1. 1

2. 2 CMS &ATLAS were designed and optimised to look beyond the SM  High -pt signatures in the central region But… ‘ incomplete’ ( from the ILC motivation list ) Main physics ‘goes Forward’ Difficult background conditions. The precision measurements are limited by systematics (luminosity goal of δL ≤5%)  Lack of : Threshold scanning ILC chartered territory Quantum number analysing Handle on CP-violating effects in the Higgs sector Photon – photon reactions Is there a way out? ☺ YES-> Forward Proton Tagging Rapidity Gaps  Hadron Free Zones Δ Mx ~ δM (Missing Mass ) RG X p p p p p

3. 3 PLAN 1. Introduction ( a gluonic Aladdin’s lamp ) 2. Basic elements of Durham approach (a qualitative guide) 3. Prospects for CED Higgs production. the SM case MSSM Higgses in the troublesome regions MSSM with CP-violation (difficult oreven impossible with conventional methods) 4. Exotics 5.Conclusion 6. Ten commandments of Physics with Forward Protons at the LHC.

4. 4 Forward Proton Taggers as a gluonic Aladdin’s Lamp (rich Old and New Physics menu) Higgs Hunting (currently a key selling point). Photon-Photon Physics. K.Piotrzkowsk i ‘ Light’ SUSY ( spa r ticle ‘ threshold’ scan ). KMR-02 Various aspects of Diffractive Physics ( strong interest from cosmic rays people ) Luminometry KMOR - 01 High intensity Gluon Factory. (lower lumi run, RG trigger…) Helsinki Group, VAK Searches for new heavy gluophilic states KMR-02 FPT  Would provide a unique additional tool tc complement the conventional strategies at the LHC and ILC. a ‘ time machine’  Many of the studies can be done with L~10³³ (or lower) Higgs is only a part of a broad diffractive program@LHC

5. 5 The basic ingredients of the KMR approach (1997-2005) Interplay between the soft and hard dynamics B ialas-Landshoff-9 1 rescattering/absorptive ( Born -level ) effects Main requirements: inelastically scattered protons remain intact active gluons do not radiate in the course of evolution up to the scale M >>/\ QCD in order to go by pQCD book Sudakov suppression

6. 6 Forcing two (inflatable) camels to go through the eye of a needle High price to pay for such a clean environment : σ (CEDP) ~ 10 -4 σ( Incl ) R apidity Gaps should survive hostile hadronic radiation damages and ‘partonic pile-up ‘ W = S² T² Colour charges of the ‘digluon dipole’ are screened only at r d ≥ 1/ (Qt) ch GAP Keepers (Survival Factors), protecting RG against: the debris of QCD radiation with 1/Qt≥ ≥ 1/M (T) soft rescattering effects (necessitated by unitariy) (S) H P P

7. 7 skewed unintegrated structure functions (suPDF ) schematically ( Rg =1.2 at LHC ) T(Qt,μ) is the probability that a gluon Qt remains untouched in the evolution up to the hard scale M/2 T + anom.dim. → IR filter ( the apparent divergency in the Qt integration nullifies) SP ~ M/2exp (-1/ α s), α s =Nc/π α s Cγ SM Higgs, SP ≈ 2 GeV>> Λ QCD (x’~Qt/√s) <<(x~ M/√s) <<1

8. 8 MAIN FEATURES An important role of subleading terms in fg(x,x’,Qt²,μ²), ( SL – accuracy). Cross sections σ~ ( f g ) ( PDF-democracy ) S ² KMR = 0.026 (± 50%) SM Higgs at LHC ( detailed two-channel eikonal analysis of soft pp data ) surprisingly good agreement with other ‘unitarizer’s approaches and MCs. S²/b² - quite stable (within 10-15%) S²~ s (Tevatron-LHC range) dL/d(logM² ) ~ 1/ (16+ M) a drastic role of Sudakov suppression (~ 1/M³) σ H ~ 1/M³, ( σ B) ch ~ Δ M/ M 4 -016 3.3 6 Jz=0,even P - selection rule for σ is justified only if ² / ² « 1 ^ ^ ^ ^

9. 9 pp pp->p +M +p (S²) γγ =0.86 α s ²/ 8 α² α² we should not underestimate photon fusion !

