Tagged: ILC Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • richardmitnick 11:35 am on January 8, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ILC, ,   

    From AAAS: “Japan hopes to staff up to host the International Linear Collider” 

    AAAS

    AAAS

    7 January 2016
    Dennis Normile

    1
    Japan will grow its scientific workforce to handle the International Linear Collider, to be built in a tunnel through these mountains in northeastern Japan. WIKIMEDIA

    The International Linear Collider (ILC) took another small step forward yesterday when Japan’s High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) released a plan for getting the country ready to host the $10 billion project by tripling its relevant science and engineering workforce over the next 4 years.

    ILC schematic
    ilc schematic

    As currently envisioned, the collider will occupy a 31-kilometer-long tunnel in Iwate Prefecture north of Tokyo. The education ministry needs to be convinced the country has the human resources required to execute the project before it will approve the project, says Yasuhiro Okada, a theorist at KEK, which has led Japan’s preliminary planning and design work. The “Action Plan,” released yesterday, “is a small but critical point to show [the ministry] we will have the necessary manpower,” says Okada, who chaired the working group charged with drafting the plan. Japan also needs to demonstrate to potential international partners that the country will shoulder its share of the final design effort, he adds.

    “We are concentrating on getting the green light from the government by 2018,” says Satoru Yamashita, a University of Tokyo physicist involved in the planning. The government would then initiate negotiations for support from other interested countries, with the goal of starting construction by 2020 and beginning experiments around 2030.

    The ILC would pick up where Europe’s Large Hadron Collider leaves off in studies of the Higgs boson and other exotic particles.

    CERN LHC Map
    CERN LHC Grand Tunnel
    CERN LHC particles
    LHC at CERN

    In the 1990s, groups in North America, Japan, and Europe independently started planning linear colliders to smash together electrons and antielectrons, or positrons. The project’s complexity and projected costs led the teams to pool their efforts in 2004. An international team completed a basic design in June 2013 based on superconducting techniques to accelerate the particles to energies of up to 500 gigaelectron volts. The collider could be upgraded later to even higher energies.

    Scientists in each region originally hoped to host the facility. But in 2012 the Japanese high energy physics community raised its hand and gradually got the support of American and European physicists. In August 2013 a committee picked the Iwate Prefecture site.

    Before starting a final engineering design, KEK took a hard look at the project’s manpower requirements. The U.S. and Europe are currently designing and building large physics facilities with superconducting radiofrequency cavities similar to what the ILC will use, and many of those scientists and engineers will become available to work on the ILC, Okada says. But Japan hasn’t had a similar cutting-edge project. Okada says KEK currently has 30 to 40 scientists and engineers with relevant expertise but will need about triple that number to manage its share of the final design work. KEK hopes to fill the gap by luring experienced hands as well as signing up new recruits. “We think the ILC is a project which can attract young talent,” Okada says.

    Meanwhile, Yamashita says support for the project is building among local governments and neighboring prefectures as well as among national politicians. He says the ILC may also benefit from the fact that government spending on the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo will be winding down before the first funds are needed for its construction.

    See the full article here .

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science for the benefit of all people.

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.
    STEM Icon
    Stem Education Coalition

     
  • richardmitnick 2:57 pm on October 2, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ILC   

    From LC Collaboration: “And vertically down it goes” 

    1 October 2015
    Ricarda Laash

    1
    The change request was submitted by the MDI group to provide a vertical access shaft for the ILC experimental hall as well, so that the detectors could be assembled mainly above ground.

    One of the major changes on the ILC design laid out in the Technical Design Report (TDR) that is ongoing right now is a layout change of the experimental hall complex. A vertical shaft connecting the underground experimental hall to the buildings above ground will be added to the original plans. This change request was submitted to the Change Management Board (CMB) after the choice of the Kitakami area as possible construction site for the ILC.

    “I have written this change request in my function as leader of the MDI Working Group,” explains Karsten Büßer from the German lab DESY, who is also part of the team that is in charge of the implementation of this request (aptly named Change Implementation Team). “Both the ILD and SiD detector groups want this shaft.” This shaft will be an important addition to the whole layout of the experimental hall complex.

    The ILC has two different detector groups working on further plans and improvements for the possible future detectors at the ILC. Both detectors will be placed in the same hall so that they can be moved into the interaction point in a push-pull configuration. Just like the accelerator, the whole interaction region and thus the experimental facilities are underground; meaning a plan to access these underground facilities was needed no matter where this machine would be built.

