1: % ****** Start of file apssamp.tex ******
2: %
3: % This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.
4: % Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001
5: %
6: % Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.
7: %
8: % See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.
9: %
10: % TeX'ing this file requires that you have AMS-LaTeX 2.0 installed
11: % as well as the rest of the prerequisites for REVTeX 4.0
12: %
13: % See the REVTeX 4 README file
14: % It also requires running BibTeX. The commands are as follows:
15: %
16: % 1) latex apssamp.tex
17: % 2) bibtex apssamp
18: % 3) latex apssamp.tex
19: % 4) latex apssamp.tex
20: %
21: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]
22: {revtex4}
23: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
24:
25: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
26: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
27: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
28: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
29:
30: %\usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
31: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
32: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
33: \usepackage{epsfig}
34:
35: %\setlength{\textheight}{228mm}
36: %\setlength{\textwidth}{170mm}
37: %\setlength{\topmargin}{0.7cm}
38:
39: %\nofiles
40:
41: \def\babar{\mbox{\sl B\hspace{-0.1cm} {\small\sl A}\hspace{-0.1cm}
42: \sl B\hspace{-0.1cm} {\small\sl A\hspace{-0.05cm}R}}}
43:
44: \def\bm{{\it B}}
45:
46:
47: \begin{document}
48:
49: \preprint{APS/123-QED}
50:
51: \title{Report of Snowmass 2001 Working Group E2 :\\
52: Electron-positron Colliders from the $\phi$ to the $Z$\\}
53:
54: \author{Zhenguo Zhao}
55: \affiliation{Beijing Institute of High Energy Physics \\}
56: \author{Gerald Eigen}
57: \affiliation{University of Bergen \\}
58: \author{Gustavo Burdman$^*$}
59: \affiliation{Boston University \\}
60: \author{William Marciano}
61: \affiliation{Brookhaven National Laboratory \\}
62: \author{David Hitlin}
63: \affiliation{California Institute of Technology \\}
64: \author{Mark Mandelkern}
65: \affiliation{University of California, Irvine \\}
66: \author{Abi Soffer}
67: \affiliation{Colorado State University \\}
68: \author{David Cassel, Lawrence Gibbons}
69: \affiliation{Cornell University \\}
70: \author{Klaus Moenig}
71: \affiliation{DESY, Zeuthen \\}
72: %\author{Gudrun Hiller}
73: %\affiliation{DESY, Hamburg\\}
74: \author{Joel Butler$^*$, Penelope Kasper, Rob Kutschke, Paul Mackenzie,
75: Stephen Pordes, Ron Ray, Tenaji Sen}
76: \affiliation{Fermilab \\}
77: \author{Diego Bettoni, Roberto Calabrese}
78: \affiliation{University of Ferrara \\}
79: \author{Caterina Bloise}
80: \affiliation{Frascati National Laboratory \\}
81: \author{Daniel Kaplan}
82: \affiliation{Illinois Institute of Technology \\}
83: \author{Nobu Katayama, Yasuhiro Okada, Yukiyoshi Ohnishi, Hitoshi Yamamoto$^*$}
84: \affiliation{KEK\\}
85: \author{Andrei Gritsan}
86: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory \\}
87: \author{Steve Dytman}
88: \affiliation{University of Pittsburgh \\}
89: \author{Jik Lee, Ian Shipsey$^*$}
90: \affiliation{Purdue University\\}
91: \author{Yuri Maravin}
92: \affiliation{Southern Methodist University \\}
93: \author{Franz-Joseph Decker, Gudrun Hiller, Peter Kim, David Leith, Sibylle Petrak,
94: Steven Robertson, Aaron Roodman, John Seeman}
95: \affiliation{Stanford Linear Accelerator Center \\}
96: \author{Marina Artuso, Sheldon Stone}
97: \affiliation{Syracuse University \\}
98: \author{Xinchou Lou}
99: \affiliation{University of Texas, Dallas \\}
100: \author{Michael Luke}
101: \affiliation{University of Toronto \\}
102: \author{Will Johns}
103: \affiliation{Vanderbilt University \\}
104: \author{($*$ E2 Working Group Convenor)}
105: \affiliation{\\}
106: \date{October 15, 2001 }
107:
108: \begin{abstract}
109: We report on the status and plans of experiments now running or proposed
110: for electron-positron colliders at energies between the $\phi$ and the $Z$.
111: The $e^{+}e^{-}$ \bm\ and charm factories we considered were PEP-II/\babar,
112: KEKB/Belle, superKEK, Super\babar, and CESR-c/CLEO-c. We reviewed the programs
113: at the $\phi$ factory at
114: Frascati and the proposed PEP-N facility at Stanford Linear Accelerator
115: Center. We studied the prospects for \bm\ physics with a dedicated linear
116: collider $Z$ factory, associated with the TESLA high energy linear collider.
117: In all cases, we compared the physics reach of these facilities with that
118: of alternative experiments at hadron colliders or fixed target facilities.
119: \end{abstract}
120:
121: \pacs{Valid PACS appear here}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy
122: % Classification Scheme.
123: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword
124: %display desired
125: \maketitle
126:
127: \section*{Introduction}
128:
129: In this report we review the status of ongoing and planned electron-positron
130: collider facilities whose center of mass energies range from the mass of
131: the $\phi$ meson to that of the $Z$ Boson. In Section 1 and 2, we discuss the
132: physics potential of two ``low energy machines'', the $\phi$ factory at
133: Frascati and the proposed PEP-N storage ring at Stanford Linear Accelerator.
134: Section 3 presents the physics potential of a proposed reorientation of the
135: CESR machine and the CLEO detector, known as CLEO-c, which would focus
136: on topics in charm physics and QCD. In section 4, we discuss the future evolution
137: of the two asymmetric $e^{+}e^{-}$ \bm-factory facilities, KEKB/Belle and
138: PEP-II/\babar\ to superKEK and Super\babar\ and compare their \bm\
139: physics reach to that of existing
140: and proposed hadron collider experiments. In section 5, we discuss the
141: potential of a dedicated $Z$ factory associated with a Linear Collider,
142: in this case TESLA, for \bm\ physics studies and compare its strengths
143: to those of $e^{+}e^{-}$ and hadron collider experiments. In section 6,
144: we present our conclusions. This report
145: is a written version of the E2 Summary Talk
146: given at the final plenary session of Snowmass~\cite{shipsey2}.
147:
148:
149: \section{$\phi$ Factories}
150:
151: The $\phi$ factory, DA$\phi$NE, at Frascati is a unique facility, in which
152: electron and positron beams of energy 510 MeV collide~\cite{Bloise}. There are no plans
153: to build a similar facility elsewhere. While there are several aspects to its
154: physics program, the E2 working group concentrated on the physics reach of
155: the KLOE (KLOng Experiment) as compared to planned fixed target Kaon
156: experiments, which will run at US facilities in the next several years.
157:
158: \subsection{Status of DA$\phi$NE}
159:
160: DA$\phi$NE consists of two independent storage rings, one for electrons
161: of 510 MeV and one for positrons of 510 MeV. The beams intersect at an
162: angle of 25 milliradians at two locations. The bunch length is 3 cm. The
163: horizontal bunch size is 2 mm and the vertical size is 0.02 mm. The design
164: luminosity is $5\times 10^{32}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$.
165:
166: It has been a great challenge to obtain reasonable luminosity. Recently,
167: a luminosity of $2.5\times 10^{31}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$ has been achieved.
168: This is a significant improvement over a year ago and, while still far
169: below the design, is sufficient to begin to do meaningful physics.
170: Over the last few months sustained running at 1.3$pb^{-1}$/day has been
171: achieved. An integrated luminosity of 200$pb^{-1}$ is expected by the
172: end of calendar 2001.
173:
174: \subsection{The KLOE Experiment: Description, Goals, and Status}
175:
176: A main goal of KLOE is to study rare and CP violating decays of the
177: $K_{L}^{o}$ mesons which are produced in the decay
178: $\phi\rightarrow K_{L}^{o}K_{s}^{o}$.
179: A schematic of the KLOE detector is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:kloe}.
180: It has a 5m diameter
181: superconducting solenoid, which contains a drift chamber and a
182: lead-scintillator electromagnetic calorimeter. There is also an endcap
183: electromagnetic calorimeter. The drift chamber uses Helium gas to
184: minimize multiple scattering and $K_{L}^{o}$ regeneration. A CP violating
185: $K_{L}^{o}$ decay has a very clear signature in the detector, as shown
186: in Fig.~\ref{fig:kloe_event}.
187:
188: The physics program of KLOE is quite broad and is described in
189: Table~\ref{tab:kloe}.
190: The table includes physics topics and the approximate luminosity required to
191: make meaningful measurments for each topic. It can be seen that some
192: measurements are already achievable with the current luminosity but the
193: study of CP violation and rare kaon decays requires significant improvements.
194:
195:
196: \begin{table}[t]
197: \begin{center}
198: \caption[]
199: {Summary of KLOE Physics Program}
200: \label{tab:kloe}
201: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|} \hline
202: Physics Topic & Integrated Luminosity\\
203: & ($pb^{-1}$)\\
204: \hline
205: $\phi$ radiative decays ($f_{o}\gamma, a_{o}\gamma,\eta\gamma,
206: \eta^{\prime}\gamma) $ & 20-100 \\
207: Measurement of $\sigma(\pi\pi)$ (for $g-2$) & \\ \hline
208: K semileptonic decays, $Kl4$, & \\
209: $\eta$/$\eta^{\prime}$ mixing, $\ldots$ & 1000 \\ \hline
210: Tests of CP and CPT violation and & \\
211: measurement of rare K decays & 5000 \\
212: \hline
213: \end{tabular}
214: \end{center}
215: \end{table}
216:
217: \begin{figure*}
218: \begin{center}
219: %\epsfig{figure=KLOE.eps,width=8cm,height=8cm,angle=-90}
220: \epsfig{figure=KLOE.ps,width=8cm,height=8cm}
221: \caption{A schematic of the KLOE detector}
222: \label{fig:kloe}
223: \end{center}
224: \end{figure*}
225:
226: \begin{figure*}
227: \begin{center}
228: %\epsfig{figure=kloe_event.eps,width=8cm, height=8cm,angle=-90}
229: \epsfig{figure=kloe_event.ps,width=8cm, height=8cm}
230: \caption{A CP violating $K_{L}^{o}$ decay as seen in KLOE}
231: \label{fig:kloe_event}
232: \end{center}
233: \end{figure*}
234:
235:
236: \subsection{Comparison of Physics Reach of KLOE to Planned Fixed Target
237: Experiments}
238:
239: The current status of measurements of ``direct CP violation'' through
240: the quantity $\epsilon^{\prime}$/$\epsilon$ in Fixed Target Experiments
241: at CERN(NA48) and Fermilab(KTeV) is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:eps}. At a
242: $\phi$ factory, the double ratio and interferometric methods are complementary
243: to the Fixed Target experiments. KLOE's goal of
244: measuring $\epsilon^{\prime}$/$\epsilon$ to an accuracy of
245: $\sim 2\times 10^{-4}$, which requires 5000 $pb^{-1}$, will provide a
246: measurement comparable to the other experiments. However, the ability
247: to extract Standard Model CP parameters from this quantity is, at present,
248: limited by theoretical uncertainties.
249:
250: \begin{figure*}
251: \begin{center}
252: %\epsfig{figure=eps_prime.eps,width=8cm,height=8cm,angle=-90}
253: \epsfig{figure=eps_prime.ps,width=7cm,height=8cm}
254: \caption{World Results on $\frac{\epsilon^{\prime}}{\epsilon}$}
255: \label{fig:eps}
256: \end{center}
257: \end{figure*}
258:
259:
260: Another emphasis of future Fixed Target programs in the US is rare kaon
261: decays, in particular, measurement of the branching fractions of
262: \begin{eqnarray}
263: K^{+} & \rightarrow & \pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu} \\
264: K_{L}^{o} & \rightarrow & \pi^{o}\nu\bar{\nu}.
265: \end{eqnarray}
266: The first of these provides a measurement of $V_{td}$ and the second
267: is a direct indicator of the CKM parameter $\eta$. The branching fractions
268: are very small, of order a few$\times 10^{-11}$. Very high kaon fluxes
269: are needed and Fixed Target experiments that want to detect them must
270: withstand formidable backgrounds and run at very high rates.
271:
272:
273: The $\phi$ factory has very desirable features for doing these measurements
274: which avoid many of the problems of the Fixed Target experiments. However,
275: even with 5000 $pb^{-1}$, only about $10^{10}$ $K_{L}K_{s}$ pairs will
276: be produced so the Standard Model expectations cannot quite be reached.
277: The branching fraction for the now observed decay
278: $K^{+} \rightarrow \pi^{+}\nu\bar{\nu}$ is already too low for KLOE to reach.
279: However, if there is new physics, outside the Standard Model, in the
280: decay $K_{L}^{o}\rightarrow \pi^{o}\nu\bar{\nu}$, which currently has a
281: limit only of order $10^{-6}$,
282: this process could be within the range of the KLOE experiment.
283: Thus, KLOE has a few year window to push the sensitivity of
284: $K_{L}^{o}\rightarrow \pi^{o}\nu\bar{\nu}$ in the hope that new physics
285: might be present there. If the Standard Model processes are the dominant
286: ones, then ultimately this decay will have to be observed in Fixed Target
287: kaon experiments. See ~\cite{Ray} for further details.
288:
289: \begin{figure*}
290: \begin{center}
291: %\epsfig{figure=rare_decay.eps,width=8cm,height=8cm,angle=-90}
292: \epsfig{figure=rare_decay.ps,width=8cm,height=8cm}
293: \caption{Current and expected results on rare K decays. For each mode, the
294: two lines corresponding to the greatest sensitivity are for
295: the Kopio experiment ($K_{L}^{o}\rightarrow \pi^{o}\nu\bar{\nu}$) and
296: the KAMI proposal (all three modes). Note KAMI is not approved. }
297: \label{fig:rare_k_decay}
298: \end{center}
299: \end{figure*}
300:
301:
302: \section{PEP-N}
303:
304: \begin{figure}
305: \begin{center}
306: \epsfig{figure=diagrams.ps,width=6cm,height=9cm}
307: \caption{Feynman diagrams for radiative corrections to $\alpha_{em}$ and
308: $(g-2)_\mu$}
309: \label{fig:diagrams}
310: \end{center}
311: \end{figure}
312:
313: PEP-N is a proposed novel extension of PEP-II. The machine
314: is an asymmetric collider
315: consisting of the PEP-II Low Energy Ring (LER) (3.1 GeV)
316: and a new electron storage
317: ring (Very Low Energy Ring, VLER) of energy $100\ {\rm MeV} < E_e < 800\ {\rm MeV}$.
318: The accessible center of mass (CM) energy is
319: $1.2\ {\rm GeV} < \sqrt{s} < 3.15\ {\rm GeV}$. This machine would
320: run simultaneously with PEP-II operation at the $\Upsilon(4S)$.
321:
322: There is a rich variety of important physics measurements that are accessible
323: at this collider. The most prominent are the high-precision measurement
324: of the ratio, R \cite{mark}\cite{marciano}, of the hadron total cross
325: section to the muon pair cross section and the determination of nucleon form
326: factors \cite{roberto}.
327: Other physics topics which can be studied at PEP-N include meson form
328: factors, vector meson spectroscopy, the search for non $q\overline{q}$
329: states and $\gamma\gamma^*$ interactions.
