Transcript Photon-photon collider Higgs factory as a precursor to ILC

JSPS
(Japan Society for the Promotion of Science)
Funding agency of Japan created
in 1932 to promote basic research
Various activities
1. Grant in aid for university researchers
about $2B
2.Postdoc fellowship
Domestic---5000/year
Foreign to Japan 1800/year
Japan to Foreign 2700/year
3.Invitation fellowship 100/year
JSPS
Universities
4.Awards
• International Prize for Biology
D.S.Hogness(2007),S.Daan(2006),N.H.
Chua(2005),T.Cavalier-Smith(2004)
• JSPS Prize
Prize for young researchers
Overseas Offices
• London, Strasbourg, Bonn, Stockholm,
Nairobi, Cairo, Beijing, Bangkok,
Washington DC, San Francisco
• Washington Office
Working together with
NSF, SSRC, NIH, and NAS
We promote collaboration
between US and Japan
Photon-photon collider Higgs
factory as a precursor to ILC
-personal view-
Following three slides are from my
presentation at Panofsky
Symposium at SLAC, April 10,
2008
PANOFSKY PLAN
• We should follow the Panofsky plan
for the first stage of the ILC,
building a linear collider in the
200GeV region as soon as possible.
We must increase the ILC energy step by
step.
ILC, SSC, LHC
• The Linear Collider project was conceived as
a complementary machine to the SSC. After
the SSC demise the ILC was planned as
complementary to the LHC. Now some say
that ILC should be constructed only after
seeing the LHC results.
• I strongly disagree: it will take years before
we get results from the LHC and then debate
the energy and the technology of a long
deferred linear collider. By that plan the ILC
might never be realized.
PANOFSKY INTERNATIONAL
LABORATORY
• Let’s build the Panofsky International
Laboratory for the Linear Collider.
• Let’s operate it as a world-wide
collaboration.
• Let’s find a young leader for the
Panofsky International Laboratory.
• Panofsky was 41 when he became
director of SLAC.
Photon-photon collider as
Higgs Factory
In the following I would like to
show that the Higgs Factory
based on the less than 200 GeV
Photon-photon collider is the way
to proceed in High Energy Physics.
Where is the Higgs boson?
• Standard model
V    2 2   4
0   ( 2 )  1
(102 GeV   2  1016 GeV )
120 Gev  M  2v  170
2
2
2
h
2
2
MSSM
• More stringent bound,
because,
g
2
M h  130GeV
NMSSM
W  SH1H 2  kS 3
insteadof
W  H1H 2
One cannot increase the Higgs
mass higher than 140GeV
More restrictions can be
imposed by assuming that soft
breaking terms come from:
•Gravity mediation
•Gauge mediation
•Etc.
But not appreciable change or
smaller Higgs
mass(Ritto,Tornkvist and
Mohapatra)
Possibility of higher Higgs mass
•
Experimentally:
CDF,D0 results exclude
mass region of
150 to 170 GeV by 2
standard deviation
Level
•Theoretically:
MSSM+ RandallSundrum
1.Gauge-Higgs
unification
2.Higgs on the TeV
brane(Birkedal,Chacko
and Nomura)
The second case may
lead to 200-300 GeV
Higgs mass
 ( )  1
  TeV
Inflation
DeSitter 4-Spaceflat three
dimensional space
Warp
AntiDeSitter 5-Spaceflat four
dimensional space-time
This is destroyed by branes
(H.S. arXiv:hep-ph/0612334 )
Tentative conclusion
• There seems to be no natural way to
accommodate higher Higgs mass beyond
approximately 170 GeV.
Higgs decay widths and branching
ratios
• Back of the envelope
estimation
1.Standard model
H  
L
2
H  WW

Mh
F F H
Then,
   M h
4
 1KeV
L  vA A H
Then,
WW   2 v 2 / M h
 10MeV
H  ff
L
Mf
ffH
v
Then,
 ff 
2
f
2
M
v
Mh
2.MSSM
M u2
2
u u  2 M h sin  ,
vu
M d2
d d  2 M h cos2 
vd
vd v sin 

 tan  , h  sin    cos 
vu v cos 
Z. Kunszta, S. Morettib,c and W. J. Stirlingd,e
Gamma-gamma cross section
 (  H  (bb, WW ,  )
 (
8
bb , ww ,
16
 10