10. 10 The advantages of CED Higgs production Prospects for high accuracy mass measurements ( Γ H and even lineshape in some MSSM scenarios ) mass window  M = 3  ~ 1 GeV ( the wishlist ) ~ 4 GeV( currently feasible) Helsinki Group Valuable quantum number filter/analyzer. ( 0++ dominance ; C, P- even)  difficult or even impossible to explore the light Higgs CP at the LHC conventionally. (an important ingredient of pQCD approach, otherwise, large |J z |=2 … effects, ~(pt/Qt) 2 !) H ->bb ‘readily’ available (gg) CED  bb LO (NLO,NNLO) BG’s -> studied SM Higgs S/B~3(1GeV/  M ) complimentary information to the conventional studies( also ՇՇ ) H → WW */ WW - an added value especially for SM Higgs with M≥ 135GeV, MSSM at low tan β New leverage –proton momentum correlations ( probes of QCD dynamics, pseudoscalar ID, CP violation effects ) KMR-02; A.Kupco et al 04; V.Petrov et al -04; J.Ellis et al -05

11. 11 ☻ Experimental Advantages –Measure the Higgs mass via the missing mass technique Mass measurements do not involve Higgs decay products Experimental Challenges –Tagging the leading protons –Selection of exclusive events & backgrounds –Triggering at L1 in the LHC experiments –Model dependence of predictions: (soft hadronic physics is involved after all) – resolve some/many of the issues with Tevatron data There is a lot to learn from present and future Tevatron diffractive data

12. 12 Current consensus on the LHC Higgs search prospects ( e.g, A.Djouadi, Vienna-04; G.Weiglein, CMS, 04; A.Nikitenko,UK F-m,04) ) SM Higgs : detection is in principle guaranteed ☺ for any mass. In the MSSM h-boson most probably cannot ☺ escape detection,and in large areas of parameter space other Higgses can be found. But there are still troublesome areas of the  parameter space : intense coupling regime, MSSM with CP-violation ….. More surprises may arise in other SUSY non-minimal extensions After discovery stage (Higgs identification): The ambitious program of precise measurements of the mass, width, couplings, and, especially of the quantum numbers and CP properties would require an interplay with a ILC

13. 13 SM Higgs Cross Section * BR  Cross sections ~O(fb)  Diffractive Higgs mainly studied for H  bb - K(KMR)97-04 -DKMOR-02 Boonekamp et al., 01-04 Petrov et al.,04  Recently study extended for the decay into WW*,WW can reach higher masses ‘ Leptonic trigger cocktail’ ( WW,bb,ZZ,  ) work in progress, FT420 UK team Note H  bb (120 GeV) at Tevatron  0.13 fb

14. 14 SM Higgs, CEDP LHC, L=30fb-1 KMR-00,KKMR-03, DKMOR-02 M(GeV) 120 140 comments accuracy could be improved σ 3fb 1.9fb ( theory +experim., CEDP dijets ) ( 1 - 5.5fb) ( 0.6 -3.5fb ) Sbb 11 3.5 cuts + efficiences. (S/B)bb 3(1GeV/  M ) 2.4(1GeV/  M ) cuts +effic. LO,NLO,NLLO BG work in progress H->WW (with full CMS detector simulation) B.Cox, A. De Roeck, VAK,M.Ryskin, T.Pierzchala,W.J.Stirling et al M(GeV) 140 150 160 S WW (LH) 6.3 9 12.6 ϭ H (M=120GeV)= 3fb for reference purposes. natural low limit 0.1fb (photon fusion) with leptonic ‘trigger cocktail ‘ we can go up in mass with a detectable signal up to 200 GeV

15. 15 H b jets : M H = 120 GeV s = 2 fb (uncertainty factor ~2.5) M H = 140 GeV s = 0.7 fb M H = 120 GeV : 11 signal / O(10) background in 30 fb -1 WW * : M H = 120 GeV s = 0.4 fb M H = 140 GeV s = 1 fb M H = 140 GeV : 8 signal / O(3) background in 30 fb -1 The b jet channel is possible, with a good understanding of detectors and clever level 1 trigger (needs trigger from the central detector at Level-1) The WW * ( , ZZ *… ) channel is extremely promising : no trigger problems, better mass resolution at higher masses (even in leptonic / semi-leptonic channel), weaker dependence on jet finding algorithms If we see SM-like Higgs + p- tags  the quantum numbers are 0 ++ Exclusive SM Higgs production (with detector cuts) H