330:
331: In our view the most important single measurement that PEP-N could
332: contribute is the determination of R with greatly improved precision.
333: In this report we will focus solely on the physics motivation
334: and challenges of measuring R.
335:
336:
337: \subsection{The Measurement of R}
338:
339: \begin{figure}[t]
340: \begin{center}
341: \epsfig{figure=R.ps,width=9cm,height=10cm}
342: \caption{R$_{had}$ including resonances with the parameterization of
343: Burkhardt and Pietrzyk.}
344: \label{fig:R}
345: \end{center}
346: \end{figure}
347:
348: Testing the consistency of the Standard Model requires a variety of
349: measurements for which radiative corrections play a crucial role. Two of the most
350: important examples are (a) Higgs mass bounds from precision measurements at LEP
351: and electroweak natural
352: relations (i.e. the evolution of $\alpha$ to the $Z$ pole), and
353: (b) Interpretation of the BNL $g_\mu-2$ experiment \cite{E821}. In addition,
354: future higher precision
355: experiments, such as Giga-$Z$, will depend on radiative corrections
356: being precisely known.
357:
358: The parameters of the electroweak model can be taken as $G_F$,
359: $\alpha_{em}(0)$, $M_Z$, $m_H$ and the fermion masses and mixings. In order to compute
360: physical quantities we must include radiative corrections which renormalize
361: charges, masses and magnetic moments as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:diagrams}.
362: Although the electroweak radiative corrections are calculable, the hadronic
363: radiative corrections are not. However the lowest-order hadronic radiative
364: corrections can be obtained from $e^+ e^-\rightarrow hadrons$
365: using dispersion relations and unitarity. The forward scattering amplitude
366: for virtual photons interacting with the vacuum is related to the total
367: cross section for that process by the Optical Theorem.
368:
369: \subsubsection{ The evolution of $\alpha$ to $M_Z$}
370:
371: \begin{figure}[t]
372: \centering
373: \epsfig{figure=burkhardt_pie.ps,width=8cm,height=10cm}
374: \caption{Relative contributions to $\Delta\alpha^{(5)}_{had}(M_Z^2)$ in
375: magnitude and uncertainty from Burkhardt and Pietrzyk.}
376: \label{fig:pie}
377: \end{figure}
378:
379: In leading order perturbation theory:
380:
381: \begin{eqnarray}
382: \Delta \alpha(s)&=&\frac{\alpha}{3\pi}
383: \sum_{m_f^2<<s}Q_f^2N_{cf} (ln\frac{s}{m_f^2}-\frac{5}{3}) \nonumber \\
384: &=&\Delta\alpha_{leptons}(s)+ \Delta\alpha_{hadrons}(s)
385: \end{eqnarray}
386: This expression is inadequate for the hadronic contribution, which can be
387: obtained from the measurement of R. For $(2m_t)^2>>s>>(2m_b)^2$ we have:
388:
389: \begin{equation}
390: \Delta \alpha(s)=
391: \Delta\alpha_{leptons}(s)+\Delta\alpha_{hadrons}^{(5)}(s)
392: \end{equation}
393:
394: \begin{equation}
395: \Delta\alpha_{hadrons}^{(5)}(s)=-\frac{\alpha
396: s}{3\pi}\int_{4m_\pi^2}^{\infty}
397: \frac{R(s')}{s'(s'-s)}ds'
398: \end{equation}
399:
400: \noindent Our current knowledge of R below 10 GeV is shown in
401: Fig. \ref{fig:R}. $\Delta\alpha(M_Z^2)$ is
402: of particular importance for predicting the $W$ mass and $Z$-pole
403: asymmetries and has been calculated by many authors including
404: Burkhardt and Pietrzyk (BP) \cite{BP}. BP find
405: $\Delta\alpha_{hadrons}^{(5)}(M_Z^2)=0.02761\pm 0.00036$ (1.3\%)
406: corresponding to $1/\alpha(M_Z^2)= 128.936\pm 0.046$ (0.037\%).
407: The largest contributions to the uncertainty in
408: $\Delta\alpha_{hadrons}^{(5)}(s)$ are from the measured values of R in
409: the regions 1.05$<\sqrt{s}<$2.0 GeV and
410: 2.0$<\sqrt{s}<$5.0 GeV, each contributing about
411: 0.8\% as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:pie} from Ref.
412: \cite{BP}. The latter uncertainty decreased significantly
413: after inclusion of the recent BES (inclusive) data \cite{BES}, even though
414: the measurements between 2 and 3 GeV have large errors and potentially
415: significant systematic uncertainties.
416: The uncertainties in the contributions from different intervals are systematics
417: dominated. However BP combines the errors in
418: quadrature. If one were to sum the systematic errors, the uncertainty would
419: be 3\%.
420:
421: As noted in ~\cite{mark}, the consistency of R measurements between 3 and 4 GeV and between 5
422: and 8 GeV is poor. Absolute cross
423: sections are difficult to measure and there may be significant
424: systematic errors in the measurements beyond those estimated by the
425: experiments.
426:
427: $\Delta \alpha (M_Z^2)$ enters in electroweak physics via
428: \begin{equation}
429: \sin^2\Theta\cos^2\Theta=\frac{\pi\alpha}{\sqrt 2
430: G_F M_Z^2}\frac{1}{1-\Delta r}
431: \end{equation}
432: where
433: \begin{equation}
434: \Delta r=\Delta\alpha(M_Z^2)-f(\sin^2\Theta)\delta \rho +\Delta r_{Higgs}
435: + \Delta
436: r_{other}
437: \end{equation}
438: and
439: \begin{equation}
440: \delta \rho \simeq \frac{\sqrt 2 G_F}{16 \pi^2}3 m_t^2
441: \end{equation}
442: \begin{eqnarray}
443: \Delta r_{Higgs} &\simeq& \frac{\sqrt 2 G_F M_W^2}{16
444: \pi^2}\{c^H(\sin^2\Theta)(ln\frac{m^2_H}{M^2_W}-\frac{5}{6})\} ; \nonumber \\
445: &&m_H>>M_W
446: \end{eqnarray}
447: $c^H(\sin^2\Theta)$ and $f(\sin^2\Theta)$ are dependent on the definition
448: of $\sin^2\Theta$, i.e. the renormalization method. In the on-shell
449: scheme, for example, $C_W^H=11/3$ and $f_W(\sin^2\Theta)=\cot^2\Theta_W
450: \simeq 3.35$.
451:
452: The resulting fractional theoretical uncertainty in $M_W$ is $\sim
453: 0.23 \delta \Delta \alpha$. The contribution from the 0.0004 uncertainty
454: in $\Delta\alpha_{hadrons}^{(5)}(s)$ is about 75 MeV, compared to the
455: experimental uncertainty of 56 MeV.
456: Measurements of the effective leptonic $\sin^2\theta_W$ and the
457: predictions of the Standard Model with uncertainties due to
458: $\Delta\alpha^{(5)}_{had}(M_Z^2)$ and $m_t$ from the LEPWG \cite{LEPEWWG}
459: are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:lepewwg}.
460:
461: The effective weak mixing angle, can be determined from
462: $Z$-pole asymmetry data, etc. without knowledge of the top and Higgs masses.
463: The Standard Model prediction is given as a function of $m_H$ with
464: uncertainties due to $\Delta\alpha_{hadrons}^{(5)}$, $m_t$, and $m_Z$. The
465: uncertainty in $sin^2\Theta^l_{eff}$ due to $\Delta\alpha_{hadrons}^{(5)}$
466: is $\sim sin^2\Theta^l_{eff}\Delta\alpha_{hadrons}^{(5)}\sim\pm 0.0001$,
467: that due to $m_t$ is also about 0.0001, and that due to $M_Z$ $<<0.0001$,
468: compared to the experimental error of $0.00017$. The overall fit to $m_H$ from
469: all electroweak data, shown in Fig.\ref{fig:blueband}, yields an estimate
470: of $\sim 100^{+57}_{-38}$GeV where the dominant contribution to the
471: uncertainty, $\sim 20$ GeV, is from $\Delta\alpha_{had}^{(5)}$.
472:
473: \subsubsection{$(g-2)_\mu$}
474:
475: We now consider hadronic corrections to the muon magnetic moment.
476: The Standard Model prediction for $a_\mu \equiv(g-2)_\mu/2$ is:
477:
478: \begin{equation}
479: a_\mu(theory)=a_\mu(EW)+a_\mu(Had).
480: \end{equation}
481: $a_\mu(EW) \equiv a_\mu(QED)+a_\mu(Weak)$ is calculable to a few
482: parts in $10^{11}$. The uncertainty in $a_\mu$ is dominated by that in
483: $a_\mu(Had)$ which is usually broken up into the leading vacuum
484: polarization contribution $a_\mu(Had;1)$ of order
485: $(\frac{\alpha}{\pi})^2$, the higher order vacuum polarization
486: contribution $a_\mu(Had;2)$ of order $(\frac{\alpha}{\pi})^3$, and the
487: hadronic light-by-light contribution $a_\mu(LbL)$, also of order
488: $(\frac{\alpha}{\pi})^3$. The first of these is related to R by a
489: dispersion relation, and the second and third must be estimated.
490:
491: \begin{equation}
492: a_\mu(Had;1)=(\frac{\alpha_{em}
493: m_\mu}{3\pi})^2\int^\infty_{4m_\pi^2}\frac{ds}{s^2}K(s)R(s)
494: \end{equation}
495: where
496:
497: \begin{eqnarray}
498: K(s) &=& \frac{3s}{m_\mu^2}\{x^2(1-\frac{x^2}{2}) \nonumber \\
499: &+&(1+x)^2(1+\frac{1}{x^2})\{ln(1+x)-x+\frac{x^2}{2}\} \nonumber \\
500: &+& \frac{1+x}{1-x}x^2ln x\}
501: \end{eqnarray}
502: with
503:
504: \begin{equation}
505: x=\frac{1-\beta}{1+\beta}, \beta=\sqrt{1-\frac{4m_\mu^2}{s}}.
506: \end{equation}
507: Note the weighting of $R(s)$ is $1/s^2$, making the low energy regime more
508: important than for $\alpha(s)$. Some recent analyses have used $\tau$ decay
509: data to supplement $e^+ e^-$ data. Here CVC is used to relate processes
510: through the vector charged weak current to comparable processes through the
511: isovector E.M. current assuming no second class weak currents, which implies
512: that the contribution of the axial vector current to G+ decays is zero. Thus
513: annihilation cross sections with $G=C(-1)^I=+1$ (G+, i.e. $n_\pi$ even) are
514: obtained from the rates of corresponding $\tau$ decays. While $\tau$ decay
515: data is useful at the current level of accuracy, I-spin violation and
516: effects such as initial and final state radiation must be understood if we
517: are to rely on it at smaller experimental errors, as emphasized by Eidelman
518: and Jegerlehner \cite{EJ,Jeger1}and by Melnikov \cite{Melni}.
519: PQCD is used at energies$>12$ GeV by all authors because of the lack of
520: data. The result of Davier and Hocker (DH) \cite{DH}, who use QCD sum rule
521: constraints at low energy as well as $\tau$ data, is $a_\mu(Had;1)=6924(62)
522: \times 10^{-11}$, giving the dominant uncertainty in $a_\mu$. The more
523: conservative result of Jegerlehner is 6987(111).
524:
525: The higher order hadronic vacuum polarization and hadronic
526: light-by-light contribution to $a_\mu$ are comparable. However while the
527: uncertainty in the former is several parts in $10^{11}$, the uncertainty in
528: the latter is much larger. The detailed calculations done by Hayakawa and
529: Kinoshita \cite{HK} and by Bijkens, Pallante and Prades \cite{BPP}
530: give a negative $a_\mu^{LbL}$~\cite{Knecht}.
531: Marciano and Roberts in their recent review
532: \cite{MR} combine in quadrature the DH result for
533: $a_\mu(Had;1)= 6924(62) \times 10^{-11}$ and $a_\mu(LbL)=-85(25)\times
534: 10^{-11}$(the average of HK and BPP taking the average of the quoted
535: uncertainties) for an overall result of $a_\mu^{SM}=116 591 597(67) \times
536: 10^{-11}$. This is to be compared with the BNL E821 \cite{E821} result of $116
537: 592 020(160) \times 10^{-11}$. The discrepancy is $423(173)\times
538: 10^{-11}$~\cite{Knecht}. Other authors regard the light-by-light calculation as
539: model-dependent and less reliable~\cite{mark}. BNL E821 ultimately
540: anticipates an uncertainty of $40 \times 10^{-11}$. Clearly improved
541: knowledge of $a_\mu(Had;1)$ and $a_\mu(LbL)$ are required to exploit
542: high-precision measurements of $(g-2)_\mu$. The former will greatly
543: benefit from better $e^+ e^-$ data below 3 GeV.
544:
545:
546: \begin{figure}[t]
547: \centering
548: \epsfig{figure=m01_sef2_theta.ps,width=8cm,height=8cm}
549: \caption{Measurements of the effective leptonic $\sin^2\theta_W$ and the
550: predictions of the Standard Model with uncertainties due to
551: $\Delta\alpha^{(5)}_{had}(M_Z^2)$ and $m_t$.}
552: \label{fig:lepewwg}
553: \end{figure}
554:
555: \begin{figure}[t]
556: \centering
557: \epsfig{figure=m01_blueband.ps,width=8cm,height=8cm}
558: \caption{Light Higgs mass prediction of precision electroweak data, with
559: uncertainty due to hadronic corrections.}
560: \label{fig:blueband}
561: \end{figure}
562:
563: \subsection{Experimental Requirements}
564:
565: \begin{figure*}[t]
566: \centering
567: \includegraphics*[width=.45\textwidth]{E214_Bettoni_0707_fig2a.eps}
568: \includegraphics*[width=.45\textwidth]{E214_Bettoni_0707_fig2b.eps}
569: \caption{PEP-N detector layout: side view (left) and top view (right).}
570: \label{fig:layout}
571: \end{figure*}
572:
573: Two methods can be used to measure R:
574: \begin{itemize}
575: \item {\bf Inclusive approach:} hadronic events are
576: defined inclusively by requiring a minimum number of particles in the
577: detector.
578: In order to measure the cross section $\sigma (e^+e^- \rightarrow hadrons)$
579: the acceptance is required. Due to the large number
580: of contributing channels, a Monte Carlo simulation is used,
581: leading to potentially large systematic errors and rendering this method
582: unsuitable for a high-precision (1-2 \%) measurement of R.
583: \item {\bf Exclusive approach}: the cross section of each individual channel
584: contributing to R is measured. Events must be completely reconstructed
585: with high efficiency, and acceptances for each channel must be well known.
586: With this method an accuracy of 1-2 \% in R can be
587: reached, as shown by the recent VEPP-2M measurements.
588: \end{itemize}
589:
590: To measure R with a precision of the
591: order of 2 \% (or better), the PEP-N experiment is designed to
592: use the exclusive method. The detector has a large acceptance
593: and is able to measure the absolute position of charged and neutral particles.
594: In addition, since
595: $\sigma(e^+e^- \rightarrow n\overline{n})$ is a sizeable fraction
596: of the total hadronic cross section (e.g. 2.5 \% at $\sqrt{s} = 2\ {\rm GeV}$),
597: $n\overline{n}$ detection capability is needed.
