1. An Introduction to the Physics and Technology of e+e- Linear Colliders Lecture 1: Introduction and Overview Nick Walker (DESY) Nick Walker DESY DESY Summer Student Lecture 31 st July 2002 USPAS Santa Barbara 16 th June, 2003

2. Course Content 1.Introduction and overview 2.Linac part I 3.Linac part II 4.Damping Ring & Bunch Compressor I 5.Damping Ring & Bunch Compressor II 6.Final Focus Systems 7.Beam-Beam Effects 8.Stability Issues in Linear Colliders 9.the SLC experience and the Current LC Designs Lecture:

3. This Lecture Why LC and not super-LEP? The Luminosity Problem –general scaling laws for linear colliders A introduction to the linear collider sub-systems: –main accelerator (linac) –sources –damping rings –bunch compression –final focus during the lecture, we will introduce (revise) some important basic accelerator physics concepts that we will need in the remainder of the course.

4. Energy Frontier e + e - Colliders LEP at CERN, CH E cm = 180 GeV P RF = 30 MW

5. Why a Linear Collider? Synchrotron Radiation from an electron in a magnetic field: Energy loss per turn of a machine with an average bending radius  : Energy loss must be replaced by RF system

6. Cost Scaling $$ Linear Costs: (tunnel, magnets etc) $ lin   RF costs: $ RF   E  E 4 /  Optimum at $ lin = $ RF Thus optimised cost ($ lin +$ RF ) scales as E 2

7. The Bottom Line $$$

10. solution: Linear Collider No Bends, but lots of RF! e+e+ e-e- 5-10 km Note: for LC, $ tot  E long linac constructed of many RF accelerating structures typical gradients range from 25  100 MV/m

11. A Little History A Possible Apparatus for Electron-Clashing Experiments (*). M. Tigner Laboratory of Nuclear Studies. Cornell University - Ithaca, N.Y. M. Tigner, Nuovo Cimento 37 (1965) 1228 “While the storage ring concept for providing clashing- beam experiments ( 1 ) is very elegant in concept it seems worth-while at the present juncture to investigate other methods which, while less elegant and superficially more complex may prove more tractable.”

12. A Little History (1988-2003) SLC (SLAC, 1988-98) NLCTA (SLAC, 1997-) TTF (DESY, 1994-) ATF (KEK, 1997-) FFTB (SLAC, 1992-1997) SBTF (DESY, 1994-1998) CLIC CTF1,2,3 (CERN, 1994-) Over 14 Years of Linear Collider R&D

13. Past and Future generally quoted as ‘proof of principle’ but we have a very long way to go!

14. LC Status in 1994 TESLASBLCJLC-SJLC-CJLC-XNLCVLEPPCLIC f [GHz] 1.33.02.85.711.4 14.030.0 L  10 33 [cm -2 s -1 ] 64495791-5 P beam [MW] 16.57.31.34.33.24.22.4~1-4 P AC [MW] 16413911820911410357100  y [  10 -8 m] 100504.8 57.515  y * [nm] 64283333.247.4 1994 E cm =500 GeV

15. LC Status 2003 TESLASBLCJLC-SJLC-CJLC-X/NLCVLEPPCLIC f [GHz] 1.35.711.430.0 L  10 33 [cm -2 s -1 ] 34142021 P beam [MW] 11.35.86.94.9 P AC [MW] 140233195175  y [  10 -8 m] 3441  y * [nm] 5431.2 2003 E cm =500 GeV

16. The Luminosity Issue Collider luminosity (cm  2 s  1 ) is approximately given by where: N b = bunches / train N = particles per bunch f rep = repetition frequency A= beam cross-section at IP H D = beam-beam enhancement factor For Gaussian beam distribution:

17. The Luminosity Issue: RF Power Introduce the centre of mass energy, E cm :  RF is RF to beam power efficiency. Luminosity is proportional to the RF power for a given E cm

