In memoriam

prof. JÓZSEF ZIMÁNYI

ECFA Meeting Debrecen

6 October 2006

Who is the main responsible for it that we can be here

The conditions of HEP in Hungary

ECFA Meeting in Debrecen 6 October 2006

G. Vesztergombi

OUTLINE

Prehistory

Motivation for CERN membership

Critical mass in a “small” experiment (NA49)

Visibility in a big experiment (CMS)

Technology for a big experiment (ALICE)

Future perspectives

Conclusions

-A naplót nem szándékozom publikálni, csak rögzíteni akarom a tényeket Isten számára.-Nem gondolod, hogy Isten úgyis tudja a tényeket?-Igen, valóban tudja a tényeket, de vajon tudatában van-e a tények ezen verziójának is?

Motto:

PREHISTORY

Starting points in the 50’s: a) Hungarian “MANHATTAN-Project” KFKI (1950) and ATOMKI (1954) b) Experimental Cosmic Ray PhysicsResearch reactor, MeV accelerators, nuclear electronics and detectors

Beginning of HEP in the 60’s: JINR-Dubna membership: HU was providing personel and instrumentation Most active period 1969-1973 Serpuhov 70 GeV accelerator Hungarian colony in Dubna includes more than 50 scientists and engineers

First contacts to CERN a) CERN-Dubna agreement (1964) Some people of Dubna staff can visit CERN b) HAS-CERN : “scientific visitor” agreement (1970) 1-2 year fellowship for theorists and experimentalists alternatively

FRENCH CONNECTION

From 1976 indirect way to join a “complete Hungarian group” to a CERN experiment, EMC through LAPP Annecy: 4 physicists + 4 students.

Marcel Vivargent Jean-Jacques Aubert

During 10 years LAPP provides 1 position for alternating Hungarian physicists

Hadron-jet studies in EMC by RIMA in Budapest

10 years collaboration produced 1 DSc and 5 PhD.

LEP-L3 the first Hungarian CERN experiment

By special grant of HAS a Hungarian team as official BUDAPEST group from the beginning became the member of the L3 experiment

The grant was just enough to cover the obligatory yearly “running cost”,but no resource for construction. Minor hardware contribution was achieved to the SMD Si-detector monitor system.

Main contribution: core-software development, data processing, physical analysis

In 1995 the group was reorganized to concentrate for gamma-gamma analysis.

Due to the complexity of the analysis software, effective work was only possibleduring the short 1-2 months visiting periods of the Hungarian team members to CERN. The home computer base was under-developped to install the necessaryprogram packages.

In 1999 the ATOMKI-Debrecen University team also became an official member.

Quantum JUMP for Hungaian HEP physicists to be part of such a gigantic experiment

http://www.sbf1.sbfisica.org.br/eventos/extras/ismd2006/program/pf1/..%5Ctalks%5CSep3%5CMetzger.pdf http://www.sbf1.sbfisica.org.br/eventos/extras/ismd2006/program/pf1/..%5Ctalks%5CSep8%5Cismd_summary.ppt

“Femtoscope-movie”

Space-time evolution of 2-jetevents in L3. The shortest film.

www.hef.kun.nl/~novakt/movie/movie3.gif

Recent development: bilateral collaboration with Nijmegen (W. Kittel)

Tamas Novak PhD student

Most important results

What did we learned from L3?

By the contemporary Hungarian standards the team got relatively large financial support, but the real sum turned out to be marginal compared to western levels of funding.

Most of the team members had no real direct affiliation to any subdetector,they were drifting around according to occasional short-term grants.

E.g. the key person of the gamma-gamma project left for OPAL continuinghis successful carrier there. Thus we reached only 1 complete PhD and2 “half” ones.

Trivial conclusion: We missed the critical mass

BUT! There is no universal way to the success. Let us try some variants!!!

Motivations for CERN membership in 1991 and NOW(?)

Scientific

Political

Economical

Cultural

Education

Technology

What is the correct order????

There is no unique answer. Mixed arguments.

C.Rubbia initiative

MTA interest

J. Zimányi enthusiasm

J. Antall and E.Pungor political engagement

Still TRUE now

Fizikusok 12 évvelhamarabb léphettekbe fizikus EU-ba!!!

Hungarians enter 12years earlier in thePhysicist’s EU!!!

Physicist’s responsibility toward society

Nominal COST

For Europe: 1000 MCHF 450 Mhabitants 2.2 CHF/person (0.7 busticket)

For Hungary: 8 MCHF 10 Mhabitants 0.8 CHF/person (1.0 busticket)

Real COST

Practically identical prize-level all over EU Dramatic disparity in salaries

After subtracting the living costs the remaining “free” money is marginal in poor countries relative to the rich ones.