    The original design within the TDR foresaw an inclined horizontal tunnel to access the underground experimental hall. This was a design choice based on the question whether or not both halls – on the surface and underground – could be built on top of each other or not. “When TDR was published the Kitakami area had not been an option yet,” says Büßer. At this point it was unclear whether the machine would be built in Asia, the U.S. or even in Europe. Therefore it was essential that the TDR plans were as generic as possible to fit any possible site in any country on this earth. “For Asia it was assumed that most sites would be in mountains,” Büßer explains further. “There might have been a mountain peak above the interaction. On a mountain peak you can’t build any infrastructure to support the underground, so you don’t build vertical access shafts.” And even if it would have been possible to build support facilities on top of a mountain, the shaft would have been too long and probably too pricy to build. So to compensate for the lack of an acceptable possible vertical access shaft the horizontal tunnel was included into the plans.

    “After the choice of the Kitakami region as the possible construction site for the ILC physicists all around the world started working on more solid plans for the construction. And one of these more concrete plans was to figure out whether or not a vertical access shaft could be added to the plan for this specific site,” Büßer explains. “Kitakami is not a mountainous region, it is just hilly. Therefore we could move the location of the underground experimental hall to a place where we have a relatively flat surface.” Therefore it would be possible to construct support facilities on the surface directly above the interaction point. “Before we handed in the change request, we checked this possibility very carefully. We did not want to start such a request unless we were sure that the site would be flat enough to house the facilities directly above the interaction point.”

    The formal change request for the addition of the vertical shaft has now been processed and finalised. Such an extensive change for the design of the machine of course means that a number of further questions come up. Moving things around in one place means changes in the overall layout of the whole facility. “For example another point which we have now on our to-do-list is to check the geological properties of the area for the new interaction point,” says Büßer. Relocating the interaction point within the Kitakami site by 800 metres has quite some impact. “We now need to take a test drilling to further investigate the geological properties in the depth of the experimental hall.” This test drilling should give the last needed clues for the new setup plan which is based on this change request.

    Not only the qualities of the underground but also the installation with in the planed support facilities of the surface need to be checked. The new layout includes a gigantic gantry crane within the surface halls (see picture). “The crane can lift masses up to 4000 tons,” says Büßer. The crane itself will consist of a massive gantry and the extremely stabile holding structure for the loaded goods right above the vertical shaft. It will also be movable along the size of the shaft to allow maneuverability of the hanging loads.

    “In the actual design concept for the hall we now have the vertical shaft which enables us to mostly assemble the detectors on the surface and then crane the remaining parts into the experimental hall for final assembly and later usage,” says Büßer. But they also kept the inclined horizontal tunnel for access to the damping rings and the hall. The new horizontal tunnel is smaller than in the old design since it is no longer needed as entry way for the heavy pieces of the detectors. It will still be used for smaller installations and transportation for smaller equipment into the underground halls.

    “We hope that the tunnel will be very helpful during the construction phase for the hall and for transporting most of the infrastructure which does not need craning,” says Büßer Another reason to support the vertical shaft is that even though the detectors could be assembled by bringing in the parts via truck along the tunnel, it would still be a lot of heavy lifting on a 10% inclination for the trucks which could have also caused problems. The tunnel will also always be an emergency exit for the detector hall without a lift or stairs.

    Mike Harrison, Associate Director for the ILC in the Linear Collider Collaboration, summarises this development with the following words: “It is extremely fortunate that the Kitakami site offers the possibility of an interaction region design based on a vertical shaft topology. There are many advantages of such an approach. This is an important and highly useful step forward for the whole Project.”

    See the full article here .

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    The International Linear Collider (ILC) is a proposed linear particle accelerator.It is planned to have a collision energy of 500 GeV initially, with the possibility for a later upgrade to 1000 GeV (1 TeV). The host country for the accelerator has not yet been chosen and proposed locations are Japan, Europe (CERN) and the USA (Fermilab). Japan is considered the most likely candidate, as the Japanese government is willing to contribute half of the costs, according to a representative for the European Commission on Future Accelerators.Construction could begin in 2015 or 2016 and will not be completed before 2026.

     
  • richardmitnick 1:43 pm on September 17, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ILC   

    From LC Newsline- “Director’s Corner: Study on technical feasibility” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    17 September 2015

    FNAL Lyn Evans
    Lyn Evans

    1
    Cryomodule production for the European XFEL in CEA Saclay, France. Image: DESY

    Since 2014, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) has been conducting studies to gather information to decide whether Japan is interested in hosting the ILC. The summary report of the ILC Advisory Panel set up by MEXT for this purpose was outlined in the last edition of Newsline.

    In addition to the internal MEXT committees they have also commissioned an additional study by one of Japan’s leading consultancy firms, Nomura Research Institute (NRI), to study the technical and economic impact of the ILC, as a first-stage commissioned survey. Their report is now available, currently only in Japanese, but we are told that the English translation is in progress.