598:
599: The proposed PEP-N detector must satisfy the following requirements:
600:
601: \begin{itemize}
602: \item {\bf Low mass tracking.} In the energy range of
603: PEP-N multiple scattering
604: contributes significantly to the momentum resolution ($\approx 2 \%$);
605: \item {\bf Momentum measurement with good accuracy.} A high-precision
606: measurement of R requires the ability to reconstruct efficiently every
607: individual final state. This can be
608: done by means of topological selections
609: and kinematic fitting. The ability
610: to identify each channel contributing
611: to R depends crucially
612: on a high-precision measurement of the
613: momenta.
614: \item {\bf Electromagnetic (EM) calorimetry.}
615: The EM calorimeter provides
616: the direction and energy of photons with high
617: precision and accuracy down to 100 MeV or below, and
618: identifies Bhabhas used for the luminosity
619: measurement.
620: \item{\bf Particle ID} is necessary for $\pi/K$ separation;
621: this feature
622: is crucial to distinguish between and reconstruct efficiently
623: final states containing pions and kaons.
624: \item{\bf Luminosity measurement} with an accuracy of the
625: order of 1 \% or better.
626: \item{\bf $n\overline{n}$ capability}
627: \end{itemize}
628:
629: As PEP-N is an asymmetric machine, the CM is travelling at
630: $0.6 < \beta_{CM} < 0.94$.
631: In consequence, slow
632: particles in the CM frame are boosted
633: to momenta ranging from a few hundred
634: MeV to 1-2 GeV, simplifying detection and reducing the angular coverage
635: needed to obtain full acceptance.
636: The asymmetric operation has the additional advantage
637: of simplifying beam separation.
638:
639: Another important feature of the PEP-N design
640: is the magnet. The magnetic
641: field required to perform beam separation with minimal interference
642: with PEP-II operation is a
643: weak dipole field ($B \approx 0.3\ T$). This
644: field is also used by the experiment for the measurement of
645: charged particle momenta. Therefore, the tracking system is housed
646: inside the magnet gap which, as a consequence, has to be made big enough
647: to give a suitable acceptance. Considerable effort has been expended
648: to design a magnet with a sufficiently uniform field.
649:
650:
651: Assuming an average instantaneous luminosity
652: of $5 \times 10^{30} {\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$
653: and a detection efficiency of 50 \%, the expected
654: hadronic event rate for the
655: measurement of R is 10,000 events per day.
656: A 1-2 day data taking period at each CM energy
657: provides statistical accuracies better than 1 \%.
658: PEP-N plans to take data at intervals of 10 MeV.
659: Several hundred days
660: of data taking are required
661: to cover the energy region between 1.2 GeV and 3.15 GeV.
662:
663:
664: Taking a maximum total cross section of 100 nb
665: and maximum instantaneous
666: luminosities of $10^{31} {\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$, the
667: event rate (excluding
668: backgrounds) is 1 Hz. Backgrounds will increase this rate
669: but should present no problem for the detector.
670:
671: The proposed PEP-N detector layout is shown in fig. \ref{fig:layout}.
672: The central detector is housed inside the magnet gap. It
673: consists of a time projection chamber (TPC) using a slow He based gas
674: providing $\sigma = 200-300 \mu{\rm m}$ and dE/dx capability. It is
675: proposed to use GEMs for
676: the readout to eliminate the $E \times B$ term. The EM
677: calorimeter modules are
678: located outside the magnet. Energy resolution of a few percent
679: down to 100 MeV and good time resolution can be achieved with a lead and
680: scintillating fiber technology based on the KLOE design.
681: Particle ID is achieved with two 10 cm thick KEDR style
682: aerogel counters, which achieve $4 \sigma ~\pi/K$
683: separation between 600 MeV/c and 1.5 GeV/c.
684: The hadron calorimeter design was not chosen at the time of
685: writing this report. A scintillator based calorimeter
686: or an extension in depth of the EM
687: calorimeter were under investigation.
688: The dipole magnet and
689: the central detector are not centered on the interaction
690: point. They are shifted 25 cm in the forward direction
691: to increase the
692: path inside the magnetic field for particles produced
693: in the forward direction.
694:
695: The forward detector consists of two
696: silicon aerogel counters for particle ID,
697: additional tracking planes (drift chambers)
698: as well as EM and hadronic
699: calorimeter modules.
700: Also shown in fig. \ref{fig:layout} are the HER (High Energy Ring), LER
701: and VLER beam pipes.
702:
703: The proposed schedule for PEP-N is as follows. A proposal review is planned
704: for summer of 2001. If approval is granted, then
705: in 2003 the injector gun, linac, and transport lines would be installed. Also modifications to the
706: PEP-II LER and HER would be made. The first injector beam test would be in October 2003. In summer 2004, the VLER ring,
707: detector magnet, and detector would be installed. In October 2004,
708: first VLER injected beam tests are foreseen.
709: In January 2005, first collisions would occur.
710:
711:
712: \subsection{Summary}
713:
714: The determination of R in this energy range is of particular importance and is timely.
715: The statistical error achievable is negligible. However, there was
716: no clear demonstration that the required systematic error of about 2\%
717: (dominated by knowledge of the acceptance) is achievable. Studies stimulated
718: by the E2 group are ongoing to address this concern.
719: In one approach, a CLEO-c $10^9$ {\it J}/$\Psi$ run would
720: yield precision {\it J}/$\Psi$ absolute
721: branching ratios, which could be used by PEP-N in a calibration run at the
722: {\it J}/$\Psi$ for a precision determination
723: of the acceptance. The PEP-N detector design appears to be sound.
724: There is no new technology except for the GEM readout of the TPC.
725: We conclude that the physics program of PEP-N is well defined,
726: important and unique and the required number of events can be
727: obtained in five years. However, control
728: of systematic errors needs to be carefully evaluated before proceeding.
729:
730:
731:
732:
733:
734: \section{Charm Physics with CLEO-$\lowercase{\rm c}$}
735:
736: For many years, the CLEO experiment at the Cornell Electron Storage
737: Ring, CESR, operating on the $\Upsilon$(4S) resonance, has provided much of the
738: world's information about the $B_{d}$ and $B_{u}$ mesons.
739: At the same time, CLEO, using the copious continuum pair production at the
740: $\Upsilon$(4S) resonance
741: has been a leader in the study of charm and $\tau$ physics. Now that the
742: asymmetric \bm-factories have achieved high luminosity, CLEO is
743: uniquely positioned to advance
744: the knowledge of heavy flavor physics by carrying out several measurements
745: near charm threshold, at center of mass energies in the 3.5-5.0 GeV region.
746: These measurements address crucial topics which benefit from the high
747: luminosity and experimental constraints which exist near threshold but
748: have not been carried out at existing charm factories because the luminosity
749: has been too low, or have been carried out previously with meager statistics.
750: They include:
751: \begin{enumerate}
752: \item Charm decay constants $f_D, f_{D_s}$;
753: \item Charm absolute branching fractions;
754: \item Semileptonic decay form factors;
755: \item Direct determination of $V_{cd}$ \& $V_{cs}$;
756: \item QCD studies including: \\
757: Charmonium and bottomonium spectroscopy; \\
758: Glueball and exotic searches; \\
759: Measurement of R between 3 and 5 GeV, via scans; and \\
760: Measurement of R between 1 and 3 GeV, via ISR (Initial State Radiation).
761: \item Search for new physics via charm mixing, {\it CP} violation
762: and rare decays; and
763: \item $\tau$ decay physics.
764: \end{enumerate}
765:
766: The CLEO detector can carry out this program with only minimal modifications.
767: The CLEO-c project is described at length in \cite{cleo-c}.
768: It was also described in several talks at this workshop:
769: \cite{artuso1} - \cite{maravin}. Theoretical issues in charm physics
770: were covered in talks \cite{Mackenzie} - \cite{Brodsky2}.
771: A very modest upgrade to the storage ring, described elsewhere
772: in these proceedings, is required to achieve the required luminosity.
773: Below, we summarize the advantages of
774: running at charm threshold, the minor modifications required to optimize
775: the detector, examples of key analyses, a description of the proposed run
776: plan, and a summary of the physics impact of the program.
777:
778:
779: \subsection {Advantages of running at charm threshold}
780:
781: The \bm-factories, running on the $\Upsilon$(4S)
782: will have produced 500 million
783: charm pairs from the underlying continuum by 2005. However, there are
784: significant advantages of running at
785: charm threshold:
786: \begin{enumerate}
787: \item Charm events produced at threshold are extremely clean;
788: \item Double tag events, which are key to making absolute branching fraction
789: measurements, are pristine;
790: \item Signal/Background is optimum at threshold;
791: \item Neutrino reconstruction is clean; and
792: \item Quantum coherence aids $D$ mixing and {\it CP} violation studies
793: \end{enumerate}
794: These advantages are dramatically illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:cleoc_event},
795: which shows a picture of a simulated and fully reconstructed
796: $\psi(3770)\to D\bar{D}$ event.
797:
798: \begin{figure}[t]
799: \begin{center}
800: \epsfig{figure=cleoc_event.ps,width=8cm,height=8cm}
801: \caption {A doubly tagged event at the $\psi(3770)$}
802: \label{fig:cleoc_event}
803: \end{center}
804: \end{figure}
805:
806: \begin{figure}[t]
807: \begin{center}
808: \epsfig{figure=cleo3_det.ps,width=8cm,height=8cm}
809: \caption {The CLEO III detector}
810: \label{fig:cleo3_det}
811: \end{center}
812: \end{figure}
813:
814:
815:
816:
817:
818:
819: \begin{figure*}
820: \begin{center}
821: \epsfig{figure=dk_rich.ps,width=8cm,height=8cm}
822: \epsfig{figure=kpi_rich.ps,width=8cm,height=8cm}
823: \caption
824: {(Left) Beam constrained mass for the Cabibbo allowed decay
825: $B\to D\pi$ and the
826: Cabibbo suppressed decay $B\to DK$ with and without RICH information.
827: The latter decay was
828: extremely difficult to observe in CLEO II/II.V, which did not have
829: a RICH detector. (Right)
830: The penguin dominated decay $B \to K\pi$.
831: This
832: mode is observed in CLEO III with a branching ratios consistent
833: with that found in CLEO II/II.V.}
834: \label{fig:rich}
835: \end{center}
836: \end{figure*}
837:
838:
839:
840:
841:
842:
843: \subsection {The CLEO-III Detector : Performance, Modifications and issues}
844:
845: The CLEO III detector, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cleo3_det}, consists of
846: a new silicon tracker, a new drift chamber,
847: and a Ring Imaging Cherenkov Counter (RICH), together with the
848: CLEO II/II.V magnet, electromagnetic calorimeter and muon chambers.
849: The upgraded detector was installed and commissioned during the fall of 1999
850: and spring of 2000.
851: Subsequently, operation has been very reliable (see below for a caveat)
852: and a very high quality data set has been obtained.
853: To give an idea of the power of the CLEO III detector,
854: Figure~\ref{fig:rich} (left plot) shows the beam
855: constrained mass for the Cabibbo allowed decay $B\to D\pi$ and
856: the Cabibbo suppressed decay $B\to DK$ with and without RICH information.
857: The latter decay was extremely difficult to observe in
858: CLEO II/II.V, which did not have a RICH detector.
859: In the right plot of Figure~\ref{fig:rich},
860: the penguin dominated decay $B \to K\pi$ and the tree dominated
861: decay $B\to \pi\pi$ are shown.
862: Both of these modes are observed in CLEO III with branching ratios
863: consistent with those found in CLEO
864: II/II.V. and are also in agreement with recent Belle and \babar\ results.
865: Figure~\ref{fig:rich} is a demonstration that CLEO III performs very well
866: indeed.
867:
868:
869: %
870: % This para has bene modified accordng to Sheldon's requet for
871: %a simpler, briefer, statement.
872: Unfortunately, there is one detector subsystem that is not performing well.
873: %The silicon detector, Si3, has developed an unexpected sensitivity to
874: %radiation.
875: %This sensitivity manifests itself as arcs of significant inefficiency on
876: %the n side of the sensors. The arcs first appeared in the innermost layer
877: %after the detector had
878: %received a dose of a few kRad, well below the dose at which
879: %detectable radiation damage was expected.
880: %With time the regions of inefficiency have begun to appear
881: %successively in layers at greater radius,
882: %and the inefficiency has also spread to the p-side.
883: The CLEO III silicon detector, Si3, has experienced an unexpected loss of efficiency
884: which is increasing with time. The cause of the inefficiency is unknown.
885: %Extensive variation in the operating parameters of Si3 have not led
886: %to the discovery of a cure and a
887: %beam test of a Si3 sensor at CERN has been inconclusive.
888: %There have been extensive discussions
889: %and meetings with, Hamamatsu, the sensor manufacturer.
890: %Unfortunately a cause of the inefficiency
891: %has not been identified. However it is the majority opinion
892: %that the problem is almost certainly
893: %intrinsic to the silicon boule from which the sensors were manufactured.
894: The situation is under
895: constant evaluation but it is likely that Si3
896: will be replaced with a wire vertex chamber for CLEO-c.
897: We note that if one was to design a charm factory detector from
898: scratch the tracking would be entirely gas based to ensure
899: that the detector material was kept to a minimum.
900: CLEO-c simulations indicate that a simple six layer stereo tracker
901: inserted into the CLEO III
902: drift chamber as a silicon replacement would provide a system
903: with superior momentum resolution
904: to the current CLEO III tracking system.
905: The CLEO collaboration therefore proposes to build such
906: a device for CLEO-c at a cost of order \$100,000.
907:
908: Due to machine issues, CLEO also plans to lower the solenoid field
909: strength to 1 T from 1.5 T. The other
910: parts of the detector do not require modification.
911: The dE/dx and Ring Imaging Cerenkov counters
912: are expected to work well over the CLEO-c momentum range.
913: The electromagnetic calorimeter
914: works well and has fewer photons to deal with at 3-5 GeV than at 10 GeV.
915: Triggers will work as before.
916: Minor upgrades may be required of the Data Acquisition system to
917: handle peak data transfer rates.
918: CESR conversion to CESR-c requires 18 m of wiggler magnets
919: at a cost of $\sim$ \$4M and is discussed elsewhere.
920: The conclusion is that, with the addition of the
921: replacement wire chamber, CLEO is expected to work well in the 3-5 GeV
922: energy range at the expected rates.
923:
924:
925: \subsection {Examples of analyses with CLEO-c}
926:
927: The main targets for the CKM physics program at CLEO-c are
928: absolute branching ratio
929: measurements of hadronic, leptonic, and semileptonic decays.
930: The first of these provides an absolute
931: scale for all charm and hence all beauty decays.
932: The second measures decay constants and the third
933: measures form factors and, in combination with theory, allows
934: the determination of $V_{cd}$ and $V_{cs}$.
935:
936: \subsubsection {Absolute branching ratios}
937:
938: The key idea is to reconstruct a $D$ meson in as many hadronic modes
939: as possible.
940: This, then, constitutes the tag. Figure~\ref{fig:d0kpi}
941: shows tags in the mode $D\to K\pi$. Note the y axis is a log scale.
942: Tag modes are very clean. The signal to background ratio is $\sim$ 5000/1
943: for the example shown.
944: Since $\psi(3770) \to D\bar{D}$, reconstruction of a second $D$ meson in a
945: tagged event to a final state X, corrected by the efficiency which is very
946: well known, and divided by
947: the number of $D$ tags , also very well known, is a measure of
948: the absolute branching ratio
949: $Br(D\to X)$. Figure~\ref{fig:br_dkpipi} shows the $K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{+}$
950: signal from doubly tagged events. It is essentially background free.
951: The simplicity of $\psi(3770) \to D\bar{D}$
952: events combined with the absence of background allows the determination of
953: absolute branching ratios with extremely small systematic errors.
