SciPost Submission Page
Looking forward to forward physics at the CERN's LHC
by Luis A. Anchordoqui
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Luis Anchordoqui |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.12413v2 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2022-07-12 22:17 |
| Submitted by: | Anchordoqui, Luis |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Proceedings |
| Proceedings issue: | 21st International Symposium on Very High Energy Cosmic Ray Interactions (ISVHECRI2022) |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Phenomenological |
Abstract
For decades, new physics searches in collider experiments have focused on the high-$p_T$ region. However, it has recently become evident that the LHC physics potential has not been fully exploited. To be specific, forward collisions, which produce particles along the beamline with enormous rates, have been almost completely ignored. For all practical purposes, these collisions are a treasure trove of physics, containing the highest-energy neutrinos ever produced by humans, as well as possible evidence for dark matter, light and weakly-coupled particles, and new forces. In the upcoming LHC Run 3 the ForwArd Search ExpeRiment (FASER) and its cousin FASER$\nu$ will extend the LHC's physics potential. A continuation of this forward physics program for the HL-LHC aims at the Forward Physics Facility (FPF), with larger scale experiments. In this report, I give an overview of the physics motivations for FASER, FASER$\nu$, and the FPF experiments, including both Standard Model and beyond Standard Model physics.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report 1 by Anatoli fedynitch on 2022-8-2 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anatoli fedynitch, Report on arXiv:2205.12413v2, delivered 2022-08-02, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.5477
Strengths
The paper summarizes the talk in a clear fashion. References are given where appropriate and adequate language is used.
Report
These proceedings summarize the motivation to look at very small scattering angles in collider experiments and probe the small coupling-light mass hidden sectors. The proposed FPF experiment will probe some of the unexplored phase space for e.g. dark photon production. The second part of the report highlights the very forward neutrino production at the beam crossing and the measurement in very forward experiments like FASER and FPF. These measurements can substantially contribute in reducing the prompt atmospheric neutrino uncertainties that interfere with astrophysical neutrino flux measurements.
Requested changes
All comments are of rather cosmetic character. The detailed comments can be found in the annotated PDF document.
Author: Luis Anchordoqui on 2022-08-17 [id 2736]
(in reply to Report 1 by Anatoli fedynitch on 2022-08-02)We thank the referee for a critical reading of the manuscript and the valuable comments on the report. We agreed with all the cosmetic comments suggested by the referee. There is one point, however, that we think it is important to clarify. The last comment by the referee states "This sounds like prompt can become a sizable background for PeV-EeV neutrino searches. It is unlikely since above 10 PeV the production of prompt is attenuated by the atmosphere since the D mesons reach critical energy." This is precisely the intention of this sentence, to stress that prompt neutrinos could become a background for astrophysical neutrinos above 10^7.3 GeV. This is because the cosmogenic neutrino flux would be sufficiently suppressed if primary cosmic rays are nuclei as indicated by Auger data. It will be indeed below the prompt background as described in the text. As shown in Fig. 7 the neutrino flux from cosmic ray sources could drop exponentially above the Glashow resonance, and so the prompt neutrino flux could become the dominant neutrino flux above about 10^7.3 PeV. This is one of the main results of this presentation. This also marks the importance of quoting the IceCube flux due to showers, which is in tension with that of the track events. Therefore, I'd incorporate the suggested changes made by the referee, but the last two points -- referring to (i) the sharp drop of the IceCube cascade neutrino flux and (ii) the statement about the prompt being a background for neutrinos above about 10^7.3 GeV -- which I'd keep as they are.