    Very recently, MEXT has launched two new initiatives. The first is to form another internal committee to study human resource requirements for ILC construction and operation. We are providing them with all the information they request on this subject.

    The second new initiative is to commission a further study by NRI to survey and analyse the technical feasibility of the project and the technical challenges posed by the construction of the ILC accelerator. The study consists of the following main elements:

    Survey of the technical feasibility of the ILC accelerator
    Survey of the technical issues that will need to be surmounted to manage mass production of the components required by the ILC accelerator
    Survey of ways to reduce the cost.

    As part of this study NRI plans to visit leading institutes for accelerator science and companies manufacturing accelerator components or related products in Europe and the USA this autumn.

    This is a very tight schedule and we are looking for the cooperation of all institutes and companies to present our work in the best possible way. It is particularly important to show that we can handle big projects in collaboration with industry. The LHC and the on-going construction of the European XFEL hosted at DESY and LCLS-II hosted at SLAC should provide ample evidence of this.

    European XFEL Tunnel
    European XFEL Tunnel

    SLAC LCLSII
    SLAC LSLS-II

    The final report of this commissioned survey and analysis should be available by February 2016. Hopefully this will complete the information that MEXT needs in order to decide whether the Japanese government wants to proceed to the next step, opening international negotiations with potential partners.

    See the full article here .

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

     
  • richardmitnick 11:31 am on July 10, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ILC,   

    From LC Newsline: “ILC the discovery machine” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    9 July 2015

    1
    Hitoshi Yamamoto, Associate Director for Physics and Detectors in the Linear Collider Collaboration

    1
    At the ILC, collision will be very simple while at the LHC two composite particles makes complicated events.

    It is often said that the ILC is a precision machine. One should note, however, that the ILC is actually a discovery machine that can find new phenomena and new particles LHC at CERN would not be able to discover. This capability is made possible by a few unique features of the ILC.

    First, at the ILC, two elementary particles – namely, electron and positron, are collided while at the LHC two composite particles, protons, are collided. A proton is made of two up quarks and one down quark bound together by many gluons, and when they collide, many unwanted debris are produced. When a Higgs particle is produced at the LHC, the decay products of the Higgs particle is only a small fraction of all particles one observes in the collision. On the other hand at the ILC, most of the particles, or in many cases all the particles, one see come from a Higgs particle. The cleanliness is overwhelming. The situation has been likened to the difference between a collision of two raspberry pies and that of two raspberries. This gives the ILC a capability to find small signals of new particles or new phenomena.

    Another advantage of the ILC is the control of the colliding electron and positron. The polarization of the colliding elementary particles can be specified as well as their energies. By controlling the polarizations, specific types of interactions can be turned on and off, thereby enabling to see small new effects coming from new physics. Sometimes, interactions that overwhelm a signal of new physics could be removed by the control of polarization leading to discovery.

    The LHC is indeed a powerful machine with an impressive energy reach. A new run with energy upgrade has just begun and we are extremely excited about the prospect of new discoveries to come. Such a discovery may provide the ILC with a fantastic opportunity if the new particle is within the energy reach of the ILC. On the other hand, however, one should not forget that the new particle might be discovered first by the ILC. Since we are talking about new particles, it is difficult to predict what will happen. One could, however, pay attention to the Tevatron at Fermilab that can be considered as a younger brother of the LHC and shares many features of the LHC. The Tevatron has a glorious list of discoveries including that of the top quark. For the Higgs particle, however, it could not find a clear signal even though some twenty thousand Higgs particles were created. As we all know, the discovery of the Higgs particle had to wait for the LHC where about half a million Higgs particles were produced. At the ILC, only a handful of generated Higgs particles would do. It may be that a new particle are already produced at the LHC that as to wait for the ILC to be discovered.

    Once a new particle is detected at the ILC, its nature can be fully elucidated by the ILC. Precision certainly is a great advantage of the ILC. For the measurements of interactions of the Higgs particles and other particles, indeed, the ILC is statistically equivalent to several tens of the ultimate LHCs running simultaneously. The ILC, however, is much more than a precision machine, it is in fact a tremendous discovery machine!

    See the full article here.

