[BDXlist] BDX talk at US Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter workshop
Andrea Celentano
andrea.celentano at ge.infn.it
Fri Mar 17 04:54:02 EDT 2017
Dear Marco and Elton,
thanks for your detailed comments. You find version 2 of the slides,
with most of your comments implemented. Some points still need some work:
* Slide n.5 is the comparison with previous e- experiments / current
proton experiments. Regarding the latters, I think the main message
should be the complementarity, both from the experimental point of view
(proton have higher bg and higher production yield) and from the
theoretical point of view (leptophilic vs leptophobic models). Still I
need input from Eder and Gordan on this.
* Slide n.10: Marzio, Mariangela, could you please send me a nice
picture of OV and tell me if you want to add some messages in this slide?
* Slide n.13: for now, I keep the discussion about Moller compatibility.
* Slide n. 14: I like this picture :) - and I think it is good to
"relax" the audience a little bit during the talk
* Slide n. 15: I think this is the front view of the LNS setup, showing
the overrbuden on top of it. Marzio, Mariangela, can you confirm this?
What is the yellow rectangle?
* Slide n. 22-23: I relaxed the message about management discussions /
agreements. Given the fact DOE will be there, this is a critical point -
hence the necessity to send slides to Bob before
* Slide n. 27: rather than saying that we are currently optimizing the
experimental configuration, I use this to say that there are no
variations wrt the experimental variables of the final results, hence
our current setup is ready to be implemented.
* Slide n. 29: Suggestions for top picture?
* Slide n. 30: Here I'd put the a final strong message, as Marco was
suggesting.
My idea is as follows: during the talk - up to slide n. 24, I just
present the experiment - without yet "promoting" it.
Then, I start to "increase" the tone (slides n. 24 - 27 - 29 - 30), to
leave the audience with the message that BDX is not the "conclusive" LDM
experiment, but it is a first-generation experiment, highly optimized
(even stronger: the "best" beam-dump experiment that can be performed
today at e- beam).
Within few years BDX can produce a physical result and that can guide
future activities, hence the necessity to run it first, in the
longer-term LDM program.
I'd not enter to much in details: for example, the argument about beam
backgrounds is critical, since our backgrounds are not those of a
missing-momentum like experiment - we filter out all SM particles but
neutrinos in the dump+shielding.
* Backup-slides: any specific suggestion?
Bests
Andrea
I've linked 1 file to this email:
Celentano.pdf
<https://app.box.com/s/f40x80cdqd47l8gdwcr59w38ok12433p>(8.3 MB)Box
<https://www.box.com/thunderbird>https://app.box.com/s/f40x80cdqd47l8gdwcr59w38ok12433p
Mozilla Thunderbird <http://www.getthunderbird.com> makes it easy to
share large files over email.
On 03/16/2017 08:12 PM, Elton Smith wrote:
> Hi Andrea,
>
> Below I have some comments to your (original) slides.
>
> General:
> 1) It is useful early on to clarify the parameters of the search:
> epsilon, alpha_D, M_A and M_chi. This is to let the audience know that
> is plotted on various exclusion plots, and also to emphasize that
> comparison with experiments that only look at the A' (depending on
> epsilon and M_A only) is not easy due to the multiple dimensions.
> 2) There should be a clear statement about why an electron accelerator
> is chosen (minimize neutrino backgrounds). This should be
> added/stressed at or before slide 11
> 3) I would avoid statements like "Preliminary agreement with JLab
> management" (p. 23). It can be omitted on the slide and said in words
> for the audience. It is true, but especially at a DOE conference you
> do not want to be clarifying the nature of such an agreement. Use
> "test planned" or similar. The BDX experiment at Jefferson Laboratory
>
> Notation: The use of O(value) makes better sense at a design stage
> where nothing is fixed. In our case, with defined geometry, energy,
> etc. I would be more specific. This helps the audience get a better
> picture of the experiment. Example on slide 3: O(10-20m) -> ~ 20 m,
> O(GeV) -> ~ 0.3 GeV, etc.
>
> is EOT defined?
>
> 3: Define LDM 'light dark matter' as M_A ~ 10 - 1000 MeV, M_chi ~ 10
> MeV. Most of the audience might know this, but it should not be assumed.
> 4: top right: A' -> Chi chibar (not leptons)
> 6: I know this is schematic, but we should get a cartoon with iron
> shielding between beam dump and detector. This is an important feature
> to answer people's concern about the amount of shielding
> 10: It is unclear what is plotted on the bottom right plot. It looks
> very non-uniform and detracts from the point that efficiency is > 99%
> 13: Top left: Do you mean 2.2 10^22 EOT?
> 15: I do not understand the bottom right projection "front view"? What
> is the yellow? Because of the length of the detector it might be a
> plan view, but that does not make sense either
> 21: Use N_bck -> N_nue+nuebar ~ 10
> 23: Indeed we need to give the BDX update document a note number
> (BDX-NOTE 2017-001?)