954: This is a key advantage of running at threshold.
955:
956:
957: \begin{figure}
958: \begin{center}
959: \epsfig{figure=d0kpi.eps,width=7cm,height=7cm}
960: \caption
961: {$K\pi$ invariant mass in $\psi(3770)\to D\bar{D}$ events,
962: showing a strikingly clean signal for
963: $D\to K\pi$. The y axis is logarithmic. The S/N $\sim$ 5000/1.}
964: \label{fig:d0kpi}
965: \end{center}
966: \end{figure}
967:
968: \begin{figure}
969: \begin{center}
970: \epsfig{figure=br_dkpipi.ps,width=7cm,height=7cm}
971: \caption
972: {$K\pi\pi$ invariant mass in $\psi(3770)\to D\bar{D}$
973: events, where the other D in the event has
974: already been reconstructed.
975: A clean signal for $D\to K\pi\pi$ is observed and the absolute
976: branching ratio $Br(D\to K\pi\pi)$ is measured by counting events
977: in the peak.}
978: \label{fig:br_dkpipi}
979: \end{center}
980: \end{figure}
981:
982:
983: \subsubsection {Leptonic decay $D_s\to\mu\nu$}
984:
985:
986: This is a crucial measurement because it provides information which
987: can be used to extract the weak decay constant, $f_{D_{s}}$. The
988: constraints provided by running at threshold are critical to extracting
989: the signal.
990:
991: The analysis procedure is as follows:
992: \begin{enumerate}
993: \item Fully reconstruct one $D_{s}$;
994: \item Require one additional charged track and no additional photons;
995: \item Compute the missing mass squared (MM2), which peaks at zero for
996: a decay where only a neutrino is unobserved.
997: \end{enumerate}
998:
999: The missing mass resolution, which is of order $\sim M_{\pi^0}$,
1000: is good enough to reject the backgrounds to this process as shown in
1001: Fig.~\ref{fig:munu_pienu}.
1002: There is no need to identify muons, which helps reduce the systematic error.
1003: One can inspect the single prong to make sure it is not an electron.
1004: This provides a check of the background level since the leptonic decay
1005: to an electron is severely helicity-suppressed and no signal
1006: is expected in this mode.
1007:
1008: \begin{figure*}
1009: \begin{center}
1010: \epsfig{figure=dsmunu.ps,width=6cm,height=6cm}
1011: \epsfig{figure=d0pienu.ps,width=6cm,height=6cm}
1012: \caption
1013: {(Left) Missing mass for $D_{s}D_{s}$ tagged pairs produced
1014: at $\sqrt{s}=4100$ MeV. Events due to the decay $D_s\to\mu\nu$ are shaded.
1015: (Right) The difference between the missing energy and missing
1016: momentum in $\psi(3770)$ tagged events for
1017: the Cabibbo suppressed decay $D\to \pi \ell\nu$ (shaded).
1018: The unshaded histogram arises from the ten times more copiously produced
1019: Cabibbo allowed
1020: transition $D\to K \ell\nu$, where the K is outside the fiducial volume of
1021: the RICH.}
1022: \label{fig:munu_pienu}
1023: \end{center}
1024: \end{figure*}
1025:
1026:
1027: \subsubsection {Semileptonic decay $D\to \pi \ell\nu$}
1028:
1029: The analysis procedure is as follows:
1030: \begin{enumerate}
1031: \item Fully reconstruct one D;
1032: \item Select events with one additional electron and one hadronic track;
1033: \item Calculate the variable $U = E_{miss} - P_{miss}$, which
1034: peaks at zero for semileptonic decays.
1035: \end{enumerate}
1036:
1037:
1038: Using the above procedure results in the right-hand plot of
1039: Figure~\ref{fig:munu_pienu}.
1040: With CLEO-c, for the first time it will become possible to make
1041: absolute branching ratio and
1042: absolute form factor measurements of every charm meson
1043: semileptonic pseudoscalar to
1044: pseudoscalar and pseudoscalar to vector transition.
1045: This will be a lattice calibration data set without
1046: equal. Figure~\ref{fig:error_br} graphically shows the improvement
1047: in absolute semileptonic branching ratios that CLEO-c will make.
1048:
1049: \subsection {Run Plan}
1050:
1051: CLEO-c must run at various center of mass energies in order to
1052: achieve its physics goals. The ``run plan'' currently used
1053: to calculate the physics reach is given below. Note that item 1 is prior
1054: to machine conversion and the remaining items are post machine conversion.
1055: \begin{enumerate}
1056: \item 2002: $\Upsilon$'s -- 1-2 $fb^{-1}$ each at
1057: $\Upsilon(1S), \Upsilon(2S), \Upsilon(3S)$ \\
1058: Spectroscopy, electromagnetic transition matrix elements, the leptonic width.
1059: $\Gamma_{ee}$, and searches for the yet to be discovered
1060: $h_b, \eta_b$ with 10-20 times the existing world's data sample.
1061: \item 2003: $\psi(3770)$ -- 3 $fb^{-1}$ \\
1062: 30 million events, 6 million tagged D decays (310 times MARK III).
1063: \item 2004: 4100 MeV -- 3 $fb^{-1}$ \\
1064: 1.5 million $D_{s}D_{s}$ events, 0.3 million tagged $D_s$ decays
1065: (480 times MARK III, 130 times BES).
1066: \item 2005: $J/\psi$ -- 1 $fb^{-1}$ \\
1067: 1 Billion $J/\psi$ decays (170 times MARK III, 20 times BES II).
1068: \end{enumerate}
1069:
1070: \subsection{Physics Reach of CLEO-c}
1071:
1072: Several talks to the E2 working group addressed the competition CLEO-c
1073: will face from BESII/III~\cite{BESzhao},
1074: \babar~\cite{LOU}, and experiments at
1075: hadron machines ~\cite{FOCUS},\cite{DTEV}.
1076: Tables~\ref{tab:charm}, \ref{tab:ckm} , and \ref{tab:comparison},
1077: and Figures~\ref{fig:error_br} and
1078: \ref{fig:comparison} summarize the CLEO-c measurements
1079: of charm weak
1080: decays, and compare the precision obtainable with CLEO-c
1081: to the expected precision at \babar,
1082: which expects to have recorded 500 million charm pairs by 2005.
1083: CLEO-c clearly achieves far greater
1084: precision for many measurements.
1085: The reason for this is the ability to measure absolute branching
1086: ratios by tagging and the absence of background at threshold.
1087: In those topics where CLEO-c is
1088: not dominant, it remains comparable or complementary to the \bm-factories.
1089:
1090: Also shown in Table~\ref{tab:comparison} is a summary of the data set size
1091: for CLEO-c and BES II at the $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$,
1092: and the precision with which R, the ratio of the $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation
1093: cross section into hadrons to $\mu$ pairs, can be measured.
1094: Since the CLEO-c data sets are over an order of magnitude larger, the
1095: precision with which R is measured is a factor of three higher.
1096: In addition, the CLEO detector is vastly superior to the BES II detector.
1097: Taken together, the CLEO-c datasets at the $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$ will be
1098: qualitatively and quantitatively superior to any previous dataset
1099: in the charmonium sector thereby
1100: providing discovery potential for glueballs and exotics without equal.
1101:
1102:
1103:
1104: \begin{table*}[t]
1105: \begin{center}
1106: \caption[]
1107: {Summary of CLEO-c charm decay measurements.}
1108: \label{tab:charm}
1109: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
1110: Topic & Reaction & Energy & $L $ & current & CLEO-c \\
1111: & & (MeV) & $(fb^{-1})$ & sensitivity & sensitivity \\
1112: \hline
1113: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Decay constant} &
1114: \multicolumn{5}{c}{}\\
1115: \hline
1116: $f_D$ & $D^+\to\mu^+\nu$ & 3770 & 3 & UL & 2.3\% \\
1117: \hline
1118: $f_{D_s}$ & $D_{s}^+\to\mu^+\nu$ & 4140 & 3 & 14\% & 1.9\% \\
1119: \hline
1120: $f_{D_s}$ & $D_{s}^+\to\mu^+\nu$ & 4140 & 3 & 33\% & 1.6\% \\
1121: \hline
1122: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Absolute Branching Fractions} &
1123: \multicolumn{4}{c}{}\\
1124: \hline
1125: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$Br(D^0 \to K\pi)$} & 3770 & 3 & 2.4\% & 0.6\% \\
1126: \hline
1127: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$Br(D^+ \to K\pi\pi)$} & 3770 & 3 & 7.2\% & 0.7\% \\
1128: \hline
1129: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$Br(D_s^+\to\phi\pi)$} & 4140 & 3 & 25\% & 1.9\% \\
1130: \hline
1131: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$Br(\Lambda_c\to pK\pi)$} & 4600 & 1 & 26\% & 4\% \\
1132: \end{tabular}
1133: \end{center}
1134: \end{table*}
1135:
1136:
1137:
1138:
1139: \begin{table}[t]
1140: \begin{center}
1141: \caption[]
1142: {Summary of direct CKM reach with CLEO-c}
1143: \label{tab:ckm}
1144: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
1145: Topic & Reaction & Energy & $L $ & current & CLEO-c \\
1146: & & (MeV) & $(fb^{-1})$ & sensitivity & sensitivity \\
1147: \hline
1148: $V_{cs}$ & $D^0\to K\ell^+\nu$ & 3770 & 3 & 16\% & 1.6\% \\
1149: \hline
1150: $V_{cd}$ & $D^0\to\pi\ell^+\nu$ & 3770 & 3 & 7\% & 1.7\% \\
1151: \end{tabular}
1152: \end{center}
1153: \end{table}
1154:
1155:
1156: \begin{table*}[t]
1157: \begin{center}
1158: \caption[]
1159: {Comparison of CLEO-c reach to \babar\ and BES}
1160: \label{tab:comparison}
1161: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c||c|c|c}
1162: Quantity & CLEO-c & \babar\ & Quantity & CLEO-c & BES-II \\
1163: \hline
1164: $f_D$ & 2.3\% & 10-20\% & \#$J\psi$ & $10^9$ & $5\times 10^7$ \\
1165: \hline
1166: $f_{D_s}$ & 1.7\% & 5-10\% & $\psi'$ & $10^8$ & $3.9\times 10^6$ \\
1167: \hline
1168: $Br(D^0 \to K\pi)$ & 0.7\% & 2-3\% & 4.14 GeV & $1\,fb^{-1}$ &$23\,pb^{-1}$\\
1169: \hline
1170: $Br(D^+ \to K\pi\pi)$ & 1.9\% & 3-5\% & 3-5 R Scan & 2\% & 6.6\% \\
1171: \hline
1172: $Br(D_s^+\to\phi\pi)$ & 1.3\% & 5-10\% & \multicolumn{3}{c}{} \\
1173: \end{tabular}
1174: \end{center}
1175: \end{table*}
1176:
1177:
1178: \subsection{CLEO-c and Future Competition}
1179:
1180: BES/BEPC is currently proposing to upgrade the machine and
1181: detector~\cite{BESzhao}.
1182: In response to the CESR-c/CLEO-c proposal, the design goal for
1183: the machine, BEPC II, was recently changed from a peak luminosity of
1184: $ 5 \times 10^{31} {\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1} $ to a two
1185: ring machine with a peak luminosity in excess of
1186: $ 10^{33} {\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1} $. A completely new detector, BES III,
1187: would be built possibly around an electromagnetic calorimeter
1188: made of BGO crystals from the L3 experiment. The detector design is evolving
1189: and is the subject of a planned workshop in Beijing in October 2001.
1190: As now envisaged BEPCII/BESIII would come on line around 2006
1191: and would accumulate a data sample
1192: one order of magnitude larger than CLEO-c.
1193: The physics program of BES III is identical to CLEO-c.
1194: For BES III to make a significant impact it
1195: is absolutely essential that the detector be as good as the CLEO-c detector.
1196: If that can be achieved, the significantly larger luminosity of BEPCII over
1197: CESR-c is likely to be a considerable advantage for new physics reach.
1198: For CKM physics, theory will have to sharpen for the larger statistics of
1199: BES III to be used to full advantage.
1200:
1201: A program is underway at TJNAL to systematically explore the light mesons
1202: with masses up to 2.5 GeV/c$^{2}$ using photoproduction
1203: with the high quality low emittance CW photon beams available there.
1204: The program will be capable of exploring both
1205: light meson states and searching for exotic states in this mass region. A new detector
1206: is proposed along with an upgrade of CEBAF to 12 GeV. The target date for completion
1207: of construction is 2006. The goals of HALL-D and CLEO-c have some overlap
1208: but there is also complementarity. CLEO-c is focusing on glue rich states and vector
1209: hybrids both light and heavy. Hall-D is focused on states with exotic quantum numbers.
1210:
1211: There is a proposal from the GSI accelerator in Germany for a High Energy Storage Ring
1212: (HESR) for antiprotons. One part of the program of this facility
1213: will be a search for gluonic excitations, glueballs and hybrids in the charmonium sector.
1214: This interesting facilty was not discussed in the E2 group as GSI was not represented.
1215: However, charmonium studies are likely to be complementary to CLEO-c.
1216:
1217: \subsection{CLEO-c Physics Impact}
1218:
1219: CLEO-c will provide crucial validation of Lattice QCD,
1220: which will be able to calculate many quantities with claimed
1221: accuracies of 1-2\%.
1222: The CLEO-c decay constant and semileptonic data will provide a ``golden'',
1223: and timely test
1224: while CLEO-c QCD and charmonium data will provide additional benchmarks.
1225:
1226: CLEO-c will provide, in a timely fashion, dramatically improved knowledge
1227: of absolute charm branching fractions,
1228: which are now contributing significant errors to measurements involving
1229: b's. CLEO-c will significantly improve knowledge of those CKM matrix elements
1230: which are now not very well known. In particular,
1231: $V_{cd}$ and $V_{cs}$ will be determined directly by CLEO-c data and LQCD,
1232: or other theoretical techniques.
1233: $V_{cb}, V_{ub}, V_{td}$
1234: and $V_{ts}$ will be determined with enormously improved precision
1235: using \bm-factory data and lattice gauge results once the
1236: CLEO-c program of lattice validation is complete.
1237: Table~\ref{tab:ckm_summary} gives a summary of the situation.
1238: CLEO-c data alone will also allow new tests of the unitarity of the CKM matrix.
1239: The unitarity of the second
1240: row of the CKM matrix will be probed at the 3\% level, which
1241: is comparable to our current knowledge of the first row.
1242: CLEO-c data will also test unitarity by measuring
1243: the ratio of the long sides of the
1244: squashed $cu$ triangle to 1.3\%.
1245:
1246:
1247: Finally the potential to observe new forms of matter, glueballs,
1248: hybrids, etc in $J/\psi$ decays, and new
1249: physics through sensitivity to charm mixing, {\it CP} violation,
1250: and rare decays provides a discovery
1251: component to the program.
1252:
1253: \begin{table}[t]
1254: \begin{center}
1255: \caption[]
1256: {Current knowledge of CKM matrix elements (row one). Knowledge of
1257: CKM matrix elements after CLEO-c (row two).