 10 (bb, ww)  (10MeV )
 0.1 pb
!
1
)
(  M h ) 2  4 2
3
2
To conclude: Accurate
measurements of Higgs mass and
the widths and branching ratios more
or less determine what the theory of
new physics should be. This justifies
the construction of Higgs factory.
The best technology for the Higgs
factory is photon-photon collider
based on electron-electron linear
collider.
Photon-photon collider technology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1 The Photon Collider at TESLA
B. Badelek43, C. Bl¨ochinger44, J. Bl¨umlein12, E. Boos28 , R. Brinkmann12,
H. Burkhardt11, P. Bussey17, C. Carimalo33, J. Chyla34, A.K. C iftci4, W. Decking12,
A. De Roeck11, V. Fadin10, M. Ferrario15, A. Finch24, H. Fraas44, F. Franke44,
M. Galynskii27, A. Gamp12, I. Ginzburg31, R. Godbole6 , D.S. Gorbunov28,
G. Gounaris39, K. Hagiwara22, L. Han19, R.-D. Heuer18, C. Heusch36, J. Illana12,
V. Ilyin28, P. Jankowski43, Yi Jiang19, G. Jikia16, L. J¨onsson26, M. Kalachnikow8,
F. Kapusta33 , R. Klanner12;18, M. Klasen12, K. Kobayashi41, T. Kon40, G. Kotkin30,
M. Kr¨amer14, M. Krawczyk43, Y.P. Kuang7, E. Kuraev13, J. Kwiecinski23,
M. Leenen12, M. Levchuk27, W.F. Ma19, H. Martyn1, T. Mayer44, M. Melles35,
D.J Miller25, S. Mtingwa29, M. M¨uhlleitner12, B. Muryn23, P.V. Nickles8, R. Orava20,
C. Pancheri15, A. Penin12, A. Potylitsyn42, P. Poulose6, T. Quast8, P. Raimondi37,
H. Redlin8, F. Richard32, S.D. Rindani2, T. Rizzo37, E. Saldin12, W. Sandner8,
H. Sch¨onnagel8, E. Schneidmiller12, H.J. Schreiber12, S. Schreiber12, K.P. Sch¨uler12,
V. Serbo30, A. Seryi37, R. Shanidze38, W. da Silva33, S. S¨oldner-Rembold11,
M. Spira35, A.M. Stasto23, S. Sultansoy5, T. Takahashi21, V. Telnov10;12,
A. Tkabladze12, D. Trines12, A. Undrus9, A. Wagner12, N. Walker12, I. Watanabe3 ,
T. Wengler11, I. Will8;12, S. Wipf12, ¨ O. Yavas4, K. Yokoya22, M. Yurkov12,
A.F. Zarnecki43, P. Zerwas12, F. Zomer32.
ＮＬＣ Ｓｔｕｄｉｅｓ
• Complementarity of a Low Energy Photon
Collider and LHC Physics
David Asner,1 Stephen Asztalos,2 Albert De Roeck,3 Sven
Heinemeyer,4 Jeff Gronberg,2
John F. Gunion,5 Heather E. Logan,6 Victoria Martin,7 Michal Szleper,7
and Mayda M. Velasco7
1University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA
2Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94550, USA
3CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
4Institut f¨ur theoretische Elementarteilchenphysik, LMU M¨unchen, Theresienstr. 37, D-80333
M¨unchen, Germany
5University of California , Davis, California 95616, USA
6University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, USA
7Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60201, USA
principle
Ee  0  E0  
Pe  0  Pe  
Then,

x
1
1
E

Ee
e
2
1
me
1
1
x
4 Ee0
4 Ee0
me2
Larger x is preferable, but we must avoid pair creation.
(k  k0 ) 2  (2M e ) 2 ,
k , k0 : 4m om entum
Then,
x  2(1  2 )  4.83
Photon energy is then 80% of
initial electron energy
0  0.3 E ( MeV )
e
 3eV , Ee  100GeV
 2.1eV , Ee  70GeV
Compton scattering formula
Non-linear effect when
is
greater
than 1
Gamma-gamma luminocity
Laser power
electronmean free pat hin laser
 ( c  n ) 1
assume one int eract ion in laser bunch
E 
s
c
 0
here
t hen,
l  ( c  n ) 1 

c 
1
E
0

1
s l
s  buch size
 c  Compt oncross section
(106 ) 2
17
E 

1
eV

10
eV
 29
10
 10 2 J
Average and peak power
2
10  (repetition rate) (numberof buches /pulse)
 100W- - - averagepower
6
10 /(10 10 )
 10GW - - - peak power
8
4
Interaction region and detector
• 1.distance b from IP
to electron laser
collision point:
angle of Comptonscat t ering

b
0
E0
,
0
E0
  y (horizont laelect ronbeam size)
t hen,

1
b  10  (
)
1011
8
1
2
 1m m
2.Low energy electrons
•Multiple Compton scattering
En  E0 / n  x
for n  10 thisis about 2% of theintialelectronenergy E 0 .
Number of electronswith thisenergy
 1 1010  103
10!
•Coherent pair production
he probabiltyof pair creationby Comptonscatteredphoton
in thecoherentfield of electronbunch :
eN  x z
    z  me
 exp( 3  )
8
e 2
re
where
eN  x z 


e 2 me
re
•This becomes rather small for photon energy of
1% of initial electron energy
For example,
 x  50nm,  z  0.1nm, N  10
5 
  10
10
me
3
probability  exp(  )
8
3
p  exp( ) for   100GeV,
4
p  exp(75) for   1GeV
Deflection angle for these low energy electron will be:

  N / z
0.01  E0
This must be taken into account in designing
crab crossing and detector systems
Comparison with the
 
e e collider
•No positron source needed
(This is one of the headaches for the
accelerator builders)
•No damping ring for positron needed
(Thus avoiding the electron cloud problem)
Total cost could be as low as 2B
US$ including laser system
Process of construction
• Worldwide consensus should be formed
under the leadership of ICFA
• Design effort should be started right away
within the framework of GDE
• Effort should be made to find a
government which will take the initiative
• LHC result should be consulted even
before its Higgs discovery