sphenix-cold-qcd-l AT lists.bnl.gov
Subject: sPHENIX cold QCD topical group
List archive
Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] forward thinking from the sPHENIX collaboration meeting
- From: Yuji Goto <goto AT bnl.gov>
- To: sphenix-cold-qcd-l AT lists.bnl.gov
- Subject: Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] forward thinking from the sPHENIX collaboration meeting
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:13:21 +0900
Dear John, et al., Thank you for this interesting idea. One concern I have is a light yield. Does this give us much enough light yield for good enough energy resolution? I want to ask you more questions. Do you plan to install this inside of the return yoke, or outside? Do we have a plan of FNAL test beam this spring? Best regards, Yuji On 2018/12/11 8:07, Lajoie, John G
[PHYSA] wrote:
Dear Cold-QCD'ers: Sasha, Ralf and I had a very productive discussion at the
collaboration meeting about ways to jump-start possible forward
instrumentation for sPHENIX. In fact, the discussions resulted
in a concrete set of action items we plan to pursue, so I
thought it might be best to share this with the full cold QCD
list so people are aware of what we are thinking and have an
opportunity to participate.
First, some background - As many of you are aware, spurred on by the work on the sPHENIX
forward instrumentation paper from last year, Joe Osborn and I
have been working with Hannu Paukunnen and his EPPS16
collaborators to estimate how well a comprehensive set of
measurements in p+A at RHIC could constrain nuclear PDF's. At
the present time they are working to include prompt photon
pseudodata, and this again brought of the issue of forward
prompt photons with (f)sPHENIX. At about the same time I visited
Uniplast in Russia with Edward Kistenev, who suggested a
passable EMCal could be made by cutting down the existing E864
Pb/Scifi calorimeter (10x10cm^2) towers to ~16cm in length and
segmenting them with smaller light guides - 2cmx2cm would be
close to the Moliere radius. (For those not familiar with the
E864 calorimeter I am attaching a copy of the NIM article.) We
would only need to round up about 330 (of 768 total) E864
modules at BNL to cut them down and cover a pseudorapidity from
1.4-4 in the forward direction; we would still need mechanicals
and electronics (copy of EMCal?). This would give us an EMCal with sub-par EM resolution, BUT
with sufficient granularity at ~4m to separate pizeroes from
prompt photons. Sasha Basilevsky had a look using a fast MC and
it looks like this idea is worth further study; it seems
feasible for the lower rapidities, it gets dicey at the higher
rapidities and needs simulation. The physics justification
would of course be nPDF's and CNM, but this would also enable a
study of longitudinal dynamics in HI's (needs simulation).
While this would not be the full hadron arm we have all
envisioned, it would get our foot in the door with something
concrete.
So here's what we are thinking of doing over the next six
months: 1. JL is planning to get this new version of the forward EMCal
into G4 simulations this week. This will enable the detailed
performance studies that are the next step beyond Sasha's fast
study.
2. Sasha and I are in pursuit of an E864 module we can cut
down, instrument and take to the FNAL test beam this spring.
This should be doable, although we might have to raise some $
for light guides we can borrow EMCal electronics. This would
establish the performance of the device in the real world. 3. We should push a little more on the EPPS16 pseudodata analysis. We have discussed publishing the results of the exercise and we should do that. I think a publication like this would help underpin the CNM physics case nicely; it would be nice if this was on the arXiv this spring. 4. Enlist our HI colleagues to look as HI simulations and see if there are some key simulation performance plots that can be made. The experience in this is mostly in STAR and LHC folks, so we should look there and try to enlist some aid. 5. If 1-4 come together nicely, perhaps a presentation to the
PAC in June would be in order? We could discuss this with the
spokespersons.
Thoughts and discussion (and volunteers!) are welcome. Regards, John Lajoie Professor of Physics Iowa State University
(515) 294-6952 lajoie AT iastate.edu _______________________________________________ sPHENIX-cold-QCD-l mailing list sPHENIX-cold-QCD-l AT lists.bnl.gov https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-cold-qcd-l |
-
[Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] forward thinking from the sPHENIX collaboration meeting,
Lajoie, John G [PHYSA], 12/10/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] forward thinking from the sPHENIX collaboration meeting,
Yuji Goto, 12/13/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] forward thinking from the sPHENIX collaboration meeting,
Lajoie, John G [PHYSA], 12/13/2018
- Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] forward thinking from the sPHENIX collaboration meeting, Yuji Goto, 12/17/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] forward thinking from the sPHENIX collaboration meeting,
Lajoie, John G [PHYSA], 12/13/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] forward thinking from the sPHENIX collaboration meeting,
Gunther M Roland, 12/13/2018
- Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] forward thinking from the sPHENIX collaboration meeting, Lajoie, John G [PHYSA], 12/13/2018
-
Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] forward thinking from the sPHENIX collaboration meeting,
Yuji Goto, 12/13/2018
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.