> Bottom: O(days)-> ~ 1 week
> Budgetary Estimate ~ $40k
> 24: x-axes on plot are easy to miss since they are in the plot
> 25: Context for exclusion plot compared to previous plots shown? Can
> be explained since sensitivities were studied on a different phase
> space to show low sensitivity to various experimental variables.
> 28 Foreseen -> Plan
> 29 Ongoing Activities (eliminate cost)
> 30 O(10^21 - 10^22 EOT/year -> 10^22 EOT
> 2nd bullet: Second sentence. Simplify to "Reuse Babar crystals."
>
> Cheers, Elton.
>
> Elton Smith
> Jefferson Lab MS 12H3
> 12000 Jefferson Ave STE 4
> Newport News, VA 23606
> (757)269-7625
> (757)269-6331 fax
>
> On 3/16/17 1:32 PM, Marco Battaglieri wrote:
>> Andrea Celentano wrote:
>>> Dear Marco,
>>> thanks for your comments.
>>> - some of the graphs and picture are out of date and should be
>>> updated: I'd suggest to keep the detector design consistent with
>>> what described in the proposal (we have an arxiv public paper on it
>>> too!).
>>> - I'd show how the signal will look like in the detector (including
>>> efficiency, crystal multiplicity, ... ) to give the feeling that the
>>> detector option is adequate to detect the Chi
>>>
>>> Graphs updated with plots from proposal / PAC presentation. Detector
>>> design updated.
>>>
>>> - You may also want to mention that the R&D of this experiment
>>> started 4 years ago (we presented a LOI at PAC42 starting to work on
>>> it well before!) and now we are ready to assemble the real experiment
>>>
>>> R&D and LOI mentioned
>>>
>>> - do we want to address (another backup slides ) the possible BDX
>>> competitors (experiments such as LSND E137) and report the recent
>>> results of miniboone showing that we can do much better (in termn of
>>> EOT, background, ...)?
>>>
>>> This is what I asked for to our theoretician colleagues (Gordan,
>>> Eder). My worry is that a "not-precise" or "not-correct" message
>>> will be immediately rejected by the audience, where experts will be
>>> present. In other words: what can we say about LSND / Miniboone? Is
>>> it acceptable to say that the backgrounds are higher with a proton
>>> beam (how much? why?). If we were comparing LHC vs LEP, clearly the
>>> first has an higher bg (hadronic environment vs leptonic one), but
>>> also an higher "production yield".
>>> Here, how should I introduce this message?
>>> For E137, situation is simpler. The message I'm going to insert in
>>> slide n. 3 (still empty) is that E137 had less EOT, was not
>>> optimized for LDM, and used a less sophisticated technology.
>>>
>>
>> I agree: we need to be carefully and certainly Gordan can help on
>> clarify the approximations that entered in the upper limits usually
>> reported on the reach plot.
>> We should also be careful to not make enemies: we can probably leave
>> to the conveners the duty to compare BDX with Miniboone and conclude
>> that they have to deal with a huge neutrino bg while we do not (same
>> as per EOT vs POT)
>>
>>> - at some point next week I'd send the slides to Bob , just to have
>>> him informed about what is going on.
>>>
>>> Yes, Ideally if I receive other comments by tonight (that was my
>>> deadline), I'll implement this tomorrow morning, circulate v2
>>> tomorrow, and then we can try to sent to Bob tomorrow evening
>>> (Europe time). Otherwise, on Monday.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Some messages need to be conveyed more clearly (eg the bdx reach,
>>> the difference with previous beam-dump experiments, the advantages
>>> for the whole LDMA-like activity in assessing the background of a
>>> high intense electron beam experiment) in the spirit of considering
>>> BDX as one of the forst experiment deserving to be funded
>>>
>>> Ok, I can stress this more, but I think we need to not sell too much
>>> the fact that the detector is already optimized and the whole
>>> experiment design ready. The PAC asked us to optimize and finalize
>>> the detector design - and "officially" we still need to show that we
>>> did this, in order to move from current C2 rating to a C1 (with a
>>> scientific rating that still we don't have). In other words: if the
>>> message from the talk is too much oriented toward the idea that
>>> there's nothing more to do in the design, someone in the audience
>>> may ask why the PAC asked us to optimize the detector.
>>>
>> you are right: we should leave some room for further optimization of
>> the experiment but, in my opinion we should stress the BDX strenght
>> wrt previous beam-dump experiments (bdx is not the first beam dump
>> experiment ever run) and in particular stress the advantages for the
>> whole LDMA-like activity in assessing the background of a high
>> intense electron beam experiment) in the spirit of considering BDX as
>> one of the forst experiment deserving to be funded.