16. 16 ☺ An added value of the WW channel 1. ‘less demanding’ experimentally (trigger and mass resolution requirements..) allows to avoid the potentially difficult issue of triggering on the b-jets 2. higher acceptances and efficiencies 3. an extension of well elaborated conventional program, (existing experience, MC’s…) 4. the decrease in the cross section is compensated for by the increasing Br and increased detection efficiency 5. missing mass resolution improves as M H increases 6. the mass measurement is independent of the decay products o f the central system 7. Better quantitative understanding of backgrounds. Very low backgrounds at high mass. 8. 0+ assignment and spin-parity analyzing power - still hold ☻ we should not ignore MSSM with low tan β

17. 17 H→WW H→bb The yield of WW/ bb for CED production of the SM Higgs

18. 18 MSSM with low tan β  LEP low tan β exclusion bounds weaken if the top mass goes up (Karlsruhe group- 99)  with new M t we should pay more attention to the low tan β scenarios M(GeV) Mind the mass gap

19. 19 γγ- backgrounds Calculated using CalcHEP (T.Pierzchala -05) with centrality cuts (|  | < 2.5 leptons and jets) and  M = 0.05 M H,M H = 120 GeV (140 GeV)  (WW * ) = 0.06 fb (0.12 fb) Note : these can be reduced, if/when necessary, by p T > 100 MeV cut on protons. Mass resolution is conservative here)

20. 20  gg backgrounds  (M H = 140 GeV) = 0.8 fb Estimate  reduction of BGs by factor of ~ 10 from jet / proton p T cuts above WW threshold - more work needed below threshold. VAK, M.Ryskin & W.J.Stirling 05

21. 21  WW / WW * Summary Trigger is no problem S/B ~ 1 (much better above WW threshold) expect to see double tagged SM Higgs up to ~180 GeV with increasing precision on mass MSSM low tan  results are encouraging The advantages of forward proton tagging are still explicit ~ 200

22. 22 The MSSM and more exotic scenarios If the coupling of the Higgs-like object to gluons is large, double proton tagging becomes very attractive The intense coupling regime of the MSSM (E.Boos et al, 02-03) CP-violating MSSM Higgs physics ( A.Pilaftsis,98; M.Carena et al.,00-03, B.Cox et al 03, KMR-03, J. Ellis et al -05) Potentially of great importance for electroweak baryogenesis an ‘Invisible’ Higgs (BKMR-04)

23. 23 (G.Weiglein) Higgs couplings

24. 24 (a ) The intense coupling regime M A ≤ 120-150GeV, tan β >>1 ( E.Boos et al,02-03 ) h,H,A- light, practically degenerate large Γ, must be accounted for the ‘standard’ modes WW*,ZZ*, γγ …- strongly suppressed v.s. SM the best bet – μμ -channel, in the same time – especially advantageous for CEDP : ☺ (KKMR 03-04) σ (Higgs->gg)Br(Higgs->bb) - significantly exceeds SM. thus,much larger rates. Γh/H ~ ΔM, 0- is filtered out, and the h/H separation may be possible (b) The intermediate regime: M A ≤ 500 GeV, tan β < 5-10 (the LHC wedge, windows) (c) The decoupling regime MA>> 2M Z (in reality, M A>140 GeV, tan β >10) h is SM-like, H/A -heavy and approximately degenerate, CEDP may allow to filter A out ~

25. 25 The intense coupling regime is where the masses of the 3 neutral Higgs bosons are close to each other and tan  is large suppressed enhanced 0 ++ selection rule suppresses A production: CEDP ‘filters out’ pseudoscalar production, leaving pure H sample for study M A = 130 GeV, tan  = 50 M h = 124 GeV : 71 signal / 3background/GeV in 30 fb -1 M H = 135 GeV : 124 signal / 2 background/GeV in 30 fb -1 M A = 130 GeV : 3 signal / 2 background/GeV in 30 fb -1 Well known difficult region for conventional channels, tagged proton channel may well be the discovery channel, and is certainly a powerful spin/parity filter The MSSM can be very proton tagging friendly for 5 ϭ  BR(bb) > 0.7fb (2.7fb) for 300 (30fb -1 )

26. 26 KKMR-03 100 fb 1fb SM Higgs: (30fb -1 ) 11 signal events (after cuts) O(10) background events Cross section factor ~ 10-20 larger in MSSM (high tan  )  Study correlations between the outgoing protons to analyse the spin-parity structure of the produced boson 120 140 A way to get information on the spin of the Higgs  ADDED VALUE to the LHC

