international linear collider: stato e prospettive · international linear collider: stato e...
TRANSCRIPT
Assisi 24 Settembre 2004 Paolo Checchia CSNI 1
International LinearCollider: stato e prospettive
Sommario• Decisione dell’ International Technology
Recommendation Panel
• Conseguenze
• Verso la globalizzazione
• Programmi di ricerca finanziati
• Sommario R&D
• R&D italiani
• Conclusioni
Assisi 24 Settembre 2004 Paolo Checchia CSNI 2
The ITRP Members
Jean-Eudes Augustin (FRANCE)Jonathan Bagger (USA) Barry Barish (USA) - ChairGiorgio Bellettini (ITALY) Paul Grannis (USA) Norbert Holtkamp (USA) George Kalmus (UK) Gyung-Su Lee (KOREA) Akira Masaike (JAPAN) Katsunobu Oide (JAPAN) Volker Soergel (Germany)Hirotaka Sugawara (JAPAN)David Plane - Scientific Secretary
Ricordo: ITRP comitato nominato dall’ ICFA per la scelta della tecnologia della macchina (calda vs fredda)
ICFA
ITRP Int.LinearCollider
SteeringComm.
Why Decide Technology Now?
• We have an embarrassment of riches !!!!
– Two alternate designs -- “warm” and “cold” have come to the stage where the show stoppers have been eliminated and the concepts are well understood.
– R & D is very expensive (especially D) and to move to the “next step” (being ready to construct such a machine within about 5 years) will require more money and a concentration of resources, organization and a worldwide effort.
– It is too expensive and too wasteful to try to do this for both technologies.
– A major step toward a decision to construct a new machine will be enabled by uniting behind one technology, followed by a global design based on the recommended technology.
– The final construction decision in ~5 years will be able to fully take into account early LHC and other physics developments.
George KalmusDurhamECFA Meeting
Assisi 24 Settembre 2004 4
- Parameters defined by ILCSC scope-panel for ITRPhttp://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/LC_parameters.pdf
Baseline √s = 200-500 GeV, integrated Luminosity 500 fb-1 over 1st 4 years80% electron polarisation2 interaction regions with easy switching
Upgrade Anticipate √s → 1 TeV, ∫L = 1 ab-1 over 4 yearsOptions e-e- collisions,
50% positron polarisation,“GigaZ”; high L at Z and at WW threshold,Laser backscatter for γγ and γe collisions,Doubled L at 500 GeV.
Choice among options to be guided by physics needs.
Di che macchina si tratta?
D.J. MillerDurham
5
The Recommendation*• We recommend that the linear collider be based on super-conducting rf
technology (from Exec. Summary)
– This recommendation is made with the understanding that we are recommending a technology, not a design. We expect the final design to be developed by a team drawn from the combined warm and cold linear collider communities, taking full advantage of the experience and expertise of both (from the Executive Summary).
– We submited the Executive Summary to ILCSC & ICFA at the Beijing Conference
– Details of the assessment will be presented in the body of the ITRP report to be published around mid September
– The superconducting technology has features that tipped the balance in its favor. They follow in part from the low rf frequency.
George KalmusDurhamECFA Meeting
*Executive Summaryhttp://www.interactions.org/pdf/ITRPexec.pdf
6
Remarks and Next Steps• CLIC, C-Band, GLC/NLC and TESLA researchers have done a
fantastic job bringing these technologies to the point where we can move forward toward a next generation linear collider.
• The community must join efforts to develop a design based on rf superconducting technology
• The machine will be designed to begin operation at 500 GeV, with a capability for an upgrade to about 1 TeV, as the physics requires. This capability is an essential feature of the design. Therefore we urge that part of the global R&D and design effort be focused on increasing the ultimate collider energy to the maximum extent feasible. (from Exec Summary)
• It is all of our responsibilities to come together and move forward vigorously toward a common design, and forming a central design organization and obtaining funding to build this accelerator.
George KalmusDurhamECFA Meeting
Assisi 24 Settembre 2004 Paolo Checchia CSNI 7
Conseguenze
ILCSC in Beijing accepted these recommendationsand chose to call the collider the ILC.
It will use cold technology, but the whole design will be revisited. It need not look like TESLA.
