1. The Path to an International Linear Collider Barry Barish TRIUMPF Seminar 15-April-05

2. TRIUMPF2 Features of e + e - Collisions elementary particles well-defined –energy, –angular momentum uses full COM energy produces particles democratically can mostly fully reconstruct events

3. 15-April-05TRIUMPF3 A Rich History as a Powerful Probe

4. 15-April-05TRIUMPF4 The Energy Frontier

5. 15-April-05TRIUMPF5 2001: The Snowmass Workshop participants produced the statement recommending construction of a Linear Collider to overlap LHC running. 2001: HEPAP, ECFA, ACFA all issued reports endorsing the LC as the next major world project, to be international from the start 2002: The Consultative Group on High-Energy Physics of the OECD Global Science Forum executive summary stated as the first of its Principal Conclusions: “The Consultative Group concurs with the world-wide consensus of the scientific community that a high-energy electron-positron collider is the next facility on the Road Map. “There should be a significant period of concurrent running of the LHC and the LC, requiring the LC to start operating before 2015. Given the long lead times for decision-making and for construction, consultations among interested countries should begin at a suitably-chosen time in the near future.” The Linear Collider

6. 15-April-05TRIUMPF6 Understanding Matter, Energy, Space and Time: The Case for the Linear Collider A summary of the scientific case for the e+ e- Linear Collider, representing a broad consensus of the particle physics community. April 2003: signed now by ~2700 physicists worldwide.: “Consensus Document” http://sbhepnt.physics.sunysb.edu/~grannis/ilcsc/lc_consensus.pdf ) (To join this list, go to http://blueox.uoregon.edu/~lc/wwstudy/ )

7. 15-April-05TRIUMPF7 Why a TeV Scale e + e - Accelerator? 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 Higgs; Understanding electroweak symmetry breaking, whether supersymmetry or an alternative, will require precision measurements. –There are strong arguments for the complementarity between a ~0.5-1.0 TeV LC and the LHC science.

8. 15-April-05TRIUMPF8 Electroweak Precision Measurements LEP results strongly point to a low mass Higgs and an energy scale for new physics < 1TeV

9. 15-April-05TRIUMPF9 Why a TeV Scale e + e - Accelerator? 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 Higgs; Understanding electroweak symmetry breaking, whether supersymmetry or an alternative, will require precision measurements. –There are strong arguments for the complementarity between a ~0.5-1.0 TeV LC and the LHC science.

10. 15-April-05TRIUMPF10 The 500 GeV Linear Collider Spin Measurement LHC should discover the Higgs The linear collider will measure the spin of any Higgs it can produce. The process e + e –  HZ can be used to measure the spin of a 120 GeV Higgs particle. The error bars are based on 20 fb –1 of luminosity at each point. LHC/ILC Complementarity The Higgs must have spin zero

11. 15-April-05TRIUMPF11 Extra Dimensions New space-time dimensions can be mapped by studying the emission of gravitons into the extra dimensions, together with a photon or jets emitted into the normal dimensions. Linear collider LHC/ILC Complementarity

12. 15-April-05TRIUMPF12 Parameters for the ILC E cm adjustable from 200 – 500 GeV Luminosity  ∫ Ldt = 500 fb -1 in 4 years Ability to scan between 200 and 500 GeV Energy stability and precision below 0.1% Electron polarization of at least 80% The machine must be upgradeable to 1 TeV

13. 15-April-05TRIUMPF13 Linear Collider Concept

14. 15-April-05TRIUMPF14 rf bands: L-band (TESLA)1.3 GHz  = 3.7 cm S-band (SLAC linac) 2.856 GHz1.7 cm C-band (JLC-C)5.7 GHz0.95 cm X-band (NLC/GLC)11.4 GHz0.42 cm (CLIC)25-30 GHz0.2 cm Accelerating structure size is dictated by wavelength of the rf accelerating wave. Wakefields related to structure size; thus so is the difficulty in controlling emittance growth and final luminosity.  Bunch spacing, train length related to rf frequency  Damping ring design depends on bunch length, hence frequency Specific Machine Realizations Frequency dictates many of the design issues for LC

15. 15-April-05TRIUMPF15 Which Technology to Chose? –Two alternate designs -- “warm” and “cold” had come to the stage where the show stoppers had been eliminated and the concepts were well understood. –A major step toward a new international machine requires uniting behind one technology, and then make a unified global design based on the recommended technology.

