Transcript Document 7261336

Report From International Committee
on Future Accelerators (ICFA)
By Jonathan Dorfan, Chair ICFA
Global Design Effort Meeting Frascati,
December 7-9, 2005
The Role of ICFA

Charter and Aegis
ICFA was created to facilitate international collaboration in the
construction and use of accelerators for high energy physics. It was
created in 1976 by IUPAP
Its purpose, as stated in 1985, are as follows:
 To promote international collaboration in all phases of the
construction and exploitation of very high energy accelerators
 To organize regularly world-inclusive meetings for the exchange
of information on future plans for regional facilities and for the
formulation of advice on joint studies and uses
 To organize workshops for the study of problems related to super
high-energy accelerator complexes and their international
exploitation and to foster research and development of necessary
technology
ICFA MEMBERSHIP
Canada
July 2005
D. Karlen
CERN Member States T. Akesson
R. Aymar
A. Wagner
China
H. Chen
Japan
S. Komamiya
Y. Totsuka
Russia
V. Rubakov
Y. Tikhonov
USA
J. Dorfan (Chair)
P. Oddone
S. Dawson
Other Countries
S. Novaes
V. Sahni
D. Son
C11
V. Lüth
Secretariat: R. Rubinstein, B. Beuaseroy
http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/
Albrecht Wagner will take
over as the next Chair of ICFA
in January 2006
Global Planning and Cooperation ―
A Must for HEP

Never before has a field of science attempted to globalize
itself as extensively as HEP has done recently. It is a
challenging task, but one that must be accomplished.
Indeed the long-term health of the field depends critically
on truly global cooperation

The necessity for global coordination was formalized by
ICFA in its May 1993 ICFA Statement entitled
“International Collaboration in the Construction of
Future Large Accelerator Projects”.

ICFA’s role was crucial for the ultimate realization of a
global LHC and is crucial for launching the ILC
ICFA and the Linear Collider

ICFA has been helping guide international cooperation on the Linear Collider
since the mid 1990’s. Major early steps:
1995: First ILC Technical Review Committee (TRC) Report,
with Greg Loew as Chair
1999: ICFA Statement on Linear Collider
2002: ICFA commissioned the second Report,
with Greg Loew as Chair
2002: ICFA Forms the International Linear Collider
Steering Committee ( ILCSC)
2003: ILCSC establishes International Technology
Recommendation Panel (ITRP)
2005: ICFA/ILCSC Establishes GDE
THERE HAS BEEN ENORMOUS PROGRESS ON
INTERNATIONALIZING LC IN PAST 3 YEARS
The International Linear Collider (ILC) is Born

The ITRP recommendation to base linac design on SCRF was presented to
ILCSC & ICFA on August 19, 2004 in a joint meeting in Beijing.
ICFA unanimously endorsed the recommendation on August 20, 2004
Global concept and cooperation endorsed by the world’s
HEP Lab Directors
•Global project is named International Linear Collider (ILC)
Global Design Effort (GDE)
Established March 2005


February 2005, at TRIUMF, ILCSC and ICFA unanimously
endorsed the sub-Committee’s choice for GDE Director
On March 18, 2005
Barry Barish
officially accepted
the position at
the opening of
LCWS 05 meeting
at Stanford
The World of
Linear Colliders a Scant
Two Years Ago – Four Options
December 2005 --- Enormous Progress in 2 years:
International Community centered on One Option
GDE Baseline Params about to be adopted:
The parameters are slightly revised since the tentative parameter set (Suggested ILC Beam Parameter
Space.) which was distributed in February 2005 in order to take into account the following new
features from the Snowmass Workshop.The nominal accelerating gradient should be 31.5 MV/m for
the 500 GeV stage, and 36 MV/m for the upgrade stage with Q0=10^10 for both cases.
.:
Bunch charge
Number of bunches
Linac bunch interval
Bunch length
Vertical emittance
IP beta (500GeV)
IP beta (1TeV)
N
nb
tb
sz
gey
bx
by
bx
by
min nominal
1
2
1330
2820
154
308
150
300
0.03
0.04
10
21
0.2
0.4
10
30
0.2
0.3
max
3
5640
461
500
0.08
21
0.4
30
0.6
2x10^10
ns
mm
mm.mrad
mm
mm
mm
mm
WWS Working in Close Coordination
with GDE
SiD
LDC
“LDC”