First meeting of accelerator designers from participating labs will be in KEK in November, maybe straight after the ACFA Taipei workshop,i.e. from 13/11/04
D.J.MillerDurham
abbiamo un nome!
Assisi 24 Settembre 2004 8
Designing the ILC
ILCSC+ICFA plan a Global Design Initiative (GDI)to begin early 2005, hosted by a substantial laboratoryfor logistic support. (9 labs have bid to be host*; selection panel appointed,European members R.Eichler and S.Bertollucci)
There will be a Central Team (selection panel for its leader appointed; Europeans A.Wagner and DJM)with three Regional Teams. An MOU is being draftedfor agreement between the GDI and the participatingLaboratories.
D.J.MillerDurham
* CERN non figura tra i 9
Assisi 24 Settembre 2004 Paolo Checchia CSNI 9
Proposed Milestones
GDI Milestones• 2004 – ITRP Technology
Recommendation (DONE)
• 2005 – Accelerator CDR
• 2007 – Accelerator TDR
• 2008 – LC Site Selection
• Site selection + 1 year
Experimental Program• Single preliminary costing
document for at least one whole-detector concept produced by WWS Costing Panel
• CDR’s from each detector concept team (expect some individuals to sign multiple CDRs) received by the WWS OC
• Collaborations form and submit LOIs for proposal to the Global Lab (or GDO?)
• Global Lab selects experiments and asks for 2 TDRs
D.J.MillerDurham
Altri sviluppi• meeting delle funding Agencies (UK,D,India,Jap.,Korea,Canada,DoE,NSF,CERN council)
16/17 Sett. al CERN informazioni riservate(?) :Apprezzamento per la scelta tecnologica e "look forward to assisting in this process"
•ILCSC chiede a World Wide Study di organizzare in parallelo con GDI un piano per lo sviluppo di un programma sperimentale:
1. Ensure that at least two different detector concepts are developed; by worldwide teams which will:- prepare CDR(s) on concepts, by ~2006;- be ready to form the cores of the collaborations when funding is in place and bids are called for.
2. Encourage and coordinate inter-regional R&D on essential detector technologies, and give peer-reviewed recognition to nationally funded R&D programmes as part of the worldwide project.
3. Make sure that vital questions of machine-detector interface and beamline instrumentation are as fully supported as acceleratorand detector R&D. This will involve close links with the GDI.
Assisi 24 Settembre 2004 Paolo Checchia CSNI 11
Verso la Globalizzazione
• La struttura organizzativa dei gruppi di studio di fisica e rivelatore su base regionale:
ACFA (Asia), ALCPG (America), ECFA (Europa)
con 2 meeting regionali all’anno ed un Workshop mondiale ogni anno e mezzo
• continua nell’immediato (è stato chiesta a ECFA l’autorizzazione per un nuovo ciclo) ma deve essere superata:
• già il prossimo LCWS sarà a Marzo 2005 a SLAC.
• Ripensamento dei possibili disegni dei rivelatori*:*ricordo: 2 esperimenti
12
Concetti generali del Rivelatore (vecchia)
Eu Am As
Paolo Checchia CSNI 13
Concetti generali del Rivelatore SiDhttp://www-
sid.slac.stanford.edu•Accept notion that excellent energy flow calorimetry is required, and explore optimization of a W-SiEMCal and the implications for the detector architecture BR2: B up to 5 T
Mediumgià TESLA e LD
http://agenda.cern.ch/askArchive.php?base=agenda&categ=a04172&id=
a04172s45t3/transparencies
basato su tracciatore a gas e calorimetri ad alta granularitàB 4T R 3m
Huge
2004 November 9-12 7th ACFA Linear ColliderWorkshop on Detector and Physics Taipei, Taiwan http://hep1.phys.ntu.edu.tw/ACFA7/
kick-off meeting for Huge Detector Concept Study.Area of EM CAL (Barrel + Endcap)– SD: ~40 m2 / layer– TESLA: ~80 m2 /
layer– Huge: ~100 m2 / layer– (GLC: ~130 m2 /layer)
tutti le opzioni soggette al paradigma“Particle flow”:
Ejet = Σcarichiptk + Σγ Eecal + Σneutri Ehcal
δE/E = .60×0 .25 ×10%/√E .10×80%/ √E + δconfusione
è veramente l’unica soluzione?