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

     
  • richardmitnick 12:42 pm on June 11, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ILC,   

    From LC Newsline: “The European XFEL – helping pave the way for the ILC” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    11 June 2015
    Ricarda Laasch

    European XFEL Campus
    Future Eurpoean XFEL

    The European XFEL at DESY, Germany, will be a brilliant light source for a broad range of fundamental research in all areas of science – but it is also the first great mass production of the so-called TESLA technology. This particle accelerating technology was developed by DESY together with its collaborators within the TESLA project and has now been transferred into industrial mass production to build the European XFEL. This is the first time that accelerator modules based on the superconducting radio frequency TESLA technology, are completely mass-produced in industry. And even though such a challenging industrial production is already needed for the European XFEL, this is not the end of the line. After all, the European XFEL’s big brother is the International Linear Collider, and they share the TESLA technology. The ILC community is thus watching the construction of the European XFEL very closely.

    “The ILC’s mission is to provide an accelerator and the infrastructure for experiments that can explore the structure of matter and the universe with unprecedented precision.” This statement by Brian Foster, European Director in the LCC, encompasses the three key goals of the ILC: Measuring the newly discovered Higgs boson with high precision, understanding the properties of the top quark, and searching for new particles beyond known physics. The Higgs boson was discovered at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in 2012, and with it the last part of an established theory could be finally proven. The top quark, on the other hand, may not be a new discovery but the particle itself still raises a lot of questions; and finally there is always the physics beyond what is known – or in this case the search for new particles.

    The big question now is if a machine like the ILC is actually needed given that we already have the LHC. The world community answers with a clear ‘Yes, it is.’. To show the importance for the community hundreds of physicists explain why they need the ILC in short videos – see here to find out more about the #mylinearcollider campaign. The ILC and LHC will be like a pan and a pot. It is possible to cook a meal with just one of the two, but for a greater variety of meals having both is essential. So the community is convinced that both machines are needed to fully understand the Higgs boson and other particles our universe has.

    A machine such as the ILC needs a great global effort to be brought into existence. To make this happen every possible source of information and knowledge is needed. This is where the European XFEL enters the stage. In the scope of the ILC, the European XFEL acts as a prototype for technical design, project planning and construction phase. Both machines basically use the same TESLA technology for acceleration of the particles.

    At DESY Nick Walker, a physicist and Global Coordinator for ILC Accelerator Design & Integration, has his eyes on the XFEL production. In his 20 years working for DESY at the machine group he has mostly worked on the TESLA project and its successor, the ILC. Right now he is projecting the numbers learnt from the European XFEL production into the ILC frame. For example he compares the performance of the superconducting TESLA cavities, the power drivers for the particles in the accelerator: “The overall approach to module production, from niobium sheets to accelerator modules, for the ILC is fundamentally taken from XFEL,” he says. The European XFEL will have 800 such superconducting cavities in 100 accelerator modules, while the ILC will have 16 000 cavities in about 2000 accelerator modules. The cavity and module production for the European XFEL was the first real industrial production for these specific parts of an accelerator and of course the ILC will handle it nearly the same way. “The cavities are a great success. Although we are a tad shy of the ILC goals they confirm the choice for the used recipe,” Walker stresses. And with 80 percent of the cavities reaching a gradient (the accelerating strength) of 33 megavolts/metre(MV/m) at the current status of the XFEL production together with an ILC goal of 90 percent at 35MV/m, this is a potential achievable goal for the ILC.

    The cavity production is not the only influence the ILC can carry over to their project. Many other aspects of the project are very helpful for the further planning and designing of the whole ILC project. “The ILC cost estimates are effectively projections of the known XFEL costs, which puts ILC on solid ground,” is another benefit of the European XFEL which Walker emphasises. For an international project of this scope not all contributions from participants are financial. Some ‘in-kind contributions’ have to be handled differently. For these in-kind contributions the European XFEL has some well-functioning examples: the Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Science (IF-PAN) sent a team of 27 skilled physicists, engineers and software engineers to DESY to provide needed manpower for the whole project duration. This team runs the important cavity and module test facility AMTF at DESY. Another example of those contributions is the accelerator module assembly which takes place in Saclay, near Paris, France. The modules are finished on the grounds of the Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (CEA) and then sent to Germany for testing and installation into the accelerator. Here not only industrial manpower, but also laboratory space was offered and used in the production. The LAL laboratory in Orsay, France, has a similar story: they are responsible for testing and conditioning the so-called high-power couplers – another key component of the technology. Those two are just examples for the different kinds of contributions from many laboratories to the European XFEL construction (for further contributions see here). For the ILC these contributions could be scattered all around the globe – which means good planning and identifying possible problems is the key to success.

    The European XFEL has started the first industrial mass production of cavities and accelerator modules. For all the scientists involved in this project this is a completely new situation. And as with everything new in life one has to learn how to do it well. And even this learning curve along the production and construction of the European XFEL will be beneficial for the ILC: the community can learn where more attention is needed or further development of parts or other design plans could be included. All these details give the ILC an opportunity which no other project this size has.