18. The Luminosity Issue: RF Power Some numbers: E cm = 500 GeV N= 10 10 n b = 100 f rep = 100 Hz Need to include efficiencies: RF  beam:range 20-60% Wall plug  RF:range 28-40% AC power > 100 MW just to accelerate beams and achieve luminosity P beams = 8 MW linac technology choice

19. The Luminosity Issues: storage ring vs LC LEP f rep = 44 kHz LC f rep = few-100 Hz (power limited)  factor ~400 in L already lost! Must push very hard on beam cross-section at collision: LEP:  x  y  130  6  m 2 LC:  x  y  (200-500)  (3-5) nm 2 factor of 10 6 gain! Needed to obtain high luminosity of a few 10 34 cm -2 s -1

20. The Luminosity Issue: intense beams at IP choice of linac technology: efficiency available power Beam-Beam effects: beamstrahlung disruption Strong focusing optical aberrations stability issues and tolerances

21. The Luminosity Issue: Beam-Beam strong mutual focusing of beams (pinch) gives rise to luminosity enhancement H D As e ± pass through intense field of opposing beam, they radiate hard photons [beamstrahlung] and loose energy Interaction of beamstrahlung photons with intense field causes copious e + e  pair production [background] see lecture 2 on beam-beam E y (MV/cm) y/yy/y

22. The Luminosity Issue: Beam-Beam see lecture 2 on beam-beam beam-beam characterised by Disruption Parameter:  z = bunch length, f beam = focal length of beam-lens Enhancement factor (typically H D ~ 2): ‘hour glass’ effect for storage rings, and In a LC, hence

23. The Luminosity Issue: Hour-Glass  = “depth of focus” reasonable lower limit for  is bunch length  z see lecture 2 on beam-beam

24. The Luminosity Issue: Beamstrahlung see lecture 2 on beam-beam RMS relative energy loss we would like to make  x  y small to maximise luminosity BUT keep (  x +  y ) large to reduce  SB. Trick: use “flat beams” with Now we set  x to fix  SB, and make  y as small as possible to achieve high luminosity. For most LC designs,  SB ~ 3-10%

25. The Luminosity Issue: Beamstrahlung Returning to our L scaling law, and ignoring H D From flat-beam beamstrahlung hence

26. The Luminosity Issue: story so far high RF-beam conversion efficiency  RF high RF power P RF small vertical beam size  y large bunch length  z (will come back to this one) could also allow higher beamstrahlung  BS if willing to live with the consequences For high Luminosity we need: Next question: how to make a small  y

27. The Luminosity Issue: A final scaling law? where  n,y is the normalised vertical emittance, and  y is the vertical  -function at the IP. Substituting: hour glass constraint  y is the same ‘depth of focus’  for hour-glass effect. Hence

28. The Luminosity Issue: A final scaling law? high RF-beam conversion efficiency  RF high RF power P RF small normalised vertical emittance  n,y strong focusing at IP (small  y and hence small  z ) could also allow higher beamstrahlung  BS if willing to live with the consequences Above result is for the low beamstrahlung regime where  BS ~ few % Slightly different result for high beamstrahlung regime

29. Luminosity as a function of  y

30. The ‘Generic’ Linear Collider Each sub-system pushes the state-of-the-art in accelerator design

31. EzEz z The Linear Accelerator (LINAC) see lectures 3-4 on linac EzEz z travelling wave structure: need phase velocity = c (disk-loaded structure) bunch sees constant field: E z =E 0 cos(  ) c c standing wave cavity: bunch sees field: E z =E 0 sin(  t+  )sin(kz) =E 0 sin(kz+  )sin(kz) c

32. The Linear Accelerator (LINAC) see lectures 3-4 on linac Travelling wave structure Circular waveguide mode TM 01 has v p >c No good for acceleration! Need to slow wave down using irises.