16. 15-April-05TRIUMPF16 TESLA Concept The main linacs based on 1.3 GHz superconducting technology operating at 2 K. The cryoplant, is of a size comparable to that of the LHC, consisting of seven subsystems strung along the machines every 5 km.

17. 15-April-05TRIUMPF17 TESLA Cavity RF accelerator structures consist of close to 21,000 9-cell niobium cavities operating at gradients of 23.8 MV/m (unloaded as well as beam loaded) for 500 GeV c.m. operation. The rf pulse length is 1370 µs and the repetition rate is 5 Hz. At a later stage, the machine energy may be upgraded to 800 GeV c.m. by raising the gradient to 35 MV/m.

18. 15-April-05TRIUMPF18 TESLA Single Tunnel Layout The TESLA cavities are supplied with rf power in groups of 36 by 572 10 MW klystrons and modulators.

19. 15-April-05TRIUMPF19 The JLC-X and NLC are essentially a unified single design with common parameters The main linacs are based on 11.4 GHz, room temperature copper technology. GLC GLC/NLC Concept

20. 15-April-05TRIUMPF20 GLC GLC/NLC Concept The main linacs operate at an unloaded gradient of 65 MV/m, beam-loaded to 50 MV/m. The rf systems for 500 GeV c.m. consist of 4064 75 MW Periodic Permanent Magnet (PPM) klystrons arranged in groups of 8, followed by 2032 SLED-II rf pulse compression systems

21. 15-April-05TRIUMPF21 GLC / NLC Concept NLC Two parallel tunnels for each linac. For 500 GeV c.m. energy, rf systems only installed in the first 7 km of each linac. Upgrade to 1 TeV by filling the rest of each linac, for a total two-linac length of 28 km.

22. 15-April-05TRIUMPF22 The Report Validates the Readiness of L-band and X-band Concepts ICFA/ILCSC Evaluation of the Technologies

23. 15-April-05TRIUMPF23 TRC R1 Issues L-Band: Feasibility for 500 GeV operation had been demonstrated, but 800 GeV with gradient of 35 MV/m requires a full cryomodule (9 or 12 cavities) and shown to have acceptable quench and breakdown rates with acceptable dark currents. X-band: Demonstrate low group velocity accelerating structures with acceptable gradient, breakdown and trip rates, tuning manifolds and input couplers. Demonstrate the modulator, klystron, SLED-II pulse compressors at the full power required. R1 issues pretty much satisfied by mid-2004

24. 15-April-05TRIUMPF24 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 interpreted our charge as being to recommend a technology, rather than choose a design

25. 15-April-05TRIUMPF25 International Technology Review Panel

26. 15-April-05TRIUMPF26 ITRP Schedule of Events Six Meetings –RAL (Jan 27,28 2004) –DESY (April 5,6 2004) –SLAC (April 26,27 2004) –KEK (May 25,26 2004) –Caltech (June 28,29,30 2004) –Korea (August 11,12,13) –ILCSC / ICFA (Aug 19) –ILCSC (Sept 20) Tutorial & Planning Site Visits Deliberations Exec. Summary Final Report Recommendation

27. 15-April-05TRIUMPF27 Evaluating the Criteria Matrix We analyzed the technology choice through studying a matrix having six general categories with specific items under each: –the scope and parameters specified by the ILCSC; –technical issues; –cost issues; –schedule issues; –physics operation issues; –and more general considerations that reflect the impact of the LC on science, technology and society We evaluated each of these categories with the help of answers to our “questions to the proponents,” internal assignments and reviews, plus our own discussions

28. 15-April-05TRIUMPF28 Our Process We studied and evaluated a large amount of available materials We made site visits to DESY, KEK and SLAC to listen to presentations on the competing technologies and to see the test facilities first-hand. We have also heard presentations on both C-band and CLIC technologies We interacted with the community at LC workshops, individually and through various communications we received We developed a set of evaluation criteria (a matrix) and had each proponent answer a related set of questions to facilitate our evaluations. We assigned lots of internal homework to help guide our discussions and evaluations

29. 15-April-05TRIUMPF29 What that Entailed –We each traveled at least 75,000 miles –We read approximately 3000 pages –We had constant interactions with the community and with each other –We gave up a good part of our “normal day jobs” for six months –We had almost 100% attendance by all members at all meetings –We worked incredibly hard to “turn over every rock” we could find. from Norbert Holtkamp

30. 15-April-05TRIUMPF30 The Recommendation We recommend that the linear collider be based on superconducting rf technology –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). –The superconducting technology has several very nice features for application to a linear collider. They follow in part from the low rf frequency.