1258: See the text for further details.}
1259: \label{tab:ckm_summary}
1260: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
1261: $V_{cd}$ & $V_{cs}$ & $V_{cb}$ & $V_{ub}$ & $V_{td}$ & $V_{ts}$ \\
1262: \hline
1263: 7\% & 16\% & 5\% & 25\% & 36\% & 39\% \\
1264: \hline
1265: 1.7\% & 1.6\% & 3\% & 5\% & 5\% & 5\% \\
1266: \end{tabular}
1267: \end{center}
1268: \end{table}
1269:
1270: \begin{figure}
1271: \begin{center}
1272: \vspace{0.5cm}
1273: \epsfig{figure=error_br.eps,height=8cm,angle=-90}
1274: \caption
1275: {Absolute branching ratio current precision from the PDG
1276: (left entry) and precision
1277: attainable at CLEO-c (right entry ) for twelve semileptonic charm decays.}
1278: \label{fig:error_br}
1279: \end{center}
1280: \end{figure}
1281:
1282: \begin{figure}
1283: \begin{center}
1284: \epsfig{figure=comparison.eps,height=8cm,angle=-90}
1285: \caption
1286: {Comparison of CLEO-c (left) \babar\ (center) and PDG2001 (right)
1287: for eight physics quantities indicated in the key.}
1288: \label{fig:comparison}
1289: \end{center}
1290: \end{figure}
1291:
1292:
1293: \section{$\lowercase{e^{+}e^{-}}$ \bm-Factories and
1294: Their Plans for the Future}
1295:
1296: The two asymmetric \bm-factories, PEP-II and KEKB, have achieved reliable
1297: operation at high luminosities of a few $10^{33}{\rm cm}^{-2} {\rm s}^{-1}$ in
1298: a remarkably short period of time after their startup. These luminosities
1299: have enabled their experiments, \babar\ and Belle, respectively, to
1300: observe {\it CP} violation in the decays of the $B^{o}$ meson. Operational
1301: experience with both machines has now led to plans for incremental
1302: upgrades which eventually are expected to produce luminosities of
1303: $10^{35}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$. For the purposes of this report, we will
1304: refer to these as ``super \bm-factories'', with a lower case `s'. While
1305: this is happening, hadron collider experiments at the Tevatron,
1306: CDF and D0, will begin to produce \bm\ physics results that will compete
1307: with, and in some cases exceed, the sensitivity of the $e^{+}e^{-}$
1308: \bm-factories. Dedicated experiments at the Tevatron and the LHC,
1309: BTeV, and LHCb, and the two large general
1310: purpose experiments at the LHC, CMS and ATLAS, will begin to contribute
1311: at very high levels of sensitivity to the study of {\it CP} violation
1312: and rare decays in the $B$ system, starting around 2007. The SLAC
1313: group has proposed a response to this, which we refer to as the
1314: ``Super \bm-factory'', which has a luminosity
1315: goal of $10^{36}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$. We write this with an uppercase
1316: `S' to emphasize that it is aiming at a factor of 10 higher luminosity
1317: than superKEK.
1318: This requires a new machine and
1319: a very significant upgrade of the \babar\ detector. KEK seems, at present, to
1320: have no plans to pursue \bm\ physics after the dedicated hadron collider $B$
1321: experiments appear on the scene. We present the plans for the two phases of
1322: \bm-factory upgrade, emphasizing physics reach, and compare their reach to the
1323: physics reach of the hadron collider experiments that will be coming on
1324: in the same period. This part of the report is based on
1325: the following set of talks to the E2 working group ~\cite{Hitlin} - ~\cite{Robertson},
1326: much lively discussion
1327: and much work during the summer study, especially by the E2 subgroup
1328: on Super \bm-factories organized by David Hitlin~\cite{SuperBaBar}.
1329: The projected evolution of luminosity in these
1330: machines is shown in Table~\ref{tab:lumin_evol}.
1331:
1332: In addition to these two circular machines, there are proposals to
1333: construct multi-hundred GeV center of mass energy $e^{+}e^{-}$
1334: Linear Colliders. This has raised the prospect of further running
1335: on the $Z$-pole, where: the $b$-quark cross section is very high, $\sim$7nb;
1336: where all species of $B$ mesons and baryons are produced;
1337: there is significant boost for time-dependent studies; and
1338: the events are quite clean allowing flavor tagging to be done efficiently.
1339: While most of the time the machine will operate at a center of mass
1340: energy well above the $Z$-pole, it is possible to invent a scheme where
1341: continuous $Z$-pole running is possible. Such a scheme is proposed for
1342: TESLA at
1343: DESY where there is a second beam for a Free Electron Laser. Pulses can
1344: be stolen from that to form a so-called Giga-$Z$ machine. The physics reach of
1345: this machine is explored, some areas in which it can do unique studies
1346: are described, and its sensitivities are compared with those of the circular
1347: $e^{+}e^{-}$ machines and the hadron colliders.
1348:
1349: \begin{table}[t]
1350: \begin{center}
1351: \caption[]
1352: {Predicted Evolution of Luminosity and Number of Produced $B$'s in Asymmetric
1353: $B$ Factories}
1354: \label{tab:lumin_evol}
1355: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c} \hline
1356: & KEKB & KEKB & PEPII & PEPII & super & Super \\
1357: & 2001 & 2005 & 2001 & 2005 & KEKB & \babar \\
1358: & & & & & $>$ 2007
1359: & $>$ 200X \\ \hline
1360: $L\times 10^{33}$ & 4.1 & 10 & 3 & 10 & 100 & 1000 \\ \hline
1361: $B$'s/$10^{7}$s& 8.2$\times\,10^{7}$ & 2$\times\,10^{8}$ &
1362: 6$\times\, 10^{7}$ & 2$\times\,10^{8}$ & 2$\times\,10^{9}$ &
1363: 2$\times\,10^{10}$ \\ \hline
1364: \end{tabular}
1365: \end{center}
1366: \end{table}
1367:
1368:
1369: \subsection{KEKB/Belle Upgrade plans}
1370:
1371: KEK plans for call for an upgrade to $10^{35}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$,
1372: which corresponds to
1373: $10^{9}$ \bm\ pairs per year. Towards the end of this period, which they
1374: see as extending to around 2007/8, they expect to be overtaken by competition
1375: from hadron collliders. However, they believe that they will have significant
1376: advantages with respect to hadron colliders in terms of
1377: \begin{itemize}
1378: \item $\pi^{o}$ and $\gamma$ detection efficiency, and
1379: \item smaller backgrounds.
1380: \end{itemize}
1381: They look to techniques such as greater reliance on vertex separation cuts
1382: and full reconstruction tagging to reduce backgrounds below what they are
1383: today. With the improved backgrounds
1384: obtained with a detachment cut of about 2$\sigma$,
1385: they believe it will be possible to study decays with branching
1386: fractions at the level of 5$\times 10^{-7}$.
1387: Examples of decays that would then be accessible
1388: are $B^{-}\rightarrow K^{*o}K^{-}$
1389: and decays such as $B^{+}\rightarrow D^{+}K_{s}$ and
1390: $B^{+}\rightarrow D^{o}K^{+}$, which can be used to measure the CKM angle
1391: $\gamma$.
1392: In full reconstruction tagging, as many $B$'s as possible are
1393: fully reconstructed
1394: and then one studies the remnants, which must all be from the other $B$. This
1395: technique helps especially with states containing neutrinos, such
1396: as
1397: \begin{eqnarray}
1398: b & \rightarrow & ul\nu \\
1399: B & \rightarrow & \mu \nu \\
1400: b & \rightarrow & s \nu \bar{\nu}
1401: \end{eqnarray}
1402: The technique relies on the detector's hermeticity.
1403:
1404: The conclusion is that there are many significant physics studies they can
1405: do with approximately 5 years of running at a luminosity of $10^{35}$.
1406: The machine upgrade is an extrapolation of the current KEK configuration.
1407: It was discussed in section M2~\cite{Ohnishi}.
1408:
1409: Operation at $10^{35}$ has implications for the detector and the IR. The
1410: rates from collisions will be significantly higher which will lead to
1411: larger occupancy. Trigger rates and rates through the data acquisition system
1412: will be higher. There will be more synchrotron radiation, which
1413: will have to be removed by masking. There may be larger vacuum pressure
1414: resulting in higher background rates from Touschek scattering. There may
1415: need to be a larger crossing angle which may make it harder to shield
1416: backgrounds efficiently. The final quads may be moved closer to the IP
1417: to reduce $\beta^{*}$. And finally, the background at injection might be
1418: significantly worse.
1419:
1420: It is planned to use a 1 cm radius beampipe.
1421: Particle backgrounds will be controlled by massive masks around the inner
1422: vertex detectors, on the upstream beampipes and at other ``weak spots''.
1423: Nevertheless, the first few layers of the silicon vertex detector
1424: will have high occupancy and will be replaced by pixel detectors.
1425: Beampipe heating due especially to Higher Order Modes (HOM) requires that
1426: the beam pipe be water cooled. The Central Drift Chamber is undergoing a
1427: modification in 2002 to replace the two inner layers with a small cell
1428: chamber. It is expected to be able to handle superKEK rates. The CsI(Tl)
1429: calorimeter is slow and something may need to be done to it. The RPCs
1430: in the muon system already suffer from inefficiency due to local
1431: deadtime and will probably need to be replaced with wire chambers.
1432: The data acquisition system will also have to be upgraded.
1433:
1434: The upgrade to $10^{35}$ is believed to be feasible from a machine point of
1435: view. The detector will need several upgrades but these appear feasible
1436: as well.
1437: The physics case is based on the cleanliness of the signals and the ability
1438: to study modes that are very hard to measure in hadron colliders -- modes
1439: which include $\pi^{o}$'s and $\nu$'s. After several years of running
1440: at $10^{35}$, the $B$ physics program at KEK will probably end. A further
1441: push in luminosity would require a new machine configuration and
1442: a new detector and is not in their current plans.
1443:
1444:
1445:
1446:
1447: \subsection{PEP-II/\babar\ Upgrade Plans: Super B Factory and Super\babar}
1448:
1449: PEP-II and \babar\ expect to achieve an integrated luminosity of
1450: 500 fb$^{-1}$ (0.5 ab$^{-1}$) by around 2005. With that, they expect
1451: to achieve the following errors on the unitarity angles $\beta$ and $\alpha$:
1452: \begin{eqnarray}
1453: \sin 2\beta & \approx & 0.04 \\
1454: \sin 2 \alpha & \approx & 0.14
1455: \end{eqnarray}
1456: For details of these estimates and a discussion of the prospects and complications
1457: in the measurement of $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ see ~\cite{SuperBaBar}.
1458: % I have deleted the alpha and gamma
1459: % precision because with 500 fb^-1 alpha and gamma
1460: % are not measureablein a model indpendent way.
1461: %\begin{eqnarray}
1462: %\sin 2\beta & \approx & 0.04 \\
1463: %\alpha & \approx & 10^{o} \\
1464: %\gamma & \approx & 20^{o}
1465: %\end{eqnarray}
1466: Although the combined \babar\ and Belle integrated luminosity will be
1467: about 1 ab$^{-1}$ at this
1468: point and PEP-II will be delivering about 0.2 ab$^{-1}$/year,
1469: a new generation of hadron collider experiments will be positioned to
1470: dominate the study of {\it CP} violation and rare and Standard Model
1471: forbidden processes in $B$ decays. A recent study has outlined a possible
1472: path for achieving a luminosity of $10^{36}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$
1473: in $e^{+}e^{-}$ collisions.
1474: This corresponds to 10 ab$^{-1}$/year
1475: and requires a new machine configuration and a very substantial
1476: upgrade of the \babar\ detector, which involves complete replacement or
1477: major revision of many components. The goal is to be competitive with
1478: the next generation hadron collider experiments, at least in the area
1479: of $B_{d}$ and $B_{u}$ physics. Because of the experimental
1480: constraints of threshold production and the low backgrounds in
1481: $e^{+}e^{-}$ physics, certain measurements could be made with this
1482: facility that might not be possible to do at hadron colliders.
1483:
1484: Details of the new machine can be found in the M2 summary elsewhere in these proceedings.
1485: The machine could be located
1486: either in the PEP tunnel, where it would replace PEP-II, or in the tunnel
1487: for the SLC arcs.
1488: If located in the PEP tunnel, PEP-II operation would have to stop
1489: for about 1 year while the new machine components were installed.
1490:
1491: \subsubsection{Physics Case for 10 {\rm ab}$^{-1}$/yr $e^{+}e^{-}$ Facility}
1492:
1493: There are a variety of interesting topics which can be addressed at such
1494: a facility. These include both precision tests of the consistency of the
1495: Standard Model predictions and discovery of, or sorting out of, new phenomena
1496: beyond the Standard Model. A list of interesting processes are:
1497: \begin{itemize}
1498: \item Improvement in {\it CP} asymmetry measurements
1499: \begin{itemize}
1500: \item $\sigma(\sin 2\beta)\approx 0.01$ for {\it J}/$\psi\,K_{s}$
1501: \item $\sin 2\beta$ will be measured with good precision in many modes which
1502: provides an important consistency check
1503: \item $\sin 2\alpha$($A_{{\it CP}}$) and $\sin \gamma$ can be measured
1504: \end{itemize}
1505: \item Measurement of some particularly challenging
1506: two and three body branching fractions, for example $B^{o}\rightarrow \pi^{o}\pi^{o}$
1507: \item Measurement of $f_{B}$
1508: % I removed f_D as it is har to imagine they could compete with CLEO-c on the systematic error
1509: %and $f_{D}$
1510: to useful precision to check lattice predictions
1511: \item Interesting sensitivity to rare $B$, $D$, and $\tau$ decays, such as
1512: $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$
1513: \item High precision measurements of semileptonic decay distributions,
1514: especially the precision measurement of $V_{ub}$.
1515: \end{itemize}
1516: These topics were studied in the context of a high luminosity next
1517: generation $e^+e^-$ B Factory at the ``Beyond $10^{34}$ Workshop"~\cite{10E34}
1518: in Michigan during June 2000, at the follow-up session at the Fourth International
1519: Conference on B physics and {\it CP} Violation in Ise Shima, Japan in February 2001~\cite{Tony} and
1520: were the focus of an E2 subgroup at Snowmass~\cite{SuperBaBar}.
1521:
1522: \subsubsection{Experimental Considerations}
1523:
1524: Both the rates from the beam collisions and from backgrounds will be much
1525: higher than present. In particular, the overall loss rates will be
1526: about 1000 times
1527: the present rates. The beam lifetime will be only around 10 minutes so the
1528: machine will be filled continuously during the store. At a luminosity of
1529: $10^{36}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$, there are
1530: \begin{itemize}
1531: \item 50 kHz of Bhabha scatters,
1532: \item $\sim$7 kHz of other physics events, and
1533: \item $O$($\sim$10kHz) of triggerable machine associated background in the
1534: detector acceptance.
1535: \end{itemize}
1536:
1537:
1538: \subsubsection{Detector Issues}
1539:
1540:
1541: Most of the \babar\ subsystems will have to undergo some modification or
1542: replacement to handle the much higher rates of the new machine.
1543: To carry out the program, the overall performance, in terms of resolution,
1544: efficiency, and background rejection, must be similar to that of \babar.
1545: The detector must retain its high degree of hermeticity as well.
1546: Table~\ref{tab:superb_det_mods} summarizes the problems that affect current
1547: \babar\ detectors at these high luminosities and indicate possible solutions.
1548: One concept for the replacement
1549: detector, a very compact detector based on a high field solenoid,
1550: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:compact}. The solenoid has a radius of about
1551: 0.75m and a field of 3 Tesla. The central vertex detector consists
1552: of two layers of pixel detector and a three layer silicon strip detector.