Main Tracker
EM Calorimeter

Had Calorimeter
Cryostat / Solenoid

GLD
“GLD”
SiD: Silicon Detector
 Small, ‘all’ silicon
LDC: Large Detector Concept
 TPC based
GLD: Global Large Detector
SiD: BR2
LDC: B R2
GLD: B R2
Iron Yoke / Muon System
3 detector concepts under study with full international involvement
and active cooperation with ILCSC/GDE
The GDE Plan and Schedule
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Global Design Effort
Baseline configuration
Reference Design
Project
LHC
Physics
Technical Design
ILC R&D Program
Expression of Interest to Host
International Mgmt
GDE -- WE MUST SUCCEED

The GDE is off to a terrific start


We have outstanding leadership and an aggressive plan which defines the key
milestones
We have realized an organization that is truly internationally constituted:
representation and influence are extremely well balanced across the three regions

But time is passing and we CANNOT fail to meet our near term milestones.
Having set them, the “world” is watching

To the GDE Leadership I offer:
You need to pick up the pace of the technical work—the accelerator troops are
getting anxious to see faster progress

To the Community, especially the leadership, I offer:
Provide the leeway and support to the GDE so they do not have to balance every
action regionally. For each important action, we must work to our strengths.
The ILC is a very challenging machine: The most important imperative now is to
produce the technically best, most cost-optimized design possible. That means utilizing
the best talent and centers of excellence we have. Every decision that the GDE
leadership makes cannot be expected to balance regional representation – rather taken
as a whole, the GDE process will achieve regional balance
The Role of Governments

Governments are the key – they will make the decisions
that lead to the establishment of an ILC project

The scientific community, through ICFA, are
maintaining close contact with the key government
agencies

The main forum is the Funding Agencies for Linear Collider
(FALC), which meets about twice a year. Major strategy steps
(like ITRP, GDE etc) are discussed with FALC to ensure
acceptance by the governments of ICFA’s actions

FALC has now established a Resource Group to make coordination yet
more frequent and responsive
The Momentum is Picking Up
Worldwide

Serious discussion within governments in all three regions is
intensifying. Recognition of the ILC as a crucial element of
international science is growing:

This is strongly driven by our community’s fervent and demonstrated
commitment to make the difficult choices needed to ensure a truly
international project

Funding for R&D worldwide is about $70M. Even in these difficult
financial times, one sees growth in all three regions

