Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Hadronic Calorimeter Granularity

  1. Apr 27, 2016 #1

    ChrisVer

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well that's a fast question, I mainly seek for a confirmation... Is it a fact that the reason behind having lower granularity for the HCAL in ATLAS is that the Hadronic Showers are in general wider and deeper than the Electromagnetic ones? So the HCAL doesn't need high granularity (dealing with wider) but rather radially extended (dealing with deeper) geometry?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 27, 2016 #2

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    It is a matter of cost and computing power. If both were unlimited...
    Jets are wider than individual electrons/photons, and just a few analyses look into the jet substructure. Also, the energy resolution for jets is much worse (energy lost to neutrinos, neutral pions that form smaller electromagnetic showers with a different calorimeter response, ...).
     
  4. Apr 27, 2016 #3

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    But that's also cost. ATLAS could have made their calorimeter compensating (or at least more compensating), or they could have gone to very fine granularity so that particle flow works better. Both of these would be very expensive. If the budget is fixed, that choice would have meant something else would have to get worse, and the experiment didn't want to do that.
     
  5. Apr 28, 2016 #4

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    You can increase the precision with a better granularity, but you'll never reach the precision of electromagnetic calorimeters for electromagnetic showers.
     
  6. Apr 28, 2016 #5

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You'd be surprised. The ATLAS hadron calorimeter has a resolution of 19%/[itex]\sqrt{E}[/itex] and for the ZEUS EM calorimeter it's 18%/[itex]\sqrt{E}[/itex]. Not equal, but pretty close. The main reason hadron calorimeters have poorer resolution isn't the calorimeter - it's the hadrons. Hadron showers are all different, and that difference makes the resolution worse.
     
  7. Apr 28, 2016 #6

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    That's what I said.

    Also, there are 15 years of development between ATLAS and ZEUS.
     
  8. Apr 28, 2016 #7

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Are you sure? It seemed to me you were discussing the calorimeter, not the particles it measured

    Despite the 15 years, those two detectors use very similar technologies. One could have built the ATLAS calorimeter in 1990. That said, I did pick an EM calorimeter favorable to my argument: ZEUS is compensating, and ATLAS is not.
     
  9. Apr 28, 2016 #8

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Things I wrote so far:
    • Jets are wider than individual electrons/photons
    • Also, the energy resolution for jets is much worse (energy lost to neutrinos, neutral pions that form smaller electromagnetic showers with a different calorimeter response, ...).
    • but you'll never reach the precision of electromagnetic calorimeters for electromagnetic showers.
    Yes I am sure I discussed the measured particles. And I never discussed the calorimeters - the third bullet point mentions them because the electromagnetic showers just happen to be in the part called electromagnetic calorimeter.
    Was money the only difference? ATLAS electromagnetic calorimeter has (design) of about ##\sigma/E = 10\%/\sqrt E \oplus 0.6\%##, significantly better than 18%.
    Also, where does the number for the hadronic calorimeter come from? The TDR expects 60%/sqrt(E) sampling term.

    I wonder how the 40 MHz (low granularity, I know) readout would have worked.

    I know.
     
  10. Apr 28, 2016 #9

    ChrisVer

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  11. Apr 28, 2016 #10

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Electron test beam. That tells you for sure what the calorimeter is capable of as an instrument.

    That was part of it, sure, but I think constructability was at least as important. The "natural" HCal for ATLAS would have been LAr, like the endcap. The barrel, however, is huge, and so would need an even larger cryostat. If it could be built at all it would have to be built at CERN, and CERN had a lot on their plate. The TileCal, however, could be built in pieces around the world, and only the final assembly would need to be done at CERN.
     
  12. Apr 29, 2016 #11

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Ah, so 18%/sqrt(E) are for the hadronic calorimeter with electromagnetic showers. That sounds more realistic.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Hadronic Calorimeter Granularity
  1. Hadron jets (Replies: 2)

  2. Hadronic jets (Replies: 1)

  3. Hadron physics (Replies: 3)

  4. Quarks in hadrons (Replies: 5)

Loading...