1553: The central drift chamber is replaced by a 4 layer silicon strip tracker,
1554: which is much more compact. The combination of the high field and the
1555: high precision tracking permit the detector to achieve momentum resolution
1556: comparable to \babar. The expensive electromagnetic crystal calorimeter
1557: has a small radius, which lowers the cost.
1558:
1559: \begin{figure*}[t]
1560: \begin{center}
1561: %\epsfig{figure=superbabar.eps,width=12cm,angle=-90}
1562: \epsfig{figure=superbabar.ps,width=12cm}
1563: \caption {Schematic of a Compact Detector Design for Super\babar}
1564: \label{fig:compact}
1565: \end{center}
1566: \end{figure*}
1567:
1568:
1569:
1570: In addition to detector modifications, a faster and more selective trigger
1571: and a higher speed, higher capacity Data Acquisition system must be
1572: implemented. While difficult compared to the existing \babar\ experiment,
1573: the triggering and data acquisition problem is far less of a challenge
1574: than must be met at the Tevatron or LHC so this is not considered
1575: an insurmountable task. Data analysis will benefit from the projected
1576: continued drop in cost of computing cycles and data storage.
1577:
1578: There are substantial uncertainties in the detector requirements
1579: due to the difficulty in estimating the various backgrounds. It is clearly
1580: important to implement a realistic machine lattice and IR design
1581: to provide predictions for the very large backgrounds that will exist at
1582: Super\babar, especially backgrounds due to continuous injection. These studies
1583: were foreseen, but had not been performed at the time of Snowmass.
1584:
1585: There are many questions about the cost and availability of suitable
1586: detector technologies which will need to be studied before the detector design can be
1587: finalized. We give four examples. (1) To maintain the vertex resolution of
1588: \babar\ and
1589: withstand the radiation environment, pixels with a material budget of 0.3\% $X_o$ per layer
1590: are proposed.
1591: Traditional pixel detectors
1592: which consist of a silicon pixel array bump-bonded to a readout chip
1593: are at least 1.0\% $X_o$. To obtain less material, monolithic
1594: pixel detectors are suggested.
1595: This technology has never been used
1596: in a particle physics experiment. (2) As a drift chamber cannot cope with the large rates and
1597: large accumulated charge, a silicon microstrip tracker has been proposed. At these low energies
1598: track parameter resolution is dominated by multiple Coulomb scattering. Silicon microstrip
1599: technology is well tested but is usually used at this energy for vertexing, not tracking.
1600: Realistic simulations need to be performed to establish if
1601: momentum resolution as good as \babar\ can be achieved with the
1602: large amount of material present in the silicon tracker.
1603: If not, we suggest a TPC, possibly readout with a Gas Electron Multiplier, or MICROMEGAS,
1604: be explored as an alternative to the silicon tracker (3) There is no established crystal technology
1605: to replace the Csi(Tl). There are some candidate materials (see the
1606: Super\babar\
1607: document for details) but the most attractive have not been used in
1608: a calorimeter previously. (4) There is no known technology for the light
1609: sensor for the SuperDIRC.
1610:
1611:
1612:
1613: \begin{table}[t]
1614: \begin{center}
1615: \caption[]
1616: {Modifications to the \babar\ detector for Super\babar.}
1617: \label{tab:superb_det_mods}
1618: \begin{tabular}{l|l|l} \hline
1619: \babar & Super\babar & Reason for change \\
1620: Detector & Detector & \\ \hline
1621: Silicon Strips & Silicon Pixels & Occupancy \\ \hline
1622: Drift Chamber & Silicon Tracker & accumulated charge \\
1623: & or TPC & \\ \hline
1624: DIRC & super DIRC & Remove water standoff box due \\
1625: & & to high background Cerenkov \\
1626: & & light and replace with new \\
1627: & & optics \\ \hline
1628: ECAL CsI(Tl) & new rad hard, & CsI(Tl) has a long decay \\ \hline
1629: & crystal & time and is not rad hard \\
1630: IFR(RPCs) & scintillators & Occupancy \\ \hline
1631: \end{tabular}
1632: \end{center}
1633: \end{table}
1634:
1635:
1636:
1637:
1638:
1639: \subsubsection{Comparison with Hadron Collider Experiments}
1640:
1641: Since the goal of the Super \bm-Factory and Super\babar\ upgrades are to
1642: enable the $e^{+}e^{-}$ machine to compete with future hadron collider
1643: experiments, it is important to make a realistic evaluation of the
1644: sensitivities of all these experiments over a wide range of final states.
1645: Such projections are, of course, somewhat uncertain.
1646: %
1647: % Following sentence re-written at Sheldon's suggestion
1648: %The sensitivities
1649: %of the future hadron collider experiments are determined from simulations,
1650: %which, while quite detailed and sophisticated, are nevertheless only
1651: %an approximation to reality.
1652: The sensitivities of future hadron collider experiments have been determined from
1653: detailed and sophisticated simulations of signals and backgrounds. As these simulations
1654: are an approximation to reality, the performance of LHCb and BTeV may be
1655: somewhat better or somewhat worse than the simulations predict.
1656: Projections for Super\babar\ are, at this point,
1657: mainly done by scaling from \babar\ experience assuming that the new
1658: detector, which still has many open R\&D issues, will achieve the same
1659: efficiency that \babar\ now achieves even though the luminosity will be a
1660: factor of 300 higher. More
1661: realistic studies need to be performed before a full comparsiion
1662: between Super\babar\ and the hadron collider experiments is made.
1663:
1664:
1665: \begin{table}
1666: \begin{center}
1667: \caption[]
1668: {Comparison of the number of tagged $B^{o}\rightarrow \pi^{+}\pi^{-}$
1669: in Super\babar\ and BTeV}
1670: \label{tab:comp_pi_pi}
1671: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c} \hline
1672: & $L(\rm{cm}^{-2}\rm{s}^{-1})$ & $\sigma$ & $B^{o}$/10$^{7}$s &
1673: $\epsilon$ & S/B & $\epsilon D^{2}$ & tagged \\ \hline
1674: $e^{+}e^{-}$ & 10$^{36}$ & 1.1 nb & 1.1$\times$10$^{10}$ & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.3 &
1675: 3600 \\ \hline
1676: BTeV & 2$\times$10$^{32}$ & 100$\mu$b & 1.5$\times$10$^{11}$ & 0.037 & 3.0 &
1677: 0.1 & 2370 \\ \hline
1678: \end{tabular}
1679: \end{center}
1680: \end{table}
1681:
1682: \begin{table}
1683: \begin{center}
1684: \caption[]
1685: {Comparison of the number of tagged $B^{+}\rightarrow D^{o}K^{+},
1686: D^{o}\rightarrow K^{+}\pi^{-}$ with in Super\babar\ and BTeV
1687: (product of all branching
1688: factions taken as B=$1.7\times 10^{-7}$) }
1689: \label{tab:comp_B_DK}
1690: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c|c} \hline
1691: & $L(\rm{cm}^{-2}\rm{s}^{-1})$ & $\sigma$ & $B^{o}$/10$^{7}$s &
1692: $\epsilon$ & S/B & tagged \\ \hline
1693: $e^{+}e^{-}$ & 10$^{36}$ & 1.1 nb & 1.1$\times$10$^{10}$ & 0.5 & &
1694: 600 \\ \hline
1695: BTeV & 2$\times$10$^{32}$ & 100$\mu$b & 1.5$\times$10$^{11}$ & 0.014 & 1.0 &
1696: 300 \\ \hline
1697: \end{tabular}
1698: \end{center}
1699: \end{table}
1700:
1701:
1702: \begin{table*}
1703: \begin{center}
1704: \caption[]
1705: {Comparison of {\it CP} Reach of Hadron Collider Experiments and
1706: Super\babar. The last column is a prediction of which kind of facility
1707: will make the dominant contribution to each physics measurement.}
1708: \label{tab:comp_e_had_cp}
1709: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
1710: & BTeV & LHCb & \babar & 10$^{35}$ & 10$^{36}$ & \\
1711: & 10$^{7}$s & 10$^{7}$s & Belle & 10$^{7}$s & 10$^{7}$s & \\
1712: & & & (2005) & & & \\
1713: \hline
1714: $\sin 2\beta$ & 0.011 & 0.02 & 0.037 & 0.026 & 0.008 & Equal \\
1715: $\sin 2\alpha$& 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.14 & 0.1 & 0.032 & Equal \\
1716: $\gamma\,[B_{s}(D_{s}K)]$ & $\sim$7$^{o}$ & & & & & Had \\
1717: $\gamma\,[B(DK)]$ & $\sim$2$^{o}$ & &$\sim$20$^{o}$ & &1-2.5$^{o}$&Equal \\
1718: $\sin 2\chi$ & 0.023 & 0.04 & - & - & - & Had \\
1719: BR($B\rightarrow \pi^{o}\pi^{o}$) & - & - & $\sim$20\% & 14 \% & 6\% &
1720: $e^{+}e^{-}$ \\
1721: $V_{ub}$ & - & - & $\sim$2.3\% & $\sim$1\% & $\sim$1\% &
1722: $e^{+}e^{-}$ \\
1723: & & & & (sys) & (sys) & \\ \hline
1724: \end{tabular}
1725: \end{center}
1726: \end{table*}
1727:
1728:
1729:
1730: \begin{table*}
1731: \begin{center}
1732: \caption[]
1733: {Comparison of Reach of Hadron Collider Experiments and Super\babar
1734: for Rare Decays of $B_{u}$ and $B_{d}$ Mesons. Entries are either
1735: branching fraction sensitivities, if they have negative exponents,
1736: or signal yields. An $\star$ indicates that the entry below is claimed to be
1737: the best measurement. The numbers in parentheses in column 1 are the
1738: branching fractions used in the calculations.}
1739: \label{tab:comp_e_had_rareb}
1740: \begin{tabular}{l||c|c|c||c|c|c} \hline
1741: & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{Hadronic Exp} &\multicolumn{3}{c}{B-Factory} \\
1742: \hline
1743: Decay Mode & CDF & BTeV & ATLAS & \babar & 10$^{35}$ & 10$^{36}$ \\
1744: &/D0 & /LHCb & /CMS &/Belle & & \\
1745: (Br Ratio) & (2$fb^{-1}$) & 10$^{7}$s & (1 year) & (0.5$ab^{-1}$) &
1746: (1$ab^{-1}$) & (10$ab^{-1}$) \\ \hline
1747: $B\rightarrow X_{s}\gamma$ & & & & & $\star$ & $\star$ \\
1748: (3.29$\pm$0.21$\pm$)0.21)$\times\,10^{-4}$ & & & & 11K & 22K & 220K \\
1749: with $B$ tags & & & & 1.7K & 3.4K & 34K \\
1750: \hline
1751: $B\rightarrow K^{*}\gamma$ & & & & & & $\star$ \\
1752: (3-8)$\times\,10^{-5}$ & 170/- &27K/24K & & 6K & 12K & 120K \\
1753: $\delta \, (A_{{\it CP}})$ & & 0.01 & & 0.02 & 0.01 & $<$0.01 \\
1754: \hline
1755: $B\rightarrow X_{s}\nu\bar{\nu}$ & & & & & & $\star$ \\
1756: (4.1$\pm$0.9)$\times\,10^{-5}$ & & & & 8 & 16 & 160 \\
1757: $B\rightarrow K^{*}\nu\bar{\nu}$ & & & & & & $\star$ \\
1758: (5$\times\,10^{-6}$) & & & & 1.5 & 3 & 30 \\
1759: \hline
1760: $B\rightarrow X_{s}\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ & & $\star$ & & & & \\
1761: (6.0$\pm$1.5)$\times\,10^{-6}$ & & 7.2K/- & & 300 & 600 & 6K \\
1762: $B\rightarrow X_{s}e^{+}e^{-}$ & & $\star$ & & & & \\
1763: (6.0$\pm$1.5)$\times\,10^{-6}$ & & 7.2K/- & & 350 & 700 & 7K \\
1764: $B\rightarrow K^{*}\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ & & $\star$ & $\star$ & & & $\star$ \\
1765: (2$\pm$1 $\times\,10^{-6}$) & 61/60-150 & 4.4K/4.5K & 665/4.2K &
1766: 120 & 240 & 2.5K \\
1767: $B\rightarrow K^{*}e^{+}e^{-}$ & & & & 150 & 300 & 3K \\
1768: (2$\pm$1 $\times\,10^{-6}$) & & & & & & \\
1769: \hline
1770: $B^{o}_{d}\rightarrow \tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ & & & & & $\star$ & $\star$ \\
1771: (10$^{-7}$) & & & & $<$10$^{-5}$ & $<$2$\times$10$^{-6}$ &
1772: $<$10$^{-6}$ \\
1773: \hline
1774: $B\rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ & &$\star$ & $\star$ & & & \\
1775: ~~$B_{s}$ (10$^{-9}$) & 5/1.5-6 & 10/11 & 9/7 & & & \\
1776: ~~$B_{d}$ (8$\times $10$^{-11}$) & 0/0 & 2/2 & 0.7/20 &
1777: $<$10$^{-8}$ & $<$5$\times$10$^{-9}$ & $<$10$^{-9}$ \\
1778: $B^{o}_{d}\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}$ & & & & & $\star$ & $\star$ \\
1779: (10$^{-14}$) & & & & $<$10$^{-8}$ & $<$5$\times$10$^{-9}$ &
1780: $<$10$^{-9}$ \\
1781: \hline
1782: $B \rightarrow \tau\nu$ & & & & & & $\star$ \\
1783: (5$\times$10$^{-5}$) & & & & 17 & 34 & 350 \\
1784: $B \rightarrow \mu\nu$ & & & & & & $\star$ \\
1785: (1.6$\times$10$^{-7}$) & & & & 8 & 16 & 150 \\
1786: \hline
1787: $B^{o}\rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ & & & & & & $\star$ \\
1788: (10$^{-8}$) & & & & 0.4 & 0.8 & 8 \\
1789: \hline
1790: \hline
1791: \end{tabular}
1792: \end{center}
1793: \end{table*}
1794:
1795: For both the hadron collider experiments and Super\babar,
1796: we assume the machine can achieve the
1797: desired luminosity, which is reasonably assured for the hadron
1798: colliders but less certain for the Super \bm-Factory, where design has just
1799: begun and there are many technology and accelerator issues.
1800:
1801: With these caveats, Table~\ref{tab:comp_pi_pi} compares the rate
1802: of tagged $B^{o}\rightarrow \pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ obtained in one year from
1803: Super\babar\ and BTeV. Table~\ref{tab:comp_B_DK} shows the number of
1804: tagged $B^{+}\rightarrow D^{o}K^{+}, D^{o}\rightarrow K^{+}\pi^{-}$ in the
1805: two experiments. A comparison of BTeV, LHCb, \babar\ and Belle in 2005,
1806: and the $e^{+}e^{-}$ machines at 10$^{35}$ and 10$^{36}$ is given in
1807: Table~\ref{tab:comp_e_had_cp} for several states of importance to the
1808: study of {\it CP} violation in $B$ decays. Finally, Table~\ref{tab:comp_e_had_rareb}
1809: shows a comparison of CDF/D0, BTeV/LHCb, ATLAS/CMS, \babar/Belle,
1810: and $e^{+}e^{-}$ machines at 10$^{35}$ and 10$^{36}$ for ``rare decays''
1811: of the $B$ mesons.
1812:
1813: It is clear that the 10$^{36}$ $e^{+}e^{-}$ machine can compete with
1814: the hadron collider experiments on many interesting {\it CP} violating decays
1815: and on rare decays of $B_{d}$ and $B_{u}$.