    Even after the production phase during the installation, commissioning and finally operation of the European XFEL, the ILC community will still be there and watching intensely. Here the European XFEL will give the ILC community invaluable experience for all the needed steps to build a machine in this global scale with the same set of technology behind it. The installation of the ILC will by nearly 20 times larger, and this is a real challenge on manpower, logistics and planning. So it is important to learn everything possible from the European XFEL which will help the ILC to be prepared.

    Of course, Nick Walker and his colleagues in the ILC community will keep a close eye on the European XFEL project: “No doubt lessons will be learnt here [at XFEL] that will influence the ILC design.”

    See the full article here.

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

     
  • richardmitnick 11:58 am on October 30, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ILC, , ,   

    From LC Newsline: “The future of Higgs physics” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    30 October 2014
    Joykrit Mitra

    In 2012, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider announced the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Higgs was expected to be the final piece of the particular jigsaw that is the Standard Model of particle physics, and its discovery was a monumental event.

    higgs
    Event recorded with the CMS detector in 2012 at a proton-proton centre of mass energy of 8 TeV. The event shows characteristics expected from the decay of the SM Higgs boson to a pair of photons (dashed yellow lines and green towers). Image: L. Taylor, CMS collaboration /CERN

    sm
    The Standard Model of elementary particles, with the three generations of matter, gauge bosons in the fourth column, and the Higgs boson in the fifth.

    CERN ATLAS New
    CERN ATLAS

    CERN CMS New
    CDERN CMS

    But more precise studies of it are needed than the LHC is able to provide. That is why, years earlier, a machine like the International Linear Collider had been envisioned as a Higgs factory, and the Higgs discovery set the stage for its possible construction.

    ILC schematic
    ILC schematic

    Over the years, instruments for probing the universe have become more sophisticated. More refined data has hinted that aspects of the Standard Model are incomplete. If built, a machine such as the ILC will help reveal how wide a gulf there is between the universe and our understanding of it by probing the Higgs to unprecedented levels. And perhaps, as some physicists think, it will uproot the Standard Model and make way for an entirely new physics.

    In the textbook version, the Higgs boson is a single particle, and its alleged progenitor, the mysterious Higgs field that pervades every point in the universe, is a single field. But this theory is still to be tested.

    “We don’t know whether the Higgs field is one field or many fields,” said Michael Peskin of SLAC’s Theoretical Physics Group. “We’re just now scratching the surface at the LHC.”

    The LHC collides proton beams together, and the collision environment is not a clean one. Protons are made up of quarks and gluons, and in an LHC collision it’s really these many component parts – not the larger proton – that interact. During a collision, there are simply too many components in the mix to determine the initial energies of each one. Without knowing them, it’s not possible to precisely calculate properties of the particles generated from the collision. Furthermore, Higgs events at the LHC are exceptionally rare, and there is so much background that the amount of data that scientists have to sift through to glean information on the Higgs is astronomical.

    “There are many ways to produce an event that looks like the Higgs at the LHC,” Peskin said. “Lots of other things happen that look exactly like what you’re trying to find.”

    The ILC, on the other hand, would collide electrons and positrons, which are themselves fundamental particles. They have no component parts. Scientists would know their precise initial energy states and there will be significantly fewer distractions from the measurement standpoint. The ILC is designed to be able to accelerate particle beams up to energies of 250 billion electronvolts, extendable eventually to 500 billion electronvolts. The higher the particles’ energies, the larger will be the number of Higgs events. It’s the best possible scenario to probe the Higgs.

    If the ILC is built, physicists will first want to test whether the Higgs particle discovered at the LHC indeed has the properties predicted by the Standard Model. To do this, they plan to study Higgs couplings with known subatomic particles. The higher a particle’s mass, the proportionally stronger its coupling ought to be with the Higgs boson. The ILC will be sensitive enough to detect and accurately measure Higgs couplings with light particles, for instance with charm quarks. Such a coupling can be detected at the LHC in principle but is very difficult to measure accurately.

    The ILC can also help measure the exact lifetime of the Higgs boson. The more particles the Higgs couples to, the faster it decays and disappears. A difference between the measured lifetime and the projected lifetime—calculated from the Standard Model—could reveal what fraction of possible particles—or the Higgs’ interactions with them— we’ve actually discovered.

    “Maybe the Higgs interacts with something new that is very hard to detect at a hadron collider, for example if it cannot be observed directly, like neutrinos,” speculated John Campbell of Fermilab’s Theoretical Physics Department.

    These investigations could yield some surprises. Unexpected vagaries in measurement could point to yet undiscovered particles, which in turn would indicate that the Standard Model is incomplete. The Standard Model also has predictions for the coupling between two Higgs bosons, and physicists hope to study this as well to check if there are indeed multiple kinds of Higgs particles.