Assisi 24 Settembre 2004 Paolo Checchia CSNI 14
Verso la Globalizzazione
ACFA workshop Taipei 9-12 Novembre
Prossimo LCWS a Stanford in Marzo/Aprile
ALCPG propone meeting (2 settimane) in the Rockies in Agosto con larga partecipazione mondiale
2005 ECFA Ottobre/Novembre?
scadenze
necessaria riorganizzazione dei convenors dei vari argomenti di fisica e dei sottorivelatori
Assisi 24 Settembre 2003 15
Programmi di Ricerca finanziati (UE)9 M € dal 60 programma quadro UE
Assisi 24 Settembre 2004 16
Programmi di Ricerca finanziati (UE)
G. BlairECFA Meeting
27/09/2004 17
Sommario R&D Vertice
• R&D reports @ Durham:– DEPFET (M. Trimpl)– CCD (S. Hillert)– UK-CMOS (J.Velthuis)– Continental-CMOS @Strasbourg (A. Besson)– Continental-CMOS @ DESY (D. Contarato)
1. ~ 400kEUR/anno
2. ~ 400kEUR/anno
3. ~20 kEUR
1. 2001-20042. 2001-20043. ???
1. PRC R&D ¼: Francia (LEPSI + IRES + CEA), UK (RAL), Switzerland (Geneve), Olanda (NIKHEF)
2. SUCIMA: Italia (Insubria), Francia(LEPSI), Germania (Karlsruhe), Svizzera(Geneve), Polonia (Cracovia, Varsavia)
3. Mimosa gr 5 – Roma III
CMOS
?????????????Germania (Bonn, Monaco, Manheim)
DEPFET
~500 kEUR/anno2001-2004SUCIMASOI
-Nessun progetto
attualmentein corso
Italia (Como) + Polonia (Cracovia + Varsavia)HAPS
~ 1 MEUR/anno2001-2005LCFI (U.K. only)CCD
FinanziamentoPiano temporaleCollaborazionetecnologie
27/09/2004 18
Sommario R&D Tracciatore
27/09/2004 J. Yu 19
Sommario R&D Calorimetri
Nothern Illinois/ NICADDScintillator – Steel
Italy (Capire)Resistive Plate Chambers-SteelFNAL, Northern IllinoisScintillator-Steel
Tail catcher
ANL, Boston, Chicago, FNALResistive Plate Chamber-Steel
RussiaResistive Plate Chambers-Steel (Calice)
FNAL, UT ArlingtonGas Electron Multipliers-Steel
Hadronic (digital)
JapanScintillator-LeadCzech, Germany, Russia NIUScintillator-Steel (Calice)
Hadronic (analog)
ColoradoScintillator-TungstenJapanScintillator-LeadKansas, Kansas StateScintillator/Silicon-TungstenItalyScintillator/Silicon-Lead (LCcal)UK, Czech, France, Korea, RussiaSilicon-Tungsten (Calice)BNL, Oregon, SLACSilicon-Tungsten
Electromagnetic
GroupsTechnologyCalorimeter
J.YuDurham
27/09/2004 20
Sommario richieste Test beam
F.SefkowDurham
• Test beam demands are overwhelming, and exceeding availability of facilities
• Program now entering new phase
• Level of coordination, too
• Call for participation in generic LC detector R&D proposal, built on momentum from large calorimeter R&D groups
• executive summary to ICFA and lab directors today (4-9-04)
Assisi 24 Settembre 2004 Paolo Checchia CSNI 21
R&D Italiani
Assisi 24 Settembre 2004 Paolo Checchia CSNI 22
R&D ItalianiMimosa
attivita' sui pixel monolitici
anno 2004 22.5 KEUR di cui 16 K EUR per un run di fonderia TSMC 0.25 anno 2005 26.5 KEUR di cui 15 K EUR per un run di fonderia TSMC 0.25, di questi 2,5 KEUR sono per il gruppo di Como
prima versione del chip con quattro matrici di test con differenti configurazioni: numero di pixel, pitch (17um o 34 um), configurazione 3 transistor o self-biased rad-hard (gate all around) e non rad-hard. chip consegnato da MOSIS a fine Luglio ed a inizio Settembre cominciati i test. Rispetto delle milestones previste a Settembre 2003 ⇒ da Gr. V finanziamento(s.j. a test approfonditi del primo prototipo) di un nuovo run di fonderia per il 2005.
Assisi 24 Settembre 2004 Paolo Checchia CSNI 23
R&D ItalianiLCcal
• Proseguita Analisi dati 2003
• Presentazioni a:
ICCATPP-Como (A. Bulgheroni, P. Checchia)
CALOR2004 (S. Miscetti)
IEEE/IMTC (M. Margoni)
LCWS04 (P. Checchia)
ECFA Workshop (P. Checchia)
Presentata a PRC di DESY
Assisi 24 Settembre 2003 Paolo Checchia CSNI 2430 GeV e-
PadPad
PH
Tracked particleGhost tracks
@ 6X0
@ 2X0
LCcal Test beam results: Si Pad two particle separation
Assisi 24 Settembre 2004
R&D Italiani
T. TabarelliLCWS04
Assisi 24 Settembre 2003 Paolo Checchia CSNI 26
Conclusioni
•La decisione sulla tecnologia non può che dare impulso all’ ILC
•La scelta del sito per il GDI (a breve) andrà nella stessa direzione
•Esiste una scaletta temporale (il problema è la sua credibilità)
• I gruppi di studio regionali e mondiali vanno riorganizzati
• Spazio per ripensare i concetti per i rivelatori ma progetti di R&D stan partendo con impegni ambiziosi
• L’ evoluzione non permette di rimanere alla finestra
27
Conclusioni (Costi)• Sblocco del s. j. 2004 per Padova e LNF
• 10 K€ +10 s.j. M.E. Padova
• 10 K€ +10 s.j. M.E. LNF
Commenti:
1) Questa tasca non è data alle persone menzionate ma è a disposizione di tutte le persone interessate (con un controllo più efficiente)
2) L’ assenza di quote deriva come conseguenza del punto 1). Per le persone con compiti di convenor analogia con chi partecipa ad altri comitati.
3) Diverso (per ora) il discorso sull’ R&D che è finanziato (e conseguentemente quotato) da gr 5. Un ripensamento è senz’altro necessario …..
Assisi 24 Settembre 2003 Paolo Checchia CSNI 28
Appendice
Assisi 24 Settembre 2003 Paolo Checchia CSNI 29
Studi per il Linear Collider: Partecipazione Italiana
•Working group internazionale INFN: 1 contact p.
•Nuovo ciclo di studio ECFA INFN: 1 org. comm.
Incontri previsti 2003/2005
Gruppi di Fisica e
Sudio del Rivelatore: INFN: 4 coordinatorisperimentali da Bologna, Como, Milano, LNF, Padova, Torino, Trieste
•Ricerca e sviluppo di rivelatori
Assisi 24 Settembre 2003 30
Why ITRP?George KalmusECFA Study MeetingDurham, 1st Sept 2004
-Two parallel developments over the past few years (the science & the technology)
–The precision information from LEP and other data have pointed to a low mass Higg’s; Understanding electroweak symmetry breaking, whether supersymmetry or an alternate will require precision measurements.
–Designs and technology demonstrations have matured on two technical approaches for an e+e- collider that would be well matched to our present understanding of the physics
–There are strong arguments for having a period of complementaritybetween a ~0.5-1.0 TeV LC and the LHC
Assisi 24 Settembre 2003 31
The Charge to the International Technology Recommendation Panel
General Considerations
The International Technology Recommendation Panel (the Panel) should recommend a Linear Collider (LC) technology to the International Linear Collider Steering Committee (ILCSC).
On the assumption that a linear collider construction commences before 2010 and given the assessment by the ITRC that both TESLA and JLC-X/NLC have rather mature conceptual designs, the choice should be between these two designs. If necessary, a solution incorporating C-band technology should be evaluated.
Note -- We have interpreted our charge as being to recommend a technology, rather than choose a design
George KalmusECFA Meeting
Assisi 24 Settembre 2003 Paolo Checchia CSNI 32
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/9/7
Assisi 24 Settembre 2003 Paolo Checchia CSNI 33
R&D Calorimetri
Assisi 24 Settembre 2003 Paolo Checchia CSNI 34