1816: It should do better on decays involving $\tau$'s and missing
1817: $\nu$'s since the hermeticity and energy constraints provided by running
1818: at threshold permit one to establish the neutrino's presence in the event
1819: by demonstrating a recoil mass consistent with zero. While
1820: $B^{o}\rightarrow \pi^{o} \pi^{o}$ may be barely detectable in several
1821: years of operation at the 10$^{36}$ $e^{+}e^{-}$ machine, none of the
1822: hadron experiments have yet claimed to be able to observe this state.
1823:
1824: The tables are designed to compare the $e^{+}e^{-}$ machines with the
1825: hadron machines in the areas where the former are strong. To have a complete
1826: picture, one needs to remember that the $e^{+}e^{-}$ machine can do only
1827: very limited $B_{s}$ physics compared to the hadron collider experiments.
1828: In particular, the proper time resolution, $\sigma_{\tau}$ of 900
1829: $f{\rm s}$, compared to better than 40 $f{\rm s}$ for BTeV, and LHCb,
1830: precludes the
1831: study of time dependent effects in $B_{s}$ decays. This is a strength of
1832: the hadron collider experiments. The $e^{+}e^{-}$ experiments also
1833: do not have high enough energy to study $b$-baryons or $B_{c}$ mesons.
1834:
1835:
1836:
1837:
1838: \section{Giga-$Z$ machines}
1839:
1840:
1841: The LEP experiments, running on the $Z$, were able to make many
1842: important \bm\ physics measurements even though the luminosity was
1843: only $\sim 10^{31}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$.
1844: SLD, by exploiting the ability to polarize the electron
1845: beam at a linear collider, was able to make significant measurements
1846: at an even lower luminosity. As plans develop to build a high energy,
1847: high luminosity $e^{+}e^{-}$ linear collider, it is worth considering
1848: whether competitive \bm\ physics at the $Z$ can be carried out at these
1849: facilities~\cite{Gudrun}\cite{Klaus}.
1850:
1851: The reasons why the $Z$-pole is a good place to study $B$ physics are:
1852: \begin{itemize}
1853: \item The cross section for producing states containing $b$-quarks is
1854: large, $\sim 6.6$nb;
1855: \item The signal to background is very favorable, $\sim 25$\%;
1856: \item All species of $b$-hadrons are produced, including $B_{s}$
1857: and $\Lambda_{b}$;
1858: \item The $B$'s have a large boost so that time-evolution studies are possible;
1859: \item Due to the high boost, the two $b$-hadrons are well separated and
1860: separated from the interaction vertex; and
1861: \item The beams can be polarized. This leads to a correlation
1862: between $b$-direction, and the $B$ hadron direction,
1863: with respect to the $e^{-}$ direction,
1864: which constitutes a highly efficient flavor tag. Electron polarizations
1865: of $>$80\% are achievable and it is expected that positron polarizations
1866: of $\sim$60\% can be obtained.
1867: \end{itemize}
1868: Even though the attainable $b$ yield is low compared to the
1869: hadron colliders or Super\babar, these features permit
1870: the extraction of clean, tagged samples with very high
1871: efficiency, since all $B$'s are triggered and reconstructed and tagging
1872: is very efficient. The high efficiency partially offsets the low produced
1873: rates.
1874:
1875: Typical design luminosities for an $e^{+}e^{-}$ linear collider designed
1876: to run at 500 GeV center of mass energy are 2-3$\times 10^{34}$. As part of
1877: the program of electroweak physics studies that can be done at these
1878: machines, there will be some running at the $Z$, in order to make better
1879: measurements of electroweak parameters and to make rigorous
1880: tests of the consistency of the Standard Model. It seems to be currently
1881: accepted that a run that produces $10^{9}$ $Z$'s is what is required.
1882: At that level of statistics, some measurements are already limited
1883: by the understanding of how to make theory corrections while others
1884: are limited by the experimental systematic errors, for example
1885: in measuring the polarization or the center of mass energy.
1886:
1887: Even with the lower luminosity, say $5\times 10^{33}$, expected at the $Z$,
1888: it would take only 50 days to accumulate $10^{9}$ $Z$'s with polarization
1889: of 0.8 for electrons and 0.6 for positrons. This provides a sample
1890: of $\sim 4\times 10^{8}$ $b$-hadrons for studies.
1891:
1892: There are plans for a dedicated $Z$ facility associated with the
1893: high energy collider. Based on the remarks on electroweak physics, \bm\
1894: physics would have to provide the justification for this. The objective would
1895: be to achieve $10^{10}$ $Z$'s, corresponding to $\sim 4\times 10^{9}$
1896: $B$-hadrons. Table~\ref{tab:giga-z} compares the $\sin 2\beta$ reach for
1897: this facility with the \bm-factories and the hadron collider experiments.
1898: It is clear that even $10^{10}$ $Z$'s, which takes 3-5 years to obtain, is
1899: barely competitive with one year of data from BTeV/LHCb or Super\babar.
1900:
1901: This, however, is not the entire story. There are several classes of
1902: studies that take advantage of the unique characteristics of
1903: $b$-quark production at the $Z$. These include:
1904: \begin{itemize}
1905: \item States that are polarized, especially $b$-baryons;
1906: \item Searches for direct {\it CP} asymmetries in rare decays, such
1907: as $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ and $b\rightarrow s l^{+}l^{-}$;
1908: \item Measurements involving inclusive final states;
1909: \item ``Missing Energy'' modes, such as $b\rightarrow s \nu \bar{\nu}$
1910: and $B\rightarrow \tau\nu$; and
1911: \item Rare $Z\rightarrow b\bar{s}\,+\,\bar{b}s$ which are expected
1912: to be too small to observe in the Standard Model.
1913: \end{itemize}
1914: These classes of decays might reveal new physics.
1915:
1916:
1917: Polarization studies are a case in point. The $b$ quarks are strongly
1918: polarized. It is a prediction of HQET, confirmed by experiment, that the
1919: polarization survives the hadronization process. OPAL has measured
1920: \begin{eqnarray}
1921: P_{\Lambda_{b}} & = & -0.56^{+0.20}_{-0.13}\pm0.09
1922: \end{eqnarray}
1923: Thus, the Giga-$Z$ facility can be viewed as a
1924: high luminosity, $\sim 10^{8}$/year source of polarized $\Lambda_{b}$'s.
1925: A study of the angular correlation in $\Lambda_b \rightarrow \Lambda \gamma $
1926: \cite{Hiller:2001zj} between the photon direction
1927: and the spin of the $\Lambda_{b}$ is sensitive to spin-flip effects due
1928: to New Physics beyond the Standard Model. In particular, enlarged
1929: spin-flip contributions can be sizeable in L-R symmetric models or SUSY
1930: models with flavor non-universal breaking. The hadronic rare decay
1931: $\Lambda_{b}\rightarrow \Lambda \phi$ also is a probe of New Physics,
1932: although it is theoretically less clean. Table~\ref{tab:b-bary-decays}
1933: gives a list of potentially interesting decays modes. There are many other
1934: interesting topics in $b$-baryon physics that can be explored.
1935:
1936: The case for a dedicated Giga-$Z$ facility at the $Z$ in a future $e^{+}e^{-}$
1937: linear collider is just beginning to be discussed and needs much more
1938: development followed by a careful assessment of the contributions it can
1939: make to the picture of rare $B$ decays and {\it CP} violation.
1940:
1941:
1942: \begin{table}
1943: \begin{center}
1944: \caption[]
1945: {Comparison of the $\sin 2\beta$ reach with $10^{9}$ and $10^{10}$ $Z$'s}
1946: \label{tab:giga-z}
1947: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c} \hline
1948: & $e^{+}e^{-}$(2005) & BTeV/LHCb &
1949: $10^{9}$ $Z$ & $10^{10}$ $Z$ \\
1950: & & $10^{7}$s & & (3-5 yrs) \\
1951: \hline
1952: $\delta \sin 2\beta$ & 0.037& 0.014/0.02 & 0.04 & 0.013 \\ \hline
1953: \end{tabular}
1954: \end{center}
1955: \end{table}
1956:
1957: \begin{table}
1958: \begin{center}
1959: \caption[]
1960: {Interesting $b$-baryon decay modes which can be studied at the $Z$.}
1961: \label{tab:b-bary-decays}
1962: \begin{tabular}{ll} \hline
1963: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Semileptonic:} \\
1964: & $\Lambda_{b}\rightarrow \Lambda_{c}l\nu_{l}$ \\
1965: & $\Lambda_{b}\rightarrow pl\nu_{l}$ \\ \hline
1966: \multicolumn{2}{l}{rare:} \\
1967: \multicolumn{2}{l}{~~radiative:} \\
1968: & $\Lambda_{b}\rightarrow \Lambda \gamma$ \\
1969: \multicolumn{2}{l}{~~semileptonic:} \\
1970: & $\Lambda_{b}\rightarrow \Lambda l^{+}l^{-}$ \\
1971: & $\Lambda_{b}\rightarrow \Lambda \nu\bar{\nu}$ \\ \hline
1972: \multicolumn{2}{l}{hadronic:} \\
1973: & $\Lambda_{b}\rightarrow \Lambda \phi$ \\
1974: & $\Lambda_{b}\rightarrow n D^{*o}_{2}$ \\ \hline
1975: \multicolumn{2}{l}{inclusive:} \\
1976: & $\Lambda_{b}\rightarrow X_{s} \gamma$ \\ \hline
1977: \end{tabular}
1978: \end{center}
1979: \end{table}
1980:
1981: \section{Conclusion}
1982:
1983: $\lowercase{\phi}$ Factories have a broad program with many unique and
1984: desirable features, but, in the area of rare kaon decays, they are
1985: unlikely to have sufficient flux to challenge the dedicated Fixed Target
1986: experiments.
1987:
1988: The PEP-N physics program is well-defined, unique and timely.
1989: This is especially true of
1990: the measurement of R. However, there was no clear demonstration at Snowmass
1991: that the required systematic error per point (about 2\%) could be achieved.
1992: Control of systematic
1993: errors needs to be carefully evaluated before proceeding with PEP-N.
1994:
1995: CESR-c/CLEO-c promises a 400-fold increase in $D$ meson data at threshold.
1996: The data would provide
1997: a crucial and timely validation of lattice QCD, HQET, ChPTHH and other theoretical
1998: techniques which are central to progress in flavor physics in this decade, and in the case of
1999: lattice QCD, also a key to
2000: addressing strong coupling that may be a feature of the physics beyond the
2001: Standard Model that
2002: we expect to be discovered at the LHC. CLEO-c also promises (a) A factor 4-12 improvement
2003: in key hadronic branching ratios which will set the absolute scale for beauty and charm
2004: quark physics. (b) A significant improvement, ($\times 5-10$) in CKM matrix element precision
2005: in the charm sector, and ($\times 2-8$)
2006: in the beauty sector in conjunction with data obtained at experiments
2007: with a \bm\ physics capability
2008: at $e^+e^-$ \bm-factories and hadron colliders. (c) CLEO-c has discovery potential, since
2009: the experiment is sensitive to new physics through $D$ mixing,
2010: $D$ {\it CP} violation and rare decays of $D$ mesons and
2011: the $\tau$ lepton, and in the search for new forms of matter, including
2012: glueballs and hybrids.
2013: Finally a flexible accelerator, an experienced collaboration and a high quality detector
2014: are already in place, making the well-defined three year physics program very attractive.
2015:
2016:
2017: BES/BEPC is currently proposing to upgrade the machine and detector.
2018: BEPC II would be a two
2019: ring machine with a peak luminosity in excess of
2020: $ 10^{33} {\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1} $. A completely new detector, BES III,
2021: would be built. BEPCII/BESIII would come on line around 2006
2022: and would accumulate a data sample
2023: one order of magnitude larger than CLEO-c.
2024: The physics program of BES III is identical to CLEO-c.
2025: For BES III to make a significant impact it
2026: is absolutely essential that the detector be as good as the CLEO-c detector.
2027: If that can be achieved, the significantly larger luminosity of BEPCII over CESR-c is likely
2028: to be a considerable advantage for new physics reach.
2029: For CKM physics, theory will have to sharpen for the larger statistics of BES III
2030: to be used to full advantage.
2031: Hall D at TJNAL, coming on-line in 2006, and CLEO-c have some overlap
2032: but there is also complementarity. CLEO-c is focusing on glue rich states and vector
2033: hybrids both light and heavy. Hall-D is focused on states with exotic quantum numbers.
2034: There is also a proposal from the GSI accelerator in Germany for a High Energy Storage Ring
2035: (HESR) for antiprotons. The charmonium studies this machine will allow are likely
2036: to be complementary to CLEO-c.
2037:
2038:
2039:
2040:
2041: The two asymmetric \bm-factories, PEP-II and KEKB, have achieved reliable
2042: operation at high luminosities of a few $10^{33}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$ in
2043: a remarkably short time. Both
2044: machines have plans for incremental
2045: upgrades which eventually are expected to produce luminosities of
2046: $10^{35}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$, which corresponds to
2047: $10^{9}$ $B$ pairs per year. These asymmetric super \bm-factories
2048: have significant
2049: advantages with respect to hadron colliders in terms of
2050: $\pi^{o}$ detection efficiency, $\nu$ reconstruction and generally smaller backgrounds.
2051: In this report, as an example of what can be achieved by a long
2052: run at $10^{35}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$, we discussed only the super KEKB/Belle
2053: upgrade. The PEP-II analog has identical physics reach.
2054: (For PEP, we concentrated
2055: Super\babar\ with a design luminosity of $10^{36}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$.)
2056: The high statistics of a $10^{35}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$
2057: super \bm-factory allows significant numbers of
2058: $B$ mesons to be tagged by full reconstruction,
2059: and this permits many significant physics studies to be performed
2060: especially involving final states with a neutrino such as
2061: semileptonic $b \rightarrow u $ transitions to determine $V_{ub}$,
2062: leptonic decays and electroweak penguins.
2063: The KEKB machine upgrade is believed to be feasible.
2064: Operation at $10^{35}$ will produce significantly higher background rates
2065: in Belle which will lead to
2066: larger occupancy. Accordingly, the detector will need several upgrades
2067: which we judge to be feasible. After several years of running
2068: at $10^{35}$, the \bm\ physics program at KEK will probably end.
2069: A clear consensus was reached in the E2 group that an $e^+e^-$
2070: \bm-factory operating at
2071: $10^{35}$ would not be competitive with experiments at hadron colliders specifically
2072: LHCb/BTeV/ATLAS/CMS coming on-line around 2007. This view is also held
2073: by the proponents of the KEKB/Belle upgrade.
2074:
2075:
2076: The Super \bm-factory is a new continuous
2077: injection $e^+e^-$ collider that would
2078: operate in the PEP-II tunnel or the SLC arcs
2079: at a luminosity of $10^{36}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$,
2080: a factor 300 more than PEP-II achieves today.
2081: It has been proposed specifically
2082: to be complementary to the hadron collider \bm\ experiments as a precision
2083: probe of the consistency of the flavor changing sector of the Standard
2084: Model and in searches for New Physics. Occupancy and machine backgrounds
2085: will probably require the replacement of the entire \babar\ detector.
2086: The detector design is challenging, raising many difficult R\&D issues.
2087: Assuming detector efficiency
2088: could be maintained at such a high luminosity,
2089: we estimate that Super\babar\ would be
2090: complementary to LHCb/BTeV for rare decays of $B_{d}$ and $B_{u}$ mesons,
2091: superior for decays with $\nu$'s, and competitive for
2092: decays with a $\pi^{o}$,or $\gamma$. It accuracy would be
2093: comparable for the angles $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ but not $\chi$.