    “It could be that the Higgs boson is only a part of the story, and it has explained what’s happened at colliders so far,” Campbell said. “The self-coupling of the Higgs is there in the Standard Model to make it self-consistent. If not the Higgs, then some other thing has to play that role that self-couplings play in the model. Other explanations could also provide dark matter candidates, but it’s all speculation at this point.”

    image
    3D plot showing how dark matter distribution in our universe has grown clumpier over time. (Image: NASA, ESA, R. Massey from California Institute of Technology)

    The Standard Model has been very self-consistent so far, but some physicists think it isn’t entirely valid. It ignores the universe’s
    accelerating expansion caused by dark energy, as well as the mysterious dark matter that still allows matter to clump together and galaxies to form. There is speculation about the existence of undiscovered mediator particles that might be exchanged between dark matter and the Higgs field. The Higgs particle could be a likely gateway to this unknown physics.

    With the LHC set to be operational again next year, an optimistic possibility is that a new particle or two might be dredged out from trillions of collision events in the near future. If built, the ILC would be able to build on such discoveries, just as in case of the Higgs boson, and provide a platform for more precise investigation.

    The collaboration between a hadron collider like the LHC and an electron-positron collider of the scale of the ILC could uncover new territories to be explored and help map them with precision, making particle physics that much richer.

    See the full article here.

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

    ScienceSprings relies on technology from

    MAINGEAR computers

    Lenovo
    Lenovo

    Dell
    Dell

     
  • richardmitnick 3:30 pm on September 18, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ILC   

    From LC Newsline- “ILC: What’s happening in Japan” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    18 September 2014
    Lyn Evans

    In September 2013, the Science Council of Japan (SCJ) published a report on the ILC. This report contains two key statements and requests.

    Concerning the scientific justification for the ILC:

    “The Committee appreciates that the ILC enables the precision measurements of the detailed properties of the Higgs particle and the top quark, thereby exploring the physics beyond the Standard Model of particle physics and, therefore, it acknowledges that the ILC is endowed with the scientific value in particle physics. The Committee, however, expresses the desire for more compelling and articulate argument to justify the ILC project in order to search for unknown particles and the physics beyond the Standard Model, running concurrently with the upgraded LHC, given the considerable investment it will require.”

    sm
    The Standard Model of elementary particles, with the three generations of matter, gauge bosons in the fourth column, and the Higgs boson in the fifth.

    Concerning the project cost:

    “Before making the final decision of whether the ILC should be hosted in Japan, the issues and concerns described in this document should be fully investigated and a clear vision for solutions needs to be provided. They include the whole profile of project cost for the construction, operation, upgrades and decommissioning, as well as prospect for cost-sharing among the countries involved. Also included are the issues related to human resources and management/operation organization.”

    In response, the Ministry of Education, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) set up a “Task force for ILC” under the vice-Minister, which itself set up an “Academic Experts Committee” which first met in May 2014. At that meeting the committee formed two working groups in order to respond to the two key requests of the SCJ.

    In order to address the scientific issues a “Particle and Nuclear Physics Working Group” led by Takaaki Kajita (Director of the Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo) was formed. The timetable and subjects for meetings of this Working Group as known so far is as follows:

    24 June 2014: Status of Particle Physics and ILC physics overview.

    29 July 2014: Future prospects in the US and Europe

    27 August 2014: Cosmic ray and Astrophysics and ILC.

    22 September 2014: Flavour and neutrino physics and ILC

    21 October 2014: Interim summary to be reported to Experts Committee.

    In order to address technical issues, a “Technical Design Report Validation” Working Group has been formed under the leadership of Hideaki Yokomizo (Former Trustee of JAEA). The first open meeting of this working group was held on 30 June 2014, giving an overview. Further working group meetings are in progress for detailed discussions on the TDR contents with cost-estimates in closed sessions.

    Information is being fed to this working group through the ILC Planning Office at KEK after verification by the LCC. Note that at the present time, this is a purely internal Japanese process. All committee and working group members are Japanese and no input is requested from outside Japan except indirectly through the LCC so far.

    In addition to setting up this Committee and its Working Groups, on 19 August MEXT published a Call for Tender for a survey:

    “Research, survey and analysis on technology spinoffs and subsequent economic ripple effects expected from the International Linear Collider (ILC) project and the global trend of the particle/nuclear physics research including technology R&D.”

    This survey will be conducted by a private company, yet to be chosen, and should be completed by the end of March 2015. It is expected that this company will consult with the major laboratories world-wide.

