Tagged: LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • richardmitnick 8:38 am on July 31, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration, ,   

    From LC Newsline: “Learn from the experience of others – Tohoku University campus planning group visits DESY” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    23 July 2015
    Ricarda Laasch

    Temp 1
    Tohoku University campus planning group at DESY (from left: Tokiko Onuki, Nick Walker, Eisaku Nashiyama, and Akihiko Nagasaka)

    German national laboratory Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron (DESY) welcomed three Japanese visitors on 30 June, 2015, who asked to be introduced to DESY – its campus and organizational structure as an example of a research institute. The group is studying the size and needs of a possible International Linear Collider (ILC) campus in Tohoku.

    ILC schematic
    Possible ILC

    Tokiko Onuki, Campus Designer of Tohoku University, together with Eisaku Nashiyama, General Manager of the Industry and Economy Group from Tohoku Economic Federation and also the Executive Director of the Tohoku ILC Promotion Council, and Akihiko Nagasaka, ILC Promotion Division of the Mayor’s Office at Ichinoseki City, were welcomed at DESY by Manfred Fleischer, Deputy Director of the High Energy Physics Department of DESY, and Nick Walker, Global Coordinator for ILC Accelerator Design & Integration.

    A program alternating between tours around the campus and presentations by different departments of DESY was the day filling schedule which Fleischer and his colleagues presented to the Japanese visitors. The program started with a historical overview of DESY and the present status of the institute as a national laboratory with many international projects. The broad variety of topics encompassed: civil architecture and planning of the campus, needed infrastructure for a laboratory, transportation along the DESY sites (mainly during HERA times), introduction of foreign researcher’s families to life in Germany and the DESY’s social support systems, possible schools and education for researcher’s children, and regional impact of DESY in many facets of life.

    Onuki was interested in different models for office space and their functionality within the research community. The ILC will need offices for resident staff, long-term guest-scientists and also short-term visitors. At DESY different models for the different groups are used which were presented to the visitors. Further needs concerning seminar rooms and other equipment was addressed and also well received by the visitors.
    Of course an institute for the ILC needs more than office buildings. A tour through workshops and a look inside the cavity testing facility AMTF was part of the visit at DESY. “Such a facility like AMTF or even bigger will be needed for