E.g. 700 CHF/month-600 vs 3000 CHF/month-2000 the ratio of free money is 100 CHF compared to 1000 CHF

Physicist’s responsibility toward other sciences

Basic research is funded only by OTKA, institute or university providesonly salary and the office with internet but no computers or instruments etc.

Yearly budget of OTKA (=NSF) is about 6-7 Milliard Ft

Yearly membership fee to CERN is about 1.4 Milliard Ft

CERN costs about 20 % of the total sum spent for all the basic sciences,fortunately it is not paid from the OTKA budget. Unfortunately, it is transferedto Geneva, not a single penny is given from this for HOME physics. When we ask for our fair share from the OTKA the others are saying that you already get a much larger sum, therefore don’t take away our money.Fortunately, we can explain and we can get more or less our share, but unfortunately the obtained sum is very small relative to western standards.However the situation was managable in the pre-LHC era.

Three CASE STORIES for CRITICAL MASS experiments

Critical mass in a “small” experiment (NA49)

3 components of an explosive mixture:

-- Experienced hardware team from nuclear physics environment-- Continuous influx of talented students-- Committed theory support group

Actions:

-- GRID-TOF stand-alone Hungarian subdetector Original design, production, installation, on-line DAQ, off-line software,analysis-- Specific RESEARCH AIMS: concentrate on pp/pA physics Motto: AA can be understood only relative to simpler systems-- In house EDUCATION CENTRE (thanks to H.G.Fischer) Every year 2 new students with a new hardware piece is added: centrality detector, (new/old) n-detector, veto-chambers, GAP TPC, np-trigger, Leadglass..

Highlights: see next slides

Reasonable HOME FUNDING in average 30 kCHF/year

Artist’s view of NA49

GRID-TOF (Budawall)

AA

pp pATarget combinations

Unique tool to identify centrality in pA

First step: RING-calorimeter is a good neutron detector, but no tracking at 0 degreeSecond step: Build cheap, simple and robust veto chambers

Before After

VISIBILITY in a BIG EXPERIMENT (CMS)

Small country vs Big-science

Early start: founding father already in RD5.

Large contribution to smaller sub-detector Very Forward Calorimetry

Challenge: same number of particle as in barrel, prompt signal, rad.hard

Parallele-Plate-Chamber vs Quartz-fibre calorimetry

Partners: USA, Russia,Turkey

Prototyping 2 times 15 kCHF Production: fibre stuffing

MULTI-GROUP approach: second hardware group for Muon Alignement

Physics subgroups: see F. Sikler and D Horvath talks

TECHNOLOGY for a BIG EXPERIMENT (ALICE)

High-speed data transfer (RD3) project + a talented engineer: S-LINK

DDL-project for ALICEConcept, protocol, design, prototype G. Rubin’s team Production in Hungary

Tecnhology transfer: FPGA design technology, rad.hard electronics

Spin-off company supported by Hungarian R&D funds

Physics see in Levai’s talk

Az ALICE adatgyűjtő rendszere

DDL

ALICE DAQ

ALICE Detector Data Link

Detector Data Link (DDL)

• Detector readout: fast data transfer to PC memory

• Electronics configuration: pedestals download

• Interface and data-transfer detector/DAQ

LDC

DDL architecture

PCI Bus

Front-End Read-Out

DAQ Read-out Receiver

Card (D-RORC)

SourceInterface

Unit

ForwardChannel

(Raw data)

BackwardChannel

(Pedestals, control)

DestinationInterface

Unit

Detector Data Link (DDL) :- Source Interface Unit- Transmission media- Destination Interface Unit

Standarddetector/DAQ interface

DDL FeaturesInterface:• Full duplex 32-bit data path on the destination interface (DIU card) • Half duplex 32-bit data path on the source interface (SIU card) • Full duplex flow control (XON/XOFF) • Interface clock up to 66 MHz (easy integration with PCI 66) • 264 MB/s peak data rate, 240 MB/s sustained bandwidth (max.)