31. 15-April-05TRIUMPF31 Some Features of SC Technology The large cavity aperture and long bunch interval reduce the complexity of operations, reduce the sensitivity to ground motion, permit inter-bunch feedback and may enable increased beam current. The main linac rf systems, the single largest technical cost elements, are of comparatively lower risk. The construction of the superconducting XFEL free electron laser will provide prototypes and test many aspects of the linac. The industrialization of most major components of the linac is underway. The use of superconducting cavities significantly reduces power consumption.

32. 15-April-05TRIUMPF32 Technology Recommendation The recommendation was presented to ILCSC & ICFA on August 19 in a joint meeting in Beijing. ICFA unanimously endorsed the ITRP’s recommendation on August 20

33. 15-April-05TRIUMPF33 What’s Next Organize the ILC effort globally –Coordinate worldwide R & D efforts, in order to demonstrate and improve the performance, reduce the costs, attain the required reliability, etc. –Undertake making a “global design” over the next few years for a machine that can be jointly implemented internationally. –These goals are within reach and we fully expect to have an optimized design within a few years, so that we can undertake building the next great particle accelerator.

34. 15-April-05TRIUMPF34 Fall 2002: ICFA created the International Linear Collider Steering Committee (ILCSC) to guide the process for building a Linear Collider. Asia, Europe and North America each formed their own regional Steering Groups (Jonathan Dorfan chairs the North America steering group). Physics and Detectors Subcommittee (AKA WWS) Jim Brau, David Miller, Hitoshi Yamamoto, co-chairs (est. 1998 by ICFA as free standing group) International Linear Collider Steering Committee Maury Tigner, chair Parameters Subcommittee Rolf Heuer, chair (finished) Accelerator Subcommittee Greg Loew, chair Comunications and Outreach Neil Calder et al Technology Recommendation Panel Barry Barish, chair (finished) Global Design Initiative organization Satoshi Ozaki, chair (finished) GDI central team site evaluation Ralph Eichler, chair GDI central team director search committee Paul Grannis, chair

35. 15-April-05TRIUMPF35 Starting Points for the ILC Design 33km 47 km TESLA TDR 500 GeV (800 GeV) US Options Study 500 GeV (1 TeV)

36. 15-April-05TRIUMPF36 Experimental Test Facility - KEK Prototype Damping Ring for X-band Linear Collider Development of Beam Instrumentation and Control

37. 15-April-05TRIUMPF37 Evaluation: Technical Issues

38. 15-April-05TRIUMPF38 TESLA Test Facility Linac laser driven electron gun photon beam diagnostics undulator bunch compressor superconducting accelerator modules pre- accelerator e - beam diagnostics 240 MeV120 MeV16 MeV4 MeV

39. 15-April-05TRIUMPF39 Attendees: Son (Korea); Yamauchi (Japan); Koepke (Germany); Aymar (CERN); Iarocci (CERN Council); Ogawa (Japan); Kim (Korea); Turner (NSF - US); Trischuk (Canada); Halliday (PPARC); Staffin (DoE – US); Gurtu (India) Guests: Barish (ITRP); Witherell (Fermilab Director,) “ The Funding Agencies praise the clear choice by ICFA. This recommendation will lead to focusing of the global R&D effort for the linear collider and the Funding Agencies look forward to assisting in this process. The Funding Agencies see this recommendation to use superconducting rf technology as a critical step in moving forward to the design of a linear collider.” FALC is setting up a working group to keep a close liaison with the Global Design Initiative with regard to funding resources. The cooperative engagement of the Funding Agencies on organization, technology choice, timetable is a very strong signal and encouragement. Statement of Funding Agency (FALC) 17-Sept-04 @ CERN

40. The Birth of the Global Design Effort Linear Collider Workshop Stanford, CA March-05

41. 15-April-05TRIUMPF41 ILC Design Issues First Consideration : Physics Reach ILC Parameters Energy Reach Luminosity