27. 27 decoupling regime: m A ~ m H large h = SM intense coupl: m h ~ m A ~ m H ,WW.. coupl suppressed with CEDP: h,H may be clearly distinguishable outside130+-5 GeV range, h,H widths are quite different

28. 28 e.g. m A = 130 GeV, tan  = 50 ( difficult for conventional detection, but CEDP favourable) S B m h = 124.4 GeV 71 3 m H = 135.5 GeV 124 2 m A = 130 GeV 1 2 SM pp  p + (H  bb) + p S/B~11/4(  M ) with  M (GeV) at LHC with 30 fb -1 incredible significance (10 σ) for Higgs signal even at 30 fb -1 x  M/ 1GeV

29. 29 With CEDP the mass range up to 160-170 GeV can be covered at medium tan  and up to 250 GeV for very high tan , with 300 fb -1 Helping to cover the LHC gap? Needs,however, still full simulation needs update

30. 30 Spin Parity Analysis Azimuthal angle between the leaprotons depends on spin of H Measure the azimuthal angle of the proton on the proton taggers Azimuthal angle between the leading protons depends on spin of H  angle between protons  angle between protons with rescattering effects included KKMR -03

31. 31 CP even CP odd active at non-zero t Azimuthal asymmetry in tagged protons provides direct evidence for CP violation in Higgs sector Probing CP violation in the Higgs Sector Ongoing studies - are there regions of MSSM parameter space where there are large CP violating couplings AND enhanced gluon couplings? ‘CPX’ scenario (  in fb) KMR-04 A is practically uPDF - independent

32. 32 Recent development

33. 33 In the tri-mixing scenario we expect ϭ bb ~ 1fb and proton asymmetries A ~0.1-03 tan β=50, M H +=150 GeV CP- violating MSSM with large tri-mixing J.Ellis et al 05

34. 34 Summary of CEDP The missing mass method may provide unrivalled Higgs mass resolution Real discovery potential in some scenarios Very clean environment in which to identify the Higgs,for example, in the CPX scenario Azimuthal asymmetries may allow direct measurement of CP violation in Higgs sector Assuming CP conservation, any object seen with 2 tagged protons has positive C parity, is (most probably) 0 +, and is a colour singlet e.g. m A = 130 GeV, tan  = 50 (difficult for conventional detection, but exclusive diffractive favourable) L = 30 fb -1 S B m h = 124.4 GeV 71 3 events m H = 135.5 GeV 124 2 m A = 130 GeV 1 2 X  M 1 GeV ► WW*/WW modes are looking extremely attractive. Detailed studies are underway ( UK FT420 team )

35. 35 Exotics  Gluinoniums  An ‘Invisible’ Higgs  Gluinonium (gluinoball ) : G=gg scenarios where gluino g is the the LSP ( or next- to-LSP ) currentntly hit of the day -split -SUSY the lowest-lying bound state 0++ (³ P ) the energies of P-wave states En= -9/4 mg α s ²/n² (n ≥2) G – a ‘Bohr atom ’ of the g g- system Γ G= (M G/100 GeV) 0.33 MeV, σ G=30 fb (M G/100 GeV) ~ ~~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 5 (S/B) gg= 0.25 !0 (1/ ΔM) ( M G/ 100 GeV) -2 visualization is challenging even with angular cuts

36. 36 ► an ‘Invisible ‘ Higgs KMR-04 M.Albrow & A.Rostovtsev -00 several extensions of the SM : a fourth generation, some SUSY scenarios, large extra dimensions (one of the ‘LHC headaches’ ) the advantages of the CEDP – a sharp peak in the MM spectrum, mass determination, quantum numbers strong requirements : triggering directly on L1 on the proton taggers low luminosity : L= 10 ³² -10 ³³ cm - 2 sec -1 (pile-up problem), forward calorimeter (…ZDC) (QED radiation, soft DDD), v eto from the T1, T2- type detectors (background reduction, improving the trigger budget)  various potential problems of the FPT approach reveals themselves  however there is a (good) chance to observe such an invisible object, which otherwise may have to await a ILC

37. 37 The physics case for proton tagging If you have a sample of Higgs candidates, triggered by any means, accompanied by proton tags, it is a 0 ++ state. The mass resolution will be better than central detectors (e.g. H -> WW -> l jj … no need to measure missing E T ) With a mass resolution of ~O(1 GeV )the standard model Higgs b decay mode opens up, with S/B > 1 In certain regions of MSSM parameter space, S/B > 20, and double tagging is THE discovery channel In other regions of MSSM parameter space, explicit CP violation in the Higgs sector shows up as an azimuthal asymmetry in the tagged protons -> direct probe of CP structure of Higgs sector at LHC Any 0 ++ state, which couples strongly to glue, is a real possibility (radions? gluinoballs? etc. etc.)