Implementation:• Duplex LC optical link up to 300 m• 2x FC or 2x GbE physical layer components• Small Form Factor Pluggable (SFP) optical transceivers • Bit error rate < 10 -12 • Robust error detection: very low undetected bit error rate < 10-40 • Automatic link synchronization and management • Radiation tolerant Source Interface

Extras:• Stand-by support (low power consumption) • In-system reconfiguration /  Remote system upgrade • Monitoring of the aging of laser diode of optical transceivers

D-RORC

Readout System Performance

• Motherboard with dual Xeon CPUs @ 2.4 GHz

• Six PCI-X slots, 4 bus segments (3+1+1+1), 2 controllers

• Linux OS

• ALICE Data-Acquisition software (DATE)

DDL and D-RORC test & commissioning

• Hardware dedicated to detector tests & commissioning

• Data transfer to DAQ and HLT– 25 DDLs in the institutes for tests

– 20 DDL SIUs

– 16 D-RORCs

– 8 DIUs

• Hardware for DAQ commissioning

– DDL Data Generator (DDG)

– DDL data source triggered by TTC

– Uses the D-RORC as DMA engine to read data from PC memory and send them over DDL

Future perspectives

Money

Manpower

Experiments

Technology

Financial problems in LHC era

The principle is the same at LHC as it was at LEP: the experiments are independent Collaboration with their own budget not covered by CERN membership fee.During LEP times the amount was managable from the OTKA grants.In LHC experiments strict per capita rules are followed with much higher rates:M&O costs are 10-12 kCHF/physicists/year.

CMS 25 participants including 12 senior (paying) physicists 144 kCHF/year

Nominal request:

ALICE 15 .... 7 70 kCHF/yearFor 5 years running it would add up to 1 070 kCHF

BUT!! We need some HOME money too: about 100 kCHF/year to survive.

In total the minimal additional request for 5 year running is about 1.6 MCHF.

We paid CMS +ALICE construction cost 1.6 MCHF for the1998-2007 period.

The running per year will cost TWICE as MUCH as the construction!!!!!!!!!!

At this moment it is absolutely unknown: WHO WILL PAY THIS SUM?

Manpower from Summer Student Program

Experimental FACT: Highest quality recruitment only from Summer Students

All our post-docs were catched by CERN SS program

For us it is a Question of LIFE and DEATH

Disagree with the present lottery type selection processand the strict QUOTA system. Hungary has only 2.

In good old days our average was 6 students per yearwhich were already preselected by merit and directed toward agreed topics.

Efficiency rate: 2 starting summer students produce 1 good post-doc.

Hungary needs 2 post-docs/year. MINIMAL QUOTA is 4.

Request to CERN Management: New 2-step quota distribution systemFirst : Everybody gets 4 Second: Rest is distributed according to GDP above the minimal quota limit. This proposal is financially neutral.

EXPERIMENTS

ABSOLUTE PRIORITY to LHC: CMS and ALICE

BUT !!!!!

We need complementary activity PHYSICS by OUR OWN HAND.

Balanced progam TWO BIG and TWO SMALL experiments:

ASACUSA and NA49 future

Home budget is available from normal OTKA, we need CERN’s help.

TECHNOLOGY

Hungary has enormous deficit in accelerator technology,

we didn’t get any order from LHC accelerator construction,our industrial return coefficient is miserable

This is partially our fault, because we don’t have any active engineer in the accelerator developing departments who could mediate between CERN and home industry

There is the counter example in electronics (ALICE DDL)!!!

Common effort to recruit young engineers as technical and/ordoctoral students. CERN has fantastic projects and acceleratortechnology is getting more and more important in applications.

9 Strong interactions and the interface of particle and nuclearphysicsA variety of important research lines are at the interface between particle and nuclearphysics requiring dedicated experiments; Council will seek to work with NuPECC inareas of mutual interest, and maintain the capability to perform fixed target experimentsat CERN.QCD plays a multiple role in particle physics. On one side QCD is one of thecornerstones of the SM, and in spite of its phenomenological successes more work isnecessary to fully establish its quantitative predictions in the long-distance and stronglyinteracting regimes. On the other side, QCD is a crucial tool for the measurement of theelectroweak parameters of the SM (e.g. the quark masses and mixings) as well as tosearch for BSM phenomena, both at low energies (e.g. in the decays of K or B mesons)and at high energies, where the production of new heavy particles may be hidden bylarge QCD backgrounds, and often manifests itself in the form of multijet signatures.Finally, QCD leads to new states of matter, when temperature and densities exceed thevalues beyond which quarks and gluons are confined inside hadrons. Progress in thefield of strong interactions, guaranteed by a diversified programme of national orregional facilities operating at different energies and with different beams, plays animportant role in the future of particle physics.

In parallel, a fixed-target programme, to specifically address the problem of identifyinga QCD critical point by improving and diversifying the available data, could beimportant. The ability to carry out fixed-target experiments at CERN with heavy ionsbeams should be preserved.

STRATEGY DOCUMENT 14 July 2006, Lisbon

Conclusions

Highest priority: LHC CMS + ALICE + (Computing GRID)

Balanced physics program with small experiments: ASACUSA, NA49’

Summer Students are the fundamental manpower source

French connection