    I hope that the upcoming LCWS14 workshop in Belgrade will help refine the scientific arguments and differentiate the International Linear Collider from the other proposed lepton colliders and help our Japanese colleagues to feed correct and compelling arguments to the working groups.

    See the full article here.

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

    ScienceSprings relies on technology from

    MAINGEAR computers

    Lenovo
    Lenovo

    Dell
    Dell

     
  • richardmitnick 10:52 am on July 24, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ILC, , ,   

    From LC Newsline: “Another record for ATF2” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    24 July 2014
    Rika Takahashi

    Last month, LC NewsLine reported the achievement of the world’s smallest beam size of 55 nanometres at the ATF2 facility at KEK. At two international conferences held in June and July, the next record of 44 nanometres was reported by Kiyoshi Kubo and Shigeru Kuroda.

    The beam line at ATF2 is designed as a prototype of the final focus system of the ILC, with basically the same optics, similar beam energy spread, natural chromaticity and tolerances of magnetic field errors.

    ILC schematic
    ILC schematic

    For linear colliders, realising an extremely small and stable beam is essential. At the ILC, the design vertical beam size and required position stability at the interaction point is at the nanometer level. The target beam size at ATF is 37 nanometres. Because of the difference in the beam energy, 37 nanometres at ATF will correspond to smaller than 5 nanometres at the ILC, the specification for the ILC design.. The result presented at ICHEP and IPAC was just one step away from the target size.

    Kubo said the most important factor of the improvement was the stabilisation of the beam orbit by improving the feedback system. “We installed a new magnet for better feedback and improved the software, which worked to stabilise the beam. The beam was stable for 30 to 60 minutes without tuning in most cases.”

    “Also, we removed as much possible strong wakefield sources on every weekend when we stop the operation,” said Kuroda. “To put it in a nutshell, the further stabilisation of the beam and reduction of wakefield,” said Kuroda about the contributing factors.

    The beam size is still slightly larger than the target size of 37 nanometres. ATF is now under summer shut-down, and the scientists are planning to work on the remaining issues in the autumn this year.

    See the full article here.

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists – particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers – are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner


    ScienceSprings is powered by MAINGEAR computers

     
  • richardmitnick 6:41 pm on March 11, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ILC, , ,   

    From SLAC: “SLAC Accelerator Physicists Help Make Sure ILC Will Hit Target” 

    March 7, 2014
    Lori Ann White

    An international team of scientists at Japan’s high-energy accelerator research facility KEK has successfully demonstrated a key component of a future high-power linear collider, such as the International Linear Collider (ILC) under consideration in Japan or the Compact Linear Accelerator (CLIC) being developed at the European facility CERN.

    ILC schematic
    ILC

    CERN CLIC
    CLIC

    The component, called the final focus optics, will help produce precise beams of particles at these future research facilities, said Glen White, the SLAC accelerator physicist who is lead author on a recent paper in Physical Review Letters.

    Optics for an accelerator that boosts charged particles to near light speed aren’t lenses in the typical sense of eyeglass lenses or magnifying lenses. Instead, “optics” refers to the magnets that steer the particles. The final focus optics for an accelerator are a sequence of powerful magnets that concentrate particles into tight beams. The optics demonstrated by the Accelerator Test Facility 2 (ATF2) focused an electron beam down to only a few tens of nanometers tall.

    This special sequence of magnets was developed by former SLAC accelerator physicists Andrei Seryi and Pantaleo Raimondi nearly 15 years ago. Many more SLAC physicists are members of the ATF2 collaboration, an international group of scientists that built and continue to test the structure at the KEK accelerator facility in Japan.

    The optics for a future linear collider must take many different issues into account, said White, including the physics and the economics of extremely energetic beams of tiny particles.

    For example, a magnet will focus charged particles that have slightly different energies to slightly different places.”No bunch of particles in an accelerator is perfectly uniform,” said White. Thus, the particles can “fuzz out” around the focal point, resulting in fewer collisions and less data, unless such differences in position, called chromatic aberrations, are accounted for.

    Previous methods for correcting chromatic aberration, such as those tested during the Final Focus Test Beam experiment at SLAC, required additional lengthy sections of tunnel for the magnets used, thus adding considerable cost, White said. The design the ATF2 collaboration tested involved adding magnets called sextupoles to the focusing magnets, called quadrupoles, already in use. “The sextupoles refocus the particles according to their positions, which are determined by their energies,” he said – essentially reversing the errors introduced by the quadrupoles.

    sextupole
    Sextupole electromagnet as used within the storage ring of the Australian Synchrotron to focus and steer the electron beam

    quad
    A quadrupole electromagnet as used in the storage ring of the Australian Synchrotron

    Seryi, who left SLAC in 2010 to become director of the John Adams Institute for Accelerator Science at Oxford University, is a member of the ATF2 collaboration. “It is extremely gratifying to see the idea realized in practice and know that it works,” he said. “I am also tremendously happy that the ATF2 experiment has trained many young accelerator physics experts. This was actually one of the goals – to create the team who will be able to work on the linear collider’s final focus when the real project starts.”

