BSM Searches: BSM Searches: From Tevatron to LHC From Tevatron to - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

BSM Searches: BSM Searches: From Tevatron to LHC From Tevatron to LHC – LHC start-up – Tevatron → LHC: examples & lessons? – Plans for “Early Physics” (mostly material collected from various recent talks) Arnd Meyer RWTH Aachen 22. February 2007

LHC: 22+ Years 1984: cms energy 10-18 TeV Luminosity 10 31 -10 33 cm -2 s -1 1987: cms energy 16 TeV Luminosity 10 33 -10 34 cm -2 s -1 Final: cms energy 14 TeV Luminosity 10 33 -10 34 cm -2 s -1 Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 2

LHC Endgame Crucial part: 1232 superconducting dipoles Can follow progress on the LHC dashboard http://lhc-new-homepage.web.cern.ch/lhc-new-homepage/ The LHC Schedule • LHC will be closed and set up for beam on 1 September 2007 LHC commissioning will take time! • First collisions expected in November/December 2007 A short pilot run Collisions will be at injection energy i.e. cms of 0.9 TeV • First physics run in 2008 ~ 0.1-1 fb -1 ? 14TeV! • Physics run in 2009 +… 10-20 fb -1 /year ⇒ 100 fb -1 /year (Unofficial luminosity estimates) Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 3

LHC Endgame L. Evans: Presentation made to the Open Session of the LHC Machine Advisory Committee, 7 December 2006 Magnet Installation Progress Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 4

LHC Endgame L. Evans: 20/2/07 Last magnet delivered November 2006 End installation April 2007 Machine closed August 2007 First beam 450 GeV November 2007 First physics run 7 x 7 TeV Summer 2008 Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 5

LHC Start-up Schedule 2007 M. Lamont Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 6

LHC Staged Commissioning for 2008 Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 7

LHC Start-up Obvious: considerable uncertainties in schedules Dare to compare Tevatron Run II?  Summer 2000 engineering run (few stores with collisions)  April 2001 Run II started  February – April 2002 experiments collect “physics quality” data Could it be done faster at the LHC? Maybe Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 8

General Purpose Detectors at the LHC • Central tracker • EM calorimeter • HAD calorimeter • Muon Detectors Trigger: Reduce 40 MHz collision rate to 100 Hz event rate to store for analysis Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 9

ATLAS and CMS Detectors ATLAS cavern, 2006 November 2006 • ATLAS barrel toroid magnet reaches full current • ATLAS barrel tracker installed (TRT connected) • Endap muons being installed All CMS tracker elements at CERN (integration ongoing!) CMS lowers first detector into cavern (forward calo) Lowering on weekly basis since then CMS cavern, 2006 Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 10

Detectors at Start-Up in 2007 Detectors progressing well and will be fairly complete at start-up Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 11

Expected Detector Performance Expected Day 0 Goals for Physics ECAL uniformity ~ 1% ATLAS < 1% ~ 4% CMS Lepton energy 0.5—2% 0.1% scale HCAL uniformity 2—3% < 1% Jet energy scale <10% 1% Tracker alignment 20—200 µ m in r φ O(10 µ m) Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 12

Start-Up Physics: 2007 F. Gianotti/ICHEP06 Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 13

Start-Up Physics: 2008 Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 14

Trigger Menu (Later) Typical LVL1 Trigger type ATLAS (GeV) CMS (GeV) Threshold Threshold menu for L= 2 ⋅ 10 33 cm -2 s -1 Inclusive isolated e/ γ 25 29 Two electrons/Two photons 15 17 – all thresholds are Inclusive isolated muon 20 14 adjustable Two muons 6 3 Inclusive τ -jet - 86 – multiple objects Two τ -jet - 59 allow lower thresholds τ -jet and E T 25 and 30 - miss 1-jet, 3-jets, 4-jets 200,90,65 177,86,70 total rate ~20kHz Jet and E T 60 and 60 miss Electron and Jet 21 and 45 (allowing safety Electron-Muon 15*10 - margin and new +calibration, monitoring, etc… ideas) D.Rousseau Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 15

New Phenomena is Approximately: Supersymmetry Supersymmetry Bread and butter RPC MSSM  Jets + MET, 3 rd Gen., lepton(s) from cascade decays, ... R-Parity Violation Long-Lived Particles (AMSB, split SUSY, RPV, ...) Gauge Mediated SUSY Breaking Extra Dimensions Extra Dimensions Monojets, di-leptons and di-photons Extra Gauge Bosons Extra Gauge Bosons W´, Z´ Leptoquarks Leptoquarks 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd Generation Compositeness Compositeness Lepton and Quark Substructure Alternatives Alternatives Technicolor, Little Higgs, ... Unknown Unknown Signature Based Searches Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 16