38. 38 EXPERIMENTAL CHECKS Up to now the diffractive production data are consistent with K(KMR)S results Still more work to be done to constrain the uncertainties Very low rate of CED high-Et dijets,observed yield of Central Inelastic dijets. (CDF, Run I, Run II) data up to (E t)min >50 GeV ‘ Factorization breaking’ between the effective diffractive structure functions measured at the Tevatron and HERA. (KKMR-01,a quantitative description of the results, both in normalization and the shape of the distribution) The ratio of high Et dijets in production with one and two rapidity gaps The HERA data on diffractive high Et dijets in Photoproduction. ( Klasen& Kramer-04 NLO analysis ) Preliminary CDF results on exclusive charmonium CEDP. Higher statistics is underway. Energy dependence of the RG survival (D0, CDF) CDP of γγ, data are underway KKMR.….. has still survived the exclusion limits set by the Tevatron data …. (M.Gallinaro, hep-ph/01410232)

39. 39 CONCLUSION  Forward Proton Tagging would significantly extend the physics reach of the ATLAS and CMS detectors by giving access to a wide range of exciting new physics channels. For certain BSM scenarios the FPT may be the Higgs discovery channel within the first three years of low luminosity running  FPT may provide a sensitive window into CP-violation and new physics  Nothing would happen unless the experimentalists come FORWARD and do the REAL WORK We must work hard here – there is no easy solution

40. 40 Proposed UK project to launch activity Forward proton tagging at the LHC as a means to discover new physics  Proposal for a project submitted to PPARC (UK) R. Barlow1, 7, P. Bussey 2, C. Buttar 2, B. Cox 1, C. DaVia 3, A. DeRoeck 4, J. R. Forshaw 1, G. Heath 5, B. W. Kennedy 6, V.A. Khoze 4, D. Newbold 5, V. O’Shea 2, D. H. Saxon 2, W. J. Stirling 4, S. J. Watts 3 1. The University of Manchester, 2. The University of Glasgow, 3. Brunel University, 4. IPPP Durham, 5. Bristol University, 6. Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, 7. The Cockroft Institute Request for funds for –R&D for cryostat development –R&D for detectors (3D silicon so far) –Studies for trigger/acceptance/resolution Total of order 2.10 6 pounds been asked for 2005- 2008 period. Covers 2 cryostats, manpower (engineers), detector design study  Has received go ahead (with some boundary conditions)  If launched, other (non-UK) groups in CMS could kick in!!  Opportunities for present/new collaborators to join Forward Physics. Start international collaboration now

41. 41 New Forward Detector Proposal (in prep.) Cold region Proposal to study a modification of the cryostat and to operate compact detectors in the region of 400m (for ATLAS & CMS)  R&D collaboration building: UK groups, Belgian & Finish institutes, CERN… 420 m region: connecting (empty cryostat)  Acceptance of 200m is not sufficient fot Higgs detection US420 ( consortium of US groups who are on CMS & ATLAS )

42. 42 of Forward Proton Tagging 1. Thou shalt not worship any other god but the First Principles, and even if thou likest it not, go by thy Book. 2. Thou slalt not make unto thee any graven image, thou shalt not bow down thyself to them. (non-perturbative Pomeron) 3.Thou shalt treat the existing diffractive experimental data in ways that show great consideration and respect. 4. Thou shalt draw thy daily guidance from the standard candle processes for testing thy theoretical models. 5. Thou shalt remember the speed of light to keep it holy. (trigger latency) 6. Thou shalt not dishonour backgrounds and shalt study them with great care. 7.Thou shalt not forget about the pile-up (an invention of Satan ). 8. Though shalt not exceed the trigger threshold and the L1 saturation limit. Otherwise thy god shall surely punish thee for thy arrogance.

43. 43 9. Thou shalt not annoy machine people. 10. Thou shalt not delay, the LHC start-up is approaching