42. 15-April-05TRIUMPF42 Parameter Space nomlow Nlrg Ylow P N  10 10 2122 nbnb 2820564028201330 e x,y mm, nm 9.6, 4010,3012,8010,35 b x,y cm, mm 2, 0.41.2, 0.21, 0.41, 0.2 s x,y nm 543, 5.7495, 3.5495, 8452, 3.8 DyDy 18.51028.627 d BS % 2.21.82.45.7 szsz mm 300150500200 P beam MW 11 5.3 L  10 34 2222 Range of parameters design to achieve 210 34

43. 15-April-05TRIUMPF43 Achieving Maximum Luminosity nomlow Nlrg Ylow PHigh L N  10 10 21222 nbnb 28205640282013302820  x,y  m, nm 9.6, 4010,3012,8010,3510,30  x,y cm, mm 2, 0.41.2, 0.21, 0.41, 0.2  x,y nm 543, 5.7495, 3.5495, 8452, 3.8452, 3.5 DyDy 18.51028.62722  BS % 2.21.82.45.77 zz mm 300150500200150 P beam MW 11 5.311 L  10 34 22224.9!

44. 15-April-05TRIUMPF44 Towards the ILC Baseline Design

45. 15-April-05TRIUMPF45 TESLA Cost Estimate 3,136 M€ (no contingency, year 2000) + ~7000 person years

46. 15-April-05TRIUMPF46 Gradient

47. 15-April-05TRIUMPF47 (Improve surface quality -- pioneering work done at KEK) BCPEP Several single cell cavities at g > 40 MV/m 4 nine-cell cavities at ~35 MV/m, one at 40 MV/m Theoretical Limit 50 MV/m Electro-polishing

48. 15-April-05TRIUMPF48 Gradient Results from KEK-DESY collaboration must reduce spread (need more statistics) single-cell measurements (in nine-cell cavities)

49. 15-April-05TRIUMPF49 New Cavity Shape for Higher Gradient? TESLA Cavity A new cavity shape with a small Hp/Eacc ratio around 35Oe/(MV/m) must be designed. - Hp is a surface peak magnetic field and Eacc is the electric field gradient on the beam axis. - For such a low field ratio, the volume occupied by magnetic field in the cell must be increased and the magnetic density must be reduced. - This generally means a smaller bore radius. - There are trade-offs (eg. Electropolishing, weak cell-to-cell coupling, etc) Alternate Shapes

50. 15-April-05TRIUMPF50 Gradient vs Length Higher gradient gives shorter linac –cheaper tunnel / civil engineering –less cavities –(but still need same # klystrons) Higher gradient needs more refrigeration –‘cryo-power’ per unit length scales as G 2 /Q 0 –cost of cryoplants goes up!

51. 15-April-05TRIUMPF51 Klystron Development THALUS CPI TOSHIBA 10MW 1.4ms Multibeam Klystrons ~650 for 500 GeV +650 for 1 TeV upgrade

52. 15-April-05TRIUMPF52 Towards the ILC Baseline Design Not cost drivers But can be L performance bottlenecks Many challenges!

53. 15-April-05TRIUMPF53 Damping Rings bunch train compression 300km   20km smaller circumference (faster kicker) higher I av 

54. 15-April-05TRIUMPF54

55. 15-April-05TRIUMPF55

56. 15-April-05TRIUMPF56

57. 15-April-05TRIUMPF57 Beam Delivery System

58. 15-April-05TRIUMPF58 Strawman Final Focus

59. 15-April-05TRIUMPF59 Parameters of Positron Sources rep rate # of bunches per pulse # of positrons per bunch # of positrons per pulse TESLA TDR5 Hz28202 · 10 10 5.6 · 10 13 NLC120 Hz1920.75 · 10 10 1.4 · 10 12 SLC120 Hz15 · 10 10 DESY positron source 50 Hz11.5 · 10 9

60. 15-April-05TRIUMPF60 Positron Source Large amount of charge to produce Three concepts: –undulator-based (TESLA TDR baseline) –‘conventional’ –laser Compton based

61. 15-April-05TRIUMPF61 Remarkable progress in the past two years toward realizing an international linear collider: important R&D on accelerator systems definition of parameters for physics choice of technology start the global design effort funding agencies are engaged  Many major hurdles remain before the ILC becomes a reality (funding, site, international organization, detailed design, …), but there is increasing momentum toward the ultimate goal --- An International Linear Collider. Conclusions