    Now that they know it works, said White, the next steps are to work on stabilizing the beam and train more young physicists for the real thing.

    See the full article here.

    SLAC Campus
    SLAC is a multi-program laboratory exploring frontier questions in photon science, astrophysics, particle physics and accelerator research. Located in Menlo Park, California, SLAC is operated by Stanford University for the DOE’s Office of Science.
    i1


    ScienceSprings is powered by MAINGEAR computers

     
  • richardmitnick 11:30 am on August 22, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ILC, , ,   

    From LC Collaboration: “Common ground in ILC and CLIC detector concepts” 

    Linear Collider Colaboration Banner

    22 August 2013
    Daisy Yuhas

    “The Compact Linear Collider and International Linear Collider will accelerate particles and create collisions in different ways. Nonetheless, the detector concepts under development share many commonalities.

    LCTopCLICBottom
    ILC Top, CLIC Bottom

    CERN physicist Dominik Dannheim explains that CLIC detector plans are adaptations of the ILC detector designs with a few select modifications. ‘When we started several years ago, we did not want to reinvent the wheel,’ says Dannheim. The approved ILC detector concepts served as an excellent starting point for our designs.’

    Essential differences

    Both CLIC and ILC scientists foresee general-purpose detectors that make measurements with exquisite precision. These colliders, however, have very different operating parameters, which will have important consequences for the various detector components. The ILC’s collision energy is set at 500 GeV (with option to upgrade to 1 TeV), while CLIC will collide at up to 3 TeV. And the bunch structure is very different, too. The main difference is in the timing of the collisions. At the ILC electrons and positrons collide in bunch crossings spread out over bunch trains of almost a millisecond. At CLIC these bunch trains last for only 156 nanoseconds. So CLIC detectors will have a tougher job disentangling the rare physics events from the collision background.

    The higher energy will give CLIC a greater physics reach, but will also create more unwanted background events with less time to disentangle background from more interesting phenomena. “Simulations have shown that a time resolution at the nanosecond level is needed for most sub-detectors at CLIC,” says Dannheim. “In this respect they will be similar to the ones currently in operation at the LHC, yet aiming for much higher granularity and measurement precision.”

    Vertex detector

    The detector component closest to the interaction point, where collisions occur, is the vertex detector. ILC concepts place a paper-thin pixel detector near the interaction point to improve the resolution of short-lived particles created in collisions.

    The harsher background conditions at CLIC required a redesign of the inner detectors, which included moving the vertex detector further away from the interaction point. CLIC scientists are developing a different type of pixel detector for this region, where thin sensors are coupled to dedicated ultra-fast low-power readout chips (called CLICpix). This technology will help limit the number of overlapping background particles that inevitably blur the result. First prototypes of the newly developed CLICpix readout chip and of 50-μm-thin sensors have recently been produced, marking important milestones for the CLIC vertex detector project. The ultra-thin sensors will be under scrutiny in the DESY test beam telescope in the next two weeks.”

    See the full article here.

    What is the Linear Collider Collaboration?

    While the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is producing exciting results like the discovery of a new particle that could be the Higgs boson, scientists around the world are already planning the next big collider to take the discoveries to the next level. Even though there is no decision yet which collider will be built or where, there is consensus in the scientific community that the results from the LHC will have to be complemented by a collider that can study the discoveries in greater detail by producing different kinds of collisions.

    The Linear Collider Collaboration is an organisation that brings the two most likely candidates, the Compact Linear Collider Study (CLIC) and the International Liner Collider (ILC), together under one roof. Headed by former LHC Project Manager Lyn Evans, it strives to coordinate the research and development work that is being done for accelerators and detectors around the world and to take the project linear collider to the next step: a decision that it will be built, and where.

    Some 2000 scientists — particle physicists, accelerator physicists, engineers — are involved in the ILC or in CLIC, and often in both projects. They work on state-of-the-art detector technologies, new acceleration techniques, the civil engineering aspect of building a straight tunnel of at least 30 kilometres in length, a reliable cost estimate and many more aspects that projects of this scale require. The Linear Collider Collaboration ensures that synergies between the two friendly competitors are used to the maximum.


    ScienceSprings is powered by MAINGEAR computers

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 552 other followers

%d bloggers like this: