1

Sensitivity to models of LFV 10 Goto, et al. arXiv: v2

11 Flipping the helicity of the polarized electron beam allows us to determine the chiral structure of dimension 6 four fermion lepton flavor-violating couplings Dassinger, Feldmann, Mannel, and Turczyk JHEP 0710:039,2007; [See also Matsuzaki and Sanda arXiv: [hep-ph] Polarized t ’s can probe the chiral structure of LFV

12

13 Model B d Unitarity Time-dep. CPV Rare B decay Other signals mSUGRA (moderate tan) ---- mSUGRA (large tan ) B d mixing - B → (D)*  b → s + − B s →  B s mixing SUSY GUT with R - B →  K S B → K ∗  - B s mixing  LFV, n EDM Effective SUSY B d mixing B →  K S A CP (b→s  ) b → s + − B s mixing KK graviton exchange -- b → s + − - Split fermions in large extra dimensions B d mixing - b → s + − mixing Bulk fermions in warped extra dimensions B d mixing B →  K S b → s + − B s mixing mixing Universal extra dimensions -- b → s + − b → s  K →  The pattern of deviations from SM values is diagnostic

Ciuchini

Physics motivations conclusion There is very exciting discovery potential at a Super B factory… PROVIDED the integrated luminosity is large enough to cover the interesting physics range in the post-LHC era Key discovery channels are LFV channels (with the help of polarisation) and a set of ~5 observables in the quark sector (s , sll, s, sss..)

Ultra-low emittance (ILC-DR like) Very small  at IP Large crossing angle “Crab Waist” scheme Small collision area Lower  is  possible NO parasitic crossings NO synchro-betatron resonances due to crossing angle P. Raimondi’s idea to focus more the beams at IP and have a “large” crossing angle  large Piwinski angle The machine :A new “superb” idea! Test started at DA  NE in November !!!

IP beam distributions for KEKB IP beam distributions for SuperB KEKBSuper B I (A)1.72.  y * (mm) 60.3  x * (mm)  y * (  m)  x * (  m) 806  z (mm) 65 L (cm -2 s - 1 ) 1.7 x x Here is Luminosity gain Beam envelopes Raimondi

SuperB Accelerator Parameters

1.With the present DA  NE parameters (currents, bunch length etc.) a luminosity in excess of cm -2 s -1 is predicted 2.With 2A on 2A more than 2x10 33 is possible (110 bunches) 3.Beam-beam limit is well above the reacheable currents Weak-Strong Beam-Beam Simulation for DA  NE Upgrade Current per bunch

Polarization at Super B The Super B design includes a polarized electron beam –SuperKEKB does not, and cannot, have a polarized beam Spins must be vertical in the ring  spin rotators at the IP –Solenoid spin rotators appear best – 36.6 Tesla-meters for 90  spin rotation in the LER e.g. 2.5 Tesla x14.66 meters with 30x10 6 ampere-turns Expected longitudinal polarization at the IP: 87%(injection) x 97%(ring)=85%(effective) David Hitlin P5 Meeting - SLAC February 21,

News from the « Crab waist » front Currents: e- 1A, e+ 400mA Size 4 micron, length 10mm Problems in increasing current.from vacuum (still scrubbing) and electron cloud (improving with solenoids and they continue to improve). Lumi (still monitor need good calibration) 10**32 (was **32 maximum in the past) Crab waist IS WORKING: when sextupoles are on everithing all right, if switched off the beam blows up, lifetime to zero. Background with crab waist is reduced to 15% than before.

More detailed report (M. Biagini,INFN) 1) Beam coupling: in single beam we got 0.5 % with the crab sextupoles ON at about 50% of the design value, less than 1% in collision with 90 bunches and about 500 mA/beam. 2) Without crab sextupoles we have about 2% blow-up in the beam emittances. 3) We are going to measure this week the tune footprint 4) We manged to get very low background rates, but no absolute luminosity measurement yet since the commissioning of the luminometers is in progress. 5) Up to 60% of the design value the crab sextupoles do not induce any backgrounds or lifetime reduction. 6) We were able to collide 90 bunches with up to 400 mA positrons against 1 A electrons. 7) We still have a limitation from poor lifetime in both beams and from the maximum achievable positron current (<500mA) due to an instability in the positron ring. 8) The Siddharta setup will be installed at the end of next week. 9) We hope to be able to mitigate our limitations (point 7) in about one month.

An upgrade of B A B AR works well at Super B 24 Since currents are in the PEP-II range, a detector upgrade is straightforward - R&D on SuperB upgrade components is underway

SuperB’s a busy bee 2007 March: CDR Published –Physics, Accelerator, Detector May 4: CDR presented to INFN May 9-11: Workshop in Paris June: International Review Committee setup July: CDR presented to ECFA Sept: Accelerator retreat at SLAC Nov 12-13: First presentation to IRC Dec: Accelerator test started at LNF 2008 Jan 7-15: Physics retreat at Valencia Feb 14-16: Detector R&D workshop at SLAC April 3-4 : IRC Final committee meeting May 31st - June 3: SuperB Meeting in Elba

Detector There is little doubt that we can build performing detector Reuse critical parts of BABAR : magnet, DIRC bars, CsI(Tl) crystals, iron Very similar R&D as the one described yesterday for SuperKEKB Biggest risk is the background level –Simulation work has been going on –Need to fully update with latest accelerator parameters Detector simulation group growing R&D activities ongoing in several groups and subsystems –Funding from INFN and other agencies SuperB is part of the DevDet Proposal –European FP7 Integrating Activity –Fund improvements on Infrastructures for detector R&D –Sponsored by ECFA: includes LHC, ILC, Neutrino, SuperB

DA f NE 30

Super B footprint at Tor Vergata 31 SuperB Ring ( circumference 1800m) SPARX FEL Roman Villa 100m SuperB Injector (~ 400m) SuperB Main Building

How much will SuperB cost? Value of reusable items from PEP-II and B A B AR Disassembly, crating, refurbishment and shipping costs are included in project costs *In the SuperB CDR costs were presented “ILC-style”, with labor in man-months, M&S in €. This table translates costs into US accounting and converts to $. From the SuperB CDR* 35 EDIALaborM&STotalNet replacement value [M$] M$ Accelerator Site (Lazio region) Detector Total

SuperB uses many PEP-II components 36 Quadrupoles L mag (m) PEP HER PEP LER SuperB HER SuperB LER SuperB Total Needed Dipoles L mag (m) PEP HER-194 PEP LER194- SuperB HER-130 SuperB LER22418 SuperB Total Needed300 + RF (cavities, klystrons,.....) + vacuum components + accelerator expertise + B A B AR as the foundation of an upgraded detector

Super B politics The Italian process –International Review Committee reporting to R. Petronzio, INFN president The European process –The CERN Council Strategy –ECFA The US process –P5 10-year planning presently ongoing Interferences with KEK roadmap?

International Review First meeting Nov Next meeting April 3-4 Final Report expected in April Will focus on the physics case (*)Slides available at: IRC Members John Dainton – UK/Daresbury, chair Jacques Lefrancois – F/Orsay Antonio Masiero – I/Padova Rolf Heuer – D/ Desy Daniel Schulte – CERN Abe Seiden – USA/UCSC Young-Kee Kim – USA/FNAL Hiroaki Aihara – Japan/Tokyo

Situation in Italy (as far as I can see) R. Petronzio mentioned several times in public that : –If he received a positive message from the Review Committee –If he received a positive message from the crab waist test He would push very hard for a Super B machine in Italy by submitting the proposal to the Italian government and to the European Strategy process Caveat : There is no more a government in Italy (new elections in April)

The European process European strategy for particle physics established in July 2006 (the Lisbon document) under the aegis of the CERN Council acting as an « European particle physics parliament » Recognized as such in the multidisciplinary ESFRI roadmap established at the EU level ECFA role as a facilitator for new initiatives

Flavour physics The European Strategy for particle physics

My personal translation The Super B factory is already part of the approved European strategy process, provided if it is mostly promoted as a single country initiative –Recent example of this : XFEL (or FAIR) Similar opinion expressed by R. Heuer at the recent P5 meeting in the US

Rolf Heuer, during his talk on the “European View on the Future”, presented the new idea of the Italian SuperB machine design, and said it was currently under review. In discussion, he said that following a successful completion of the INFN review process, it would go to the CERN Strategy Group, (a sub-committee of CERN Council), and they would review it, as part of the new process. His feeling was that if the funding did not present a threat to the international programs, it would be approved.

The US process HEP in US currently undertaking a 10-year strategic planning, within a few budget scenarios, under the aegis of P5/HEPAP –The lowest budget scenario is the present (very bad) FY08 budget plus inflation Very recent presentation of SuperB project to P5 (D. Hitlin at SLAC meeting Feb 21) P5/HEPAP output expected in June

What does US SuperB involvement entail? The SuperB design uses many PEP-II components –Recognizing that there is internal competition for some of these items, a DOE HEP contribution of PEP-II magnets, RF and vacuum components, as well as of B A B AR, as the basis for a detector upgrade, to SuperB would give the US a central position in a new high quality, high visibility project, for very little additional capital investment SLAC would then be the natural center for US SuperB activities, in a role that only a national lab can play –Accelerator design and some component construction –Detector design and system construction –Physics: computing and analysis There are different possible levels of participation 45

US Project Costs FY08 M$ Total Minimal role Accelerator Detector Total Fair share role Accelerator Detector Total Leadership role Accelerator Detector Total US participation levels 46

Steve Kahn’s presentation to P 5 gave the lab’s priorities for the accelerator HEP Program to be first, ATLAS and the upgrade effort, and then … SuperB. He justified this choice in terms of the energy reach of the physics, through loop effects, and its complimentarity to the LHC experiments in helping to fully understand the new physics that may emerge there. The core competences of the lab, and the importance of the staff to the success of that project were also driving items. There has to be serious discussions between the lab and INFN to understand staffing levels and the technical requirements of the project. However he clearly stated that if P 5 includes SuperB in their program plan, and the project gets Italian government approval, … SLAC wants to be a player in SuperB in Italy. The was less clarity on the budget implications in his presentation – but let’s wait for the P 5 output now.