New Physics Reach at the LHC SM Higgs 100 GeV – 1 TeV (30 fb -1 ) MSSM Higgs covers full (m A , tan β ) SUSY (squark, gluino) ~ 3 TeV (300 fb -1 ) New gauge bosons (Z’) ~ 5 TeV (100 fb -1 ) Quark substructure ( Λ C ) ~ 25 / 40 TeV (30 / 300 fb -1 ) q*, l* ~ 6.5 / 3 TeV (100 fb -1 ) Large ED (M D for n=2,4) ~ 9 / 6 TeV (100 fb -1 ) ~ 6 TeV (100 fb -1 ) Small ED (M C ) < 6 – 10 TeV Black holes Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 17

CMS Physics TDR 650 pages 308 figures 207 tables 1.50 Kg http://cmsdoc.cern.ch/cms/cpt/tdr/ CERN/LHCC 2006-001 CERN/LHCC 2006-021 ATLAS Performance and February 2006 June 2006 Physics TDR published in 1999 – consistent set of new notes in Spring 2007 Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 18

The SUSY Landscape at 1 fb -1 SUSY cross sections can be large. O(100 pb) for squarks / gluinos (10 5 sparticles in 1 fb -1 ). SUSY signatures, however, are very diverse! Many different signatures could be “the one” we need to be ready for. SUSY manifests itself as: Conventional jets+MET? Leptons + jets + MET? GMSB with photons? Long lived R-hadrons? First priority: discovery tools for 1 fb -1 Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 19

The Physics Landscape Beyond SUSY, there are many other possible models of new physics that could easily produce results in 1 fb -1 . While SUSY may be popular, all that is certain is a high probability for some sort of new physics in the LHC range. Need to be ready: Nature could be kind and give us new physics quickly. Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 20

Connect to Detector, Reconstruction, Trigger, ... BSM challenges the detector hardware, reconstruction algorithms, and trigger Do we have the tools to properly model MET resolution (real zero bias overlay, etc.) Do we have tools to “clean” MET, and remove contributions from hot channels, cosmics, beam-halo, etc.? Do we know how to get the jet energy scale for the highest energy jets? Can we trigger on massive, slow-moving particles? Can we trigger on signatures that contain a very large number of low PT particles? Can we trigger on... what we do not know yet? – We have to confront these challenges before startup and in parallel: work within one physics group must not distract from work in the detector performance / trigger / simulation / ... groups. Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 21

The Path to Benchmark Analyses (CMS) Trigger path defined and studied, and trigger efficiencies measured and understood, with appropriate dataset definitions Develop and apply methods for extracting backgrounds and efficiencies , from data wherever possible. Definition of trigger paths and data sets needed for data-based efficiency and background measurements Full systematics for startup luminosities Justified selection criteria Methods of demonstrating robustness of signal and correctness of background prediction Benchmark analyses can be the guide towards extracting the physics from the first data. The documentation can be the “template” for the first papers, and the tools developed will be used with the first data. To be useful, need to deliver them in time (by late 2007). Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 22

Examples for Benchmark Analyses (CMS) Based on physics prejudice and feasibility with 1 fb -1 : A. mu+jets+MET (mu based trigger paths) e+jets+MET (e based trigger paths) B. Jet + MET (jetMET based trigger paths) C. Di-object resonances (dielectron, dimuon, ditau, dijet, diphoton) D. Photons / jets / MET E. SUSY reconstruction methods – model parameter extraction and model discrimination (is it SUSY? UED? Little Higgs? etc.?) Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 23

Examples for Benchmark Analyses (CMS) Map Trigger / object path → benchmark physics → key experimental issues: GeV muon-based samples → MSSM SUSY search Understand tails on MET TeV muons → Zprime search Stress high pT lepton ID GeV electron-based samples → MSSM SUSY search Understand difficult physics bgrds. TeV electrons → Zprime search Stress high pT lepton ID Tau-based samples → MSSM SUSY Instrumental backgrounds GeV jet-based samples → MSSM SUSY search Trigger / “cleanup” problems Tev jets → Zprime search High ET jet calibration Photon-based samples → GMSB QCD fakes Heavy stable particles → stable stau Relation to ID groups SUSY-reconstruction → MSSM SUSY Prepare for success Arnd Meyer (RWTH Aachen) 22. February 2007 Page 24