>>
>> The conveners will be asked to identify 1 (max 2) possible
>> experiments that are ready to run in a 2 years timeframe (what asked
>> by the DOE management) and we need to convince the audience that BDX
>> is one valuable option (if not for the capability of targeting the
>> whole parameter space, because we are a 1st generation 'new' LDMA
>> experiment and running BDX may be useful to progress with more
>> sophisticated experiments (e.g. missing momentum)
>>
>>> Andrea
>>>
>>> On 03/16/2017 12:44 PM, Marco Battaglieri wrote:
>>>> Dear Andrea,
>>>> this is a good starting point for the BDX presentation at the ws.
>>>> General comments:
>>>> - some of the graphs and picture are out of date and should be
>>>> updated: I'd suggest to keep the detector design consistent with
>>>> what described in the proposal (we have an arxiv public paper on it
>>>> too!).
>>>> - Some messages need to be conveyed more clearly (eg the bdx reach,
>>>> the difference with previous beam-dump experiments, the advantages
>>>> for the whole LDMA-like activity in assessing the background of a
>>>> high intense electron beam experiment) in the spirit of considering
>>>> BDX as one of the forst experiment deserving to be funded
>>>> - You may also want to mention that the R&D of this experiment
>>>> started 4 years ago (we presented a LOI at PAC42 starting to work
>>>> on it well before!) and now we are ready to assemble the real
>>>> experiment
>>>> - I'd show how the signal will look like in the detector (including
>>>> efficiency, crystal multiplicity, ... ) to give the feeling that
>>>> the detector option is adequate to detect the Chi
>>>> - a backup slide with costs/workplan will be useful (we'll decide
>>>> later if to be included in the presentation)
>>>> - do we want to address (another backup slides ) the possible BDX
>>>> competitors (experiments such as LSND E137) and report the recent
>>>> results of miniboone showing that we can do much better (in termn
>>>> of EOT, background, ...)?
>>>> - at some point next week I'd send the slides to Bob , just to have
>>>> him informed about what is going on.
>>>> Here shttps://www.ge.infn.it/~batta/Celentano-3.pdf some detailed
>>>> comments on the slides.
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Marco
>>>>
>>>> Andrea Celentano wrote:
>>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>>> you find attached a first draft of the slides I'm going to show at
>>>>> the DOE workshop next week. The talk is 30' + 5'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Slides are not in the final form - but already in a quite definite
>>>>> shape, so that I can circulate them to you to receive feedback and
>>>>> comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that slides n. 5 is missing, as well as slide n. 29.
>>>>> Conclusions still needs to be written properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other than your general comments, I'd like to hear the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Eder, Gordan: my idea about slide n.5 was to present BDX as a
>>>>> "second generation" dump experiment, dedicated to LDM, after the
>>>>> experiences from E137 and others. Also, I'd like to compare with
>>>>> proton beam-dump experiments (LSND, Miniboone), underlying the
>>>>> complementary (protons: maybe higher production, but higher
>>>>> beam-related backgrounds. Electrons: beam-related backgrounds are
>>>>> lower). Do you think this is reasonable?
>>>>>
>>>>> * Eder, Gordan: can you please have a look at the reach plot
>>>>> (slide n.24)? These were taken from proposal, but I do not know if
>>>>> any MAJOR change in limits from other experiments should be added
>>>>>
>>>>> * Marco, Elton: slides n. 28 and 29 shows the current experiment
>>>>> status and future plans. In slide n. 29 I can show that a
>>>>> realistic cost estimate for facilities (and partially for the
>>>>> detector) has been carried out. What's your opinion about? Is it
>>>>> worth to discuss or it is better to put in the backup?
>>>>>
>>>>> * All: do you think it is better to circulate the slides to people
>>>>> at JLab? At the moment, in particular for the mu pipe test, I am
>>>>> just saying that the plans have been "discussed" with the
>>>>> management. If we want to stress this more (like saying that the
>>>>> plans have been pre-approved, or something like this) then we need
>>>>> to.
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect to receive your feedback within Friday morning (Europe
>>>>> time), so that I can work on this on Friday, circulate again on
>>>>> Friday evening (Europe time), and if necessary circulate to people
>>>>> at JLab.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bests,
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>
>>>>> I've linked 1 file to this email:
>>>>> CelentanoBDXDOE.pdf
>>>>> <https://app.box.com/s/21ljfawpmw7csc6ne91y4hpqtm1va4p7>(8.0
>>>>> MB)Box
>>>>> <https://www.box.com/thunderbird>https://app.box.com/s/21ljfawpmw7csc6ne91y4hpqtm1va4p7
>>>>> Mozilla Thunderbird <http://www.getthunderbird.com> makes it easy
>>>>> to share large files over email.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> BDXlist mailing list
>>>>> BDXlist at jlab.org
>>>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/bdxlist
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/bdxlist/attachments/20170317/8f691e9d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attachment-24.png
Type: image/png
Size: 641 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/bdxlist/attachments/20170317/8f691e9d/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: box-logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 766 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/bdxlist/attachments/20170317/8f691e9d/attachment-0003.png>
More information about the BDXlist
mailing list