Interferences with KEK roadmap? Since a few years, general assumption that there will be only one SuperB factory in the world. Are we heading for 2? My concern, shared by many SuperB colleagues, is that the proposed SuperKEKB is not ambitious enough to fully address the physics program in a post LHC era (in addition to the complexity of very high currents that we know from BABAR experience are really delicate to handle) For SuperB (real) believers, the proposed KEKB upgrade is not really a competition since the integrated luminosity cross-over will be fast (2017 or so) according to present plans. (cf CLEO vs BABAR/BELLE in 1999) So, for me, the true question is: Will a crab-waist based machine with luminosity in excess of by 2015 be proposed at KEK? It will be interesting to see what common members of Super B and Super KEKB review committees will say!

Conclusions SuperB presents an very exciting opportunity with a broad and deep physics program: results will be crucial to understanding new physics uncovered at the LHC A superb new idea to build a machine of unprecented luminosity. First tests are very encouraging. Review process ongoing in Italy, Europe and US I believe that there is a real chance that this project be approved provided it is very vigorously pushed by the new italian government: wait and see on that point Will there any positive or negative interferences with KEK roadmap plans? 49 Next step: if OK, prepare TDR for 2010 (First beams then in 2015)

Backup slides David Hitlin P5 Meeting - SLAC February 21,

51 Four year construction, preceded by 2-3 years of design and prototyping, which overlaps organizational and funding activities Schedule David Hitlin P5 Meeting - SLAC February 21, 2008

52

David Hitlin P5 Meeting - SLAC February 21,

IRC Questions I The SuperB CDR and the reports of the proponents during our meeting of Nov. 12 at LNF have provided a thorough analysis of the sensitivity reach of the SuperB for: i) rare B physics ( with and without CP violation), ii) LFV and CP violation in tau decays iii) FCNC charm physics. A (less detailed) discussion on the comparison of SuperB reach w.r.t. present B factories and LHCb has been also provided. An analogous comparative analysis with the superKEK B ( with 2 * 10^35 luminosity) is not present at the moment. The analysis of the SuperB reach sensitivity points out that the following three major achievements are foreseeable in such a high luminosity machine ( given a 10^36 luminosity and 5 Snowmass years of operation, i.e. reaching 75 ab^-1): –improvements of factors 5 – 7 w.r.t. 2 ab^-1 B factories on the precision of the vast array of relevant observables listed in tables 2.1 and 2.2 concerning B physics; –improved sensitivity by almost one order of magnitude on the BR of LFV tau decays ( the possibility to use polarization to get access to CP violation in tau physics is mentioned but not detailed) –possibility to have at disposal a vast sample of rare decay channels with several opportunities to obtain redundant determination of relevant observables ( for instance, in the case of UT angles, although LHCb may reach a similar precision on their determination, at SuperB one will be able to measure such angles with a wider range of decay channels, hence making important consistency checks).

IRC Questions II If the above mentioned discussion on the precision and sensitivity reach at SuperB is satisfactorily conducted, it seems to us that what could be further investigated is its “discovery potential”. Namely, one should address questions like : “ What are the most relevant processes ( golden processes) to “discover” new physics, how does such discovery potential compare with that one can achieve at B and superKEKb factories or at LHCb, which kind of TeV new physics can be discovered by SuperB, etc.?”. In other words, we think that it would be important, after emphasizing how much the SuperB can improve the existing limits and/or precisions, to identify the main “discovery” targets of this machine. Something similar has been recently done for LHC, in particular in connection with its discovery potential for low-energy SUSY. A few significant points (passing all possible available constraints including those deriving from the DM abundance) of the MSSM parameter space have been identified, the corresponding full SUSY particle spectra have been detailed and the consequent LHC discovery potential for ( some of) the SUSY particles has been assessed. We suggest that a possible similar exercise of specific “physics cases” could be helpful also for the SuperB. Giorgi

IRC Questions III Obviously, in the case of the “LHC Snowmass points” no particular flavour structure was detailed ( in other words one could take universal sfermion masses with the possible exception of the s-top masses). In the SuperB exercise such flavour content should be discussed. Just as an example, we think that one could consider some of the Snowmass points just assuming MFV ( flavour universality), possibly having three cases with small, intermediate and large tan . Subsequently, one could consider such points, but with some non-vanishing  F changing insertions ( including some imaginary parts in relation with possible CP violation effects) in order to remove the MFV hypothesis. In particular, it would be nice to see whether points of the SUSY parameter space which lead to “observable” SUSY at LHC would yield also “discoverable” rare B or tau physics at SuperB and whether this would be unique for SuperB or other flavour experiments ( B factories, LHCb, but also MEG) could also claim discovery of SUSY in its FCNC and CP violating manifestations. Giorgi