33. The Linear Accelerator (LINAC) Gradient given by shunt impedance: –P RF RF power /unit length –R S shunt impedance /unit length The cavity Q defines the fill time: –v g = group velocity, l s = structure length For TW,  is the structure attenuation constant: RF power lost along structure (TW): see lectures 3-4 on linac power lost to structure beam loading  RF would like R S to be as high as possible

34. The Linear Accelerator (LINAC) Steady state gradient drops over length of structure due to beam loading see lectures 3-4 on linac unloaded av. loaded assumes constant (stead state) current

35. The Linear Accelerator (LINAC) Transient beam loading –current not constant but pulses! (t pulse = n b t b ) –for all LC designs, long bunch trains achieve steady state quickly, and previous results very good approximation. –However, transient over first bunches needs to be compensated. see lectures 3-4 on linac unloaded av. loaded t V

36. The Linear Accelerator (LINAC) Single bunch beam loading: the Longitudinal wakefield NLC X-band structure:

37. The Linear Accelerator (LINAC) Single bunch beam loading Compensation using RF phase wakefield RF Total  = 15.5º

38. The Linear Accelerator (LINAC) Single bunch beam loading: compensation RMS  E/E EzEz  min = 15.5º

39. Transverse Wakes: The Emittance Killer! Bunch current also generates transverse deflecting modes when bunches are not on cavity axis Fields build up resonantly: latter bunches are kicked transversely  multi- and single-bunch beam breakup (MBBU, SBBU)

40. Damped & Detuned Structures Slight random detuning between cells causes HOMs to decohere. Will recohere later: needs to be damped (HOM dampers)

41. Single bunch wakefields Effect of coherent betatron oscillation - head resonantly drives the tail head tail head eom: tail eom:

42. Wakefields (alignment tolerances) higher frequency = stronger wakefields -higher gradients -stronger focusing (smaller  ) -smaller bunch charge

43. The LINAC is only one part Produce the electron charge? Produce the positron charge? Make small emittance beams? Focus the beams down to ~nm at the IP? Need to understand how to:

44. e + e  Sources produce long bunch trains of high charge bunches with small emittances and spin polarisation (needed for physics) Requirements: 100-1000s @ 5-100 Hz few nC  nx,y ~ 10  6,10  8 m mandatory for e , nice for e + Remember L scaling:

45. e  Source laser-driven photo injector circ. polarised photons on GaAs cathode  long. polarised e  laser pulse modulated to give required time structure very high vacuum requirements for GaAs (<10  11 mbar) beam quality is dominated by space charge (note v ~ 0.2c) factor 10 in x plane factor ~500 in y plane

46. e  Source: pre-acceleration SHB = sub-harmonic buncher. Typical bunch length from gun is ~ns (too long for electron linac with f ~ 1-3 GHz, need tens of ps)

47. e  Source Photon conversion to e ± pairs in target material Standard method is e  beam on ‘thick’ target (em-shower)

48. e  Source :undulator-based SR radiation from undulator generates photons no need for ‘thick’ target to generate shower thin target reduces multiple-Coulomb scattering: hence better emittance (but still much bigger than needed) less power deposited in target (no need for mult. systems) Achilles heel: needs initial electron energy > 150 GeV! ~ 30 MeV 0.4X 0 10  2 m 5 kW

49. Damping Rings (storage) ring in which the bunch train is stored for T store ~20-200 ms emittances are reduced via the interplay of synchrotron radiation and RF acceleration final emittance equilibrium emittance initial emittance (~0.01m for e + ) damping time see lecture 5

50. y’ not changed by photon (or is it?)  p replaced by RF such that  p z =  p. since (adiabatic damping again) y’ = dy/ds = p y /p z, we have a reduction in amplitude:  y’ =  p y’ Must take average over all  -phases: whereand hence LEP : E ~ 90 GeV, P  ~ 15000 GeV/s,  D ~ 12 ms Damping Rings: transverse damping see lecture 5

51. Damping Rings: Anti-Damping particle now performs  -oscillation about new closed orbit  1  increase in emittance Equilibrium achieved when see lecture 5