2094: Compared to hadron collider experiments, the $B_s$ program would be limited
2095: by the complications of operating at the $\Upsilon(5S)$, and because of
2096: much poorer proper time resolution.
2097: There would be no $\Lambda_b$ or $B_c$ physics.
2098:
2099: % I have modified the following paragraph to reflect the changes to IV. B. 4.
2100: %All our estimates are based
2101: %on Monte Carlo simulations performed by the hadron collider experiments and
2102: %simple scaling
2103: %up from \babar\ experience for SuperBaBar\ and
2104: %therefore have a large uncertainty
2105: %associated with them.
2106: The sensitivities of future hadron collider experiments have been determined from
2107: detailed and sophisticated simulations of signals and backgrounds. As these simulations
2108: are an approximation to reality the expected performance of LHCb and BTeV may be
2109: somewhat better or somewhat worse than the simulations predict.
2110: Projections for Super\babar\ are at this point
2111: mainly done by scaling from \babar\ experience assuming that the new
2112: detector, which still has many open R\&D issues, will achieve the same
2113: efficiency that \babar\ now achieves even though the luminosity will be a
2114: factor of 300 higher. More
2115: realistic studies need to be performed before a full comparison
2116: between Super\babar\ and the hadron collider experiments is made.
2117: It is also important to quickly implement
2118: a realistic machine lattice and IR design to provide predictions of
2119: the very large machine backgrounds
2120: that will exist at Super\babar, especially background due to continuous injection.
2121: If backgrounds prove tractable, and detector simulations support the simple scaling from \babar\ experience, an R\&D program on the machine and detector
2122: should be initiated.
2123:
2124: The case for a dedicated Giga-$Z$ facility at a future $e^{+}e^{-}$
2125: linear collider is just beginning to be discussed and needs much more
2126: development followed by a careful assessment of the contributions it can
2127: make to our understanding of rare \bm\ decays and {\it CP} violation.
2128:
2129:
2130: In conclusion, $e^+e^-$ colliders at low energy have played an important role
2131: in the development of our understanding of flavor physics, non-peturbative QCD
2132: and radiative corrections. Today the Fixed Target hadron experiments
2133: appear to be the best way to address
2134: key measurements in kaon physics involving rare decays.
2135: Electron positron colliders
2136: have a unique role in the measuremnt of R, and are complementary to hadron
2137: colliders as a probes of non-peturbative QCD, and charm and beauty flavor
2138: physics. The physics is more important than the method used. It would be
2139: prudent to carefully evaluate the merits of both hadron colliders
2140: and $e^+e^-$ colliders for each application at each stage
2141: in our quest, only ruling out one approach when it clearly fails.
2142: In these areas, competition, complementarity, and even some redundancy
2143: have proven to important to ultimate progress.
2144:
2145:
2146:
2147: \begin{acknowledgments}
2148:
2149: We wish to thank more than fifty of our colleagues who made
2150: very valuable contributions to the E2 working group at Snowmass.
2151:
2152: \end{acknowledgments}
2153:
2154:
2155:
2156: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2157:
2158: \bibitem{shipsey2}
2159: ``E2 Snowmass Report'', I. Shipsey on behalf of the E2 convenors,
2160: G. Burdman, J. Butler, I. Shipsey, and H. Yamamoto.
2161: Talk at the final plenary session of Snowmass.
2162: All E2 working group talks may be found
2163: at http://www.physics.purdue.edu/Snowmass2001\_E2/
2164:
2165: \bibitem{Bloise}
2166: ``KLOE at DA$\phi$NE'', C. Bloise, talk to the E2 working group
2167: and these proceedings.
2168: \bibitem{Ray}``CKM, KAMI and Important Issues in Kaon Physics'', R. Ray, talk to the
2169: E2
2170: working group.
2171: \bibitem{Diego}
2172: ``PEP-N : A new e+e- facility at SLAC
2173: in the c.m. energy range 1.2 - 3.1 GeV'', D. Bettoni, talk to the
2174: E2 working group and
2175: these proceedings.
2176:
2177: \bibitem{mark}
2178: ``Physics with PEP-N'', M.Mandelkern, talk to the E2 working group and
2179: these proceedings.
2180:
2181: \bibitem{marciano}
2182: ``Hadronic vacuum polarization and precision electroweak studies''
2183: W. Marciano talk to the E2 Working Group.
2184: \bibitem{roberto}
2185: ``Time-like baryon form factors:
2186: experimental situation and possibilities for PEP-N'', R. Calabrese,
2187: talk to the E2 working Group and these proceedings.
2188: \bibitem{E821} H. N. Brown et al., (g-2) Collaboration, Phys. Rev.
2189: Lett. {\bf 86}, 2227 (2001)
2190: \bibitem{jeger} F. Jegerlehner, hep-ph/0104304 (2001).
2191: \bibitem{BP} H. Burkhardt and B. Pietrzyk, LAPP-EXP 2001-03 (2001).
2192: \bibitem{BES} J. Z. Bai et al., arXiv:hep-ex/0102003
2193: \bibitem{LEPEWWG} http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/
2194: \bibitem{EJ} S. Eidelman and F. Jegerlehner, Z. Phys {\bf C67}, 585
2195: (1995).
2196: \bibitem{Jeger1} F. Jegerlehner, hep-ph/9901386.
2197: \bibitem{Melni} K. Melnikov, SLAC-PUB-8844 (2001),
2198: arXiv:hep-ph/0105267.
2199: \bibitem{DH} M. Davier and A. Hocker, Phys. Lett. {\bf B435}, 427
2200: (1998).
2201: \bibitem{HK} M. Hawakawa and T. Kinoshita, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}, 465
2202: (1996).
2203: \bibitem{BPP} J. Bijnens, E. Pallante, and J. Prades, Nucl. Phys. {\bf
2204: B474}, 379 (1996)
2205: \bibitem{Knecht} A recent reevaluation of the light-by-light contribution
2206: produced a result with a positive sign but roughly the same magnitude:
2207: \newline
2208: M. Knecht and A. Nyffeler, arXiv:hep-ph/0111058 (2001), and
2209: \newline
2210: M. Knecht, A. Nyffeler, M. Perrottet, and E. de Rafael,
2211: arXiv:hep-ph/0111059 (2001).
2212: \newline
2213: It has now been established that the sign of the $LbL$ correction
2214: is indeed positive. The corrected theory calculation now differs from
2215: the experimental value by only approximately 1.5$\sigma$.
2216: \bibitem{Remiddi} S. Laporta and E. Remiddi, Phys. Lett. {\bf 310},
2217: 401 (1993).
2218: \bibitem{MR} W. Marciano and B. Roberts, arXiv:hep-ph/0105056 (2001).
2219: %\bibitem{VEPP} R. R. Akhmetshin et al., Phys. Lett. B {\bf 475}, 190
2220: %(2000) and additional.
2221: \bibitem{sew}
2222: W.~J.~Marciano and A.~Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61}, 1815, (1988).
2223: \bibitem{anderson} S.~Anderson et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 112002
2224: (2000).
2225: \bibitem{eidelman} S.~I.~Eidelman, Nuc. Phys B (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 98},
2226: 281 (2001).
2227:
2228:
2229: \bibitem{cleo-c}
2230: ``CLEO-c and CESR-c : A New Frontier of Weak and Strong Interactions'',
2231: CLNS 01/1742.
2232:
2233: \bibitem{artuso1}
2234: ``Another look at Charm: the CLEO-c physics program'',
2235: M. Artuso, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2236:
2237: \bibitem{shipsey}
2238: ``CLEO-c and CESR-c : A New Frontier of Weak and Strong Interactions'',
2239: I. Shipsey, talk to a joint E2/P2/P5 Working Group session.
2240:
2241:
2242: \bibitem{dytman}
2243: ``Projected Non-perturbative QCD Studies with CLEO-c'', S. Dytman, talk to
2244: the E4 Working Group.
2245:
2246:
2247: \bibitem{gibbons1}
2248: ``CLEO-c and R measurements'', L. Gibbons,
2249: talk to the E2 Working Group.
2250:
2251: \bibitem{gibbons2}
2252: ``An Introduction to CLEO-c '', L. Gibbons,
2253: talk to the E2 Working Group.
2254:
2255: \bibitem{cassel}
2256: ``CLEO-C reach in D meson Decays :
2257: Measuring absolute D meson branching fractions,
2258: D decay constants,and CKM matrix elements'', D. Cassel,
2259: talk to the E2 Working Group.
2260:
2261: \bibitem{artuso2}
2262: ``Beyond the Standard Model: the clue from charm'', M. Artuso,
2263: talk to the E2 Working Group.
2264:
2265:
2266: \bibitem{pordes}
2267: ``A case for running CLEO-C at the $\psi^{\prime}$ $(\sqrt(s) = 3686$ MeV)'', S. Pordes,
2268: talk to the E2 Working Group.
2269:
2270: \bibitem{maravin}
2271: ``Experimental Aspects of Tau Physics at CLEO-c'', Y. Maravin,
2272: talk to the E2 Working Group.
2273:
2274: \bibitem{Mackenzie}
2275: ``Future of Lattice QCD'', P. Mackenzie, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2276:
2277:
2278: \bibitem{Gustavo}
2279: ``Opportunities in charm weak decays'', G. Burdman, talk to the
2280: E2 Working Group.
2281:
2282: \bibitem{Brodsky1}
2283: ``Exotic Effects in QCD : QCD at amplitude level'', S. Brodsky,
2284: talk to the E4 Working Group.
2285:
2286: \bibitem{Brodsky2}
2287: ``Structure Functions are not parton probabilities'' S. Brodsky,
2288: talk to the E4 Working Group.
2289:
2290:
2291: \bibitem{BESzhao}
2292: ``Overview of BESII/BESIII/BEPC'', Z. Zhao, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2293:
2294: \bibitem{LOU}
2295: ``Charm Physics Potentials at B-factories'', X. Lou,
2296: talk to the E2 Working Group.
2297:
2298: \bibitem{FOCUS}
2299: ``Assessing the physics reach in measuring Vcd/Vcs
2300: with the FOCUS data'', W. Johns, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2301:
2302: \bibitem{DTEV}
2303: ``Experimental Prospects for {\it CP} violation in charm with BTeV'', D. Kaplan,
2304: talk to the E2 Working Group.
2305:
2306: \bibitem{Hitlin}
2307: ``B physics with an asymmetric $10^{36}$ $e^+e^-$ collider'', D. Hitlin, talk
2308: to the E2 Working Group.
2309:
2310:
2311: \bibitem{Yamamoto}
2312: ``High luminosity B Factories : Overview - KEK-B version'', H. Yamamoto, talk to
2313: the E2 Working Group.
2314:
2315:
2316: \bibitem{Okada}
2317: ``Unitarity angles and {\it CP} Asymmetries (theory)'', Y. Okada, talk to the
2318: E2 Working Group.
2319:
2320:
2321: %\bibitem{Soffer1}
2322: ``{\it CP} Violation Reach at Very High Luminosity B Factories'',
2323: A. Soffer, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2324:
2325:
2326: \bibitem{Stone}
2327: ``Unitarity Angles and {\it CP} Asymmetries, at Existing and Planned
2328: Hadronic Facilities'', S. Stone, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2329:
2330:
2331: \bibitem{Luke}
2332: ``Precision Determination of Vub: theory'', M. Luke, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2333:
2334:
2335: \bibitem{Lee}
2336: ``Precision Determination of Vub at an $e^+e^-$ B Factory'',
2337: J. Lee, talk to the E2 Working Group and these proceedings.
2338:
2339:
2340: \bibitem{Burdman}
2341: ``Rare B Decays: A Theoretical Overview'', G. Burdman, talk to the
2342: E2 Working Group.
2343:
2344:
2345: \bibitem{Katayama}
2346: ``Prospects for Rare B Decays at High Luminosity B Factories'',
2347: N. Katayama, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2348:
2349: \bibitem{Kutschke}
2350: ``Rare B Decays at Existing and Planned Factories
2351: ATLAS/BTeV/CDF/CMS/D0/LHCb
2352: A Survey of What's Been Done So Far'',
2353: R. Kutschke, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2354:
2355:
2356: \bibitem{Petrak}
2357: ``$\Upsilon(5S)$ Super High Luminosity B Factory Experimental
2358: Reach'', Sibylle Petrak, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2359:
2360:
2361: \bibitem{Kasper}
2362: ``$B_s$ Physics at Hadronic Colliders'', P. Kasper, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2363:
2364:
2365: \bibitem{Gritsan}
2366: ``New Physics with Rare B Meson Decays'', A. Gritsan, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2367:
2368:
2369: \bibitem{Ohnishi}
2370: ``Luminosity of $10^{35}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$ at KEKB'', Y. Ohnishi, talk
2371: to the M2 Working Group.
2372:
2373: \bibitem{Sen}
2374: ``An $e^+e^-$ Collider in a VLHC tunnel'', T. Sen, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2375:
2376: \bibitem{Eigen}
2377: ``Detectors at High Luminosity $e^+e^-$ Storage Rings'', G. Eigen, talk to the
2378: E2 Working Group and
2379: these proceedings.
2380:
2381:
2382: \bibitem{Kasper2}
2383: ``Physics Prospects at BTeV'', P. Kasper, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2384:
2385: \bibitem{Decker}
2386: ``$e^+e^-$ Factories'', F-J. Decker talk to the E2 Working Group.
2387:
2388: \bibitem{Hitlin2}
2389: ``$10^{36}~e^+e^-~\Upsilon(4S)-\Upsilon(5S)$ Collider Subgroup Report'', D. Hitlin,
2390: talk to the E2 Working Group.
2391:
2392:
2393: \bibitem{Roodman}
2394: ``{\it CP} Asymmetry'', A. Roodman, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2395:
2396:
2397: \bibitem{Soffer2}
2398: ``{\it CP} Violation Reach at Very High Luminosity B Factories'', A. Soffer,
2399: talk to the E2 Working Group.
2400:
2401:
2402: \bibitem{Kim}
2403: ``Rare B Decays and New Physics at a $10^{36}$ B-Factory'', P. Kim, talk to
2404: the E2 Working Group.
2405:
2406: \bibitem{Robertson}
2407: ``Machine Backgrounds Issues for Calorimetry at
2408: an Atto B Factory'', S. Robertson, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2409:
2410: \bibitem{SuperBaBar} "SuperBaBar" these proceedings.
2411:
2412: \bibitem{10E34} "Beyond $10^{34}$ Physics at a Second Generation $e^+ e^-$
2413: B Factory" http://www.physics.purdue.edu/10E34/
2414:
2415: \bibitem{Tony} "Fourth International Conference on B Physics and {\it CP} Violation"
2416: http://www.hepl.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp/public/bcp4/ Session 20 VI.
2417:
2418: \bibitem{Gudrun}
2419: ``Theoretical review of B physics at Giga-Z'', G. Hiller, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2420:
2421: \bibitem{Klaus}
2422: ``B-physics at a linear collider'',
2423: K. Moenig, talk to the E2 Working Group.
2424:
2425: \bibitem{Hiller:2001zj} G.~Hiller and A.~Kagan
2426: ``Probing for new physics in polarized $\Lambda_b$ decays at the Z'', arXiv:hep-ph/0108074.
2427:
2428: \end{thebibliography}
2429:
2430:
2431: \end{document}
2432: