Timing Calibration Efforts in Cosmic Ray Veto for Mu2e Experiment - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
timing calibration efforts in cosmic ray veto for mu2e
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Timing Calibration Efforts in Cosmic Ray Veto for Mu2e Experiment - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 14, 2023 173 likes •415 views

Timing Calibration Efforts in Cosmic Ray Veto for Mu2e Experiment Payton Beeler Standard Model Charged lepton flavor violation Why is it important? Breaks standard model How its supposed to work How it actually works (maybe)

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Timing Calibration Efforts in Cosmic Ray Veto for Mu2e Experiment Payton Beeler

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Standard Model

  • Charged lepton flavor violation
  • Why is it important?
  • Breaks standard model
slide-3
SLIDE 3

How it’s supposed to work

slide-4
SLIDE 4

How it actually works (maybe)

฀฀ e-

฀฀

Why is this important? Means that the standard model needs some work.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Mu2e

  • Run by Department of Energy
  • Located in Batavia, Illinois
  • Will hopefully have results by 2020

Detector

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Resolution Problems

  • Extremely rare decay

Energy Events

slide-7
SLIDE 7

PROBLEM: it’s raining apples

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Solution: Cosmic Ray Veto (CRV)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Layout

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Counters

  • 1,632 on CRV-T
  • 4 fibers run through each
  • Fibers connect to SiPMs

5600 mm 20 mm 50 mm 15 mm 20 mm

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Noise Problems

t2 t1 t4 t3 1 2 3 4

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Oscilloscope Readout (ideal world)

t1 t2 t3 t4 1 2 3 4

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Oscilloscope Readout (real world)

Timing error ≈ ±300 ps

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Method

  • Shoot cosmic ray at specific point in counter
  • Find theoretical time it takes to get to detector
  • Introduce error to theoretical time to simulate measured time
  • Try to get original position from simulated time using chi squared test
slide-15
SLIDE 15

Method

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Results

Average Difference vs. Position

6 5 4 3 2 1

  • 0.014
  • 0.012
  • 0.01
  • 0.008
  • 0.006
  • 0.004
  • 0.002

0.002 0.004

Position (m) Difference (m)

y=0.025 m y=0.015 m y=0.050 m

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Results

RMS vs Position

6 5 4 3 2 1 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009

Position (m) Root Mean Squared

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Next Problem

  • Attenuation
  • Amplitudes
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Scenario

  • When a cosmic ray hits the polystyrene 25 photoelectrons come out

Number of Photoelectrons vs. Position

6 5 4 3 2 1 5 10 15 20 25 30

Position (m) Number of Photoelectrons

Number of PE to Counters 1 and 2 Number of PE to Counters 3 and 4

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Oscilloscope Readout

t1 t2 t3 t4 1 2 3 4 t1 t2 t3 t4

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Results

Difference vs Position

6 5 4 3 2 1

  • 0.02
  • 0.015
  • 0.01
  • 0.005

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02

Position Differnece

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Results

RMS vs Position

6 5 4 3 2 1 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035

Position (m) RMS

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Results

Difference vs Position

6 5 4 3 2 1

  • 0.01
  • 0.005

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035

Position (m) Difference (m)

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Acknowledgements

  • Big thanks to Glenn Horton-Smith and Tim Bolton for allowing me to

work with them this Summer

  • Thank you to the NSF for funding