Studies of the future of HEP, ongoing in all three regions, are
anticipated to endorse even more strongly the tri-regional unanimity
for the rapid realization of the ILC. We anticipate these studies to
conclude before Summer 2006
Science Magazine:Editorial
“Bullish on Particles” by Michael S. Turner
Particle physics was, until recently, the flagship of U.S. physics, if not U.S. science. With
ever larger "atom smashers" and such charismatic figures as J. Robert Oppenheimer and
Richard Feynman, the field attracted the best and the brightest. These U.S. scientists
garnered Nobel Prizes and public fame, becoming academic leaders and government
advisors. The close association with national security that grew out of the Manhattan
Project guaranteed both prominence and funding priority. But in 1993, the perfect storm
hit: The $10 billion Superconducting Super Collider was canceled, the Cold War ended, and
life sciences rose to prominence. Since then, we've seen flat budgets, more canceled projects,
and no firm prospects for high-energy accelerator experiments on U.S. soil after 2009. In
today's "flat world" where technology has made science around the world tightly
interconnected, the future of particle physics everywhere can be no brighter than it is in the
United States, and that future looks dark.
Despite this, I am bullish on the future of U.S. particle physics, and my reason is simple.
Right now, the field is poised for breakthroughs as stunning as those that followed Einstein's
annus mirabilis 100 years ago. The focus has shifted from searching for the smallest
subatomic seed to understanding the universe and the nature of matter, energy, space, and
time. Big questions are ripe for answering. What is the "dark matter" that holds our galaxy
together? Where did space and time come from, and how many space-time dimensions are
there? How did the universe begin, and what is the mysterious dark energy accelerating its
expansion? And perhaps the biggest question of all, one whose answer probably underlies all
the others: How are the two pillars of modern physics--quantum mechanics and general
relativity--to be reconciled and a unified understanding of the forces of nature achieved?
Particle physics is on the verge of something really big, as if the past 50 glory years were just
preparation.
As exciting as these opportunities are, the challenges are great and morale in the U.S.
particle physics community is low. With its link to national security severed, particle physics
must now compete for funding and students with other fields that also have exciting agendas-from astrophysics and genomics to computer science and biophysics. Telescopes and
underground laboratories to study dark energy and dark matter are now as essential as
accelerators, making planning more complicated and the cost of discovery higher. And all of
this in a time of constrained budgets for all science.
As a U.S. scientist, I can't imagine the United States not taking part in the grand scientific
adventure ahead. Moreover, a reality of the flat world is that the field's big dreams will go
unrealized if particle physics can't right itself in the United States. Three things are essential
to correct the situation. If particle physics is to be successful in garnering the needed funding
and attracting the best people, the field must lead with a broad scientific agenda, rather than
defining itself by big atom-smashers as in the past. Hosting a $5 billon electron-positron
linear collider to follow the Large Hadron Collider now being built in Geneva would bring
high-energy physics back to the United States and make a strong statement of U.S.
commitment to this field, but it must be the science, not merely the desire to reclaim the
energy frontier, that dictates whether to push forward with such an endeavor. There must
also be a commitment to diverse approaches. Recent discoveries (dark matter, dark energy,
and neutrino mass) remind us that other tools are just as essential. Finally, particle physics
must achieve unprecedented (for any field) global coordination. Many of the critical projects
on the path to answering the big questions exceed the financial resources of any one country
or region. A strong national presence must be balanced against a strategic global program.
Not every facility can be located here, and a new strategy of U.S. leadership must replace the
old strategy of U.S. dominance.
In their zeal to explore the world of the unimaginably small, particle physicists have
repeatedly shown that they can blaze new trails and overcome formidable barriers. I am
willing to bet that particle physicists in the United States and around the world will come
through again. With unprecedented opportunities for revolutionary breakthroughs, all of
science should be pulling for them.
Michael S. Turner is Rauner Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago and
Assistant Director for Mathematical and Physical Sciences at the U.S. National Science
Foundation.
ILCSC – Next Steps

ILCSC will continue to coordinate the worldwide
ILC in accordance with its Charter

GDE will continue to report to ILCSC until such
time as the GDE gets organized under a federation of
worldwide government agencies. At that time ICFA
will step aside

A natural time for ICFA/ILCSC to hand off the GDE
oversight to such a body would be at the end of next
year when the Reference Design is complete
You will hear more about ILCSC in the next talk
Conclusions


We Live in Extraordinary Times

At no time in the history of particle physics has the scientific
landscape presented us with such an exciting spectrum of
unanswered questions! The LHC will make major discoveries
that challenge that agenda, but to engage the fullness of the
scientific quest will take a companion TeV Linear Collider

The success of the GDE process is essential – we must achieve
the near term milestones if we expect to secure the increased
government support both for the R&D funds to complete the
design and for building the project
SO KEEP UP THE MOMENTUM………IT IS MY
STRONG BELIEF THAT WE WILL GET TO BUILD
AND COMPLETE THE ILC IN THE NEXT DECADE