52. Damping Rings: transverse damping see lecture 5 suggests high-energy and small ring. But required RF power: equilibrium emittance: Take E  2 GeV B bend = 0.13 T    50 m = 27 GeV/s [28 kV/turn] hence  D  148 ms - Few ms required!!! Increase by  30 using wiggler magnets an example: Remember: 8  D needed to reduce e + vertical emittance. Store time set by f rep : radius:

53. Horizontal emittance defined by lattice theoretical vertical emittance limited by –space charge –intra-beam scattering (IBS) –photon opening angle In practice,  y limited by magnet alignment errors [cross plane coupling] typical vertical alignment tolerance:  y  30  m  requires beam-based alignment techniques! Damping Rings: limits on vertical emittance see lecture 5

54. Bunch Compression bunch length from ring ~ few mm required at IP 100-300  m long. phase space dispersive section see lecture 6

55. The linear bunch compressor conservation of longitudinal emittance RF cavity initial (uncorrelated) momentum spread:  u initial bunch length  z,0 compression rationF c =  z,0 /  z beam energyE RF induced (correlated) momentum spread:  c RF voltageV RF RF wavelength RF = 2  / k RF longitudinal dispersion:R 56 see lecture 6

56. The linear bunch compressor chicane (dispersive section) see lecture 6

57. Final Focusing Use telescope optics to demagnify beam by factor m = f 1 /f 2 = f 1 /L * Need typically m = 300 putting L * = 2m  f 1 = 600m f1f1 f 2 (=L * )

58. Final Focusing remember  y ~  z at final lens  y ~ 100 km short f requires very strong fields (gradient): dB/dr ~ 250 T/m pole tip field B(r = 1cm) ~ 2.5 T normalised quadrupole strength: where B  = magnetic rigidity = P/e ~ 3.3356 P [GeV/c] see lecture 7

59. Final Focusing: chromaticity for a thin-lens of length l: for  rms ~ 0.3% more general:  is chromaticity chromaticity must be corrected using sextupole magnets see lecture 7

60. Final Focusing: chromatic correction magnetic multipole expansion: dipolequadrupolesextupoleoctupole 2 nd -order kick: introduce horizontal dispersion D x chromatic correction when need also to cancel geometric (xy) term! (second sextupole) see lecture 7

61. Final Focusing: chromatic correction see lecture 7

62. Final Focusing: Fundamental limits Already mentioned that At high-energies, additional limits set by so-called Oide Effect: synchrotron radiation in the final focusing quadrupoles leads to a beamsize growth at the IP minimum beam size: occurs when independent of E! F is a function of the focusing optics: typically F ~ 7 (minimum value ~0.1) see lecture 7

63. Stability Tiny (emittance) beams Tight component tolerances –Field quality –Alignment Vibration and Ground Motion issues Active stabilisation Feedback systems Linear Collider will be “Fly By Wire” see lecture 8

64. Stability: some numbers Cavity alignment (RMS):~  m Linac magnets:100 nm FFS magnets:10-100 nm Final “lens”:~ nm !!! parallel-to-point focusing: see lecture 8

65. 100nm RMS random offsets sing1e quad 100nm offset LINAC quadrupole stability for uncorrelated offsets take N Q = 400,  y ~ 6  10  14 m,  ~ 100 m, k 1 ~ 0.03 m  1  ~25 nm Dividing by and taking average values: see lecture 8

66. Beam-Beam orbit feedback use strong beam- beam kick to keep beams colliding see lecture 8 Generally, orbit control (feedback) will be used extensively in LC

67. Beam based feedback: bandwidth f / f rep g = 1.0g = 0.5g = 0.1g = 0.01 f/f rep Good rule of thumb: attenuate noise with f  f rep /20

68. Ground motion spectra

69. Long Term Stability 1 hour 1 day 1 minute 10 days No Feedback beam-beam feedback beam-beam feedback + upstream orbit control understanding of ground motion and vibration spectrum important example of slow diffusive ground motion (ATL law) see lecture 8

70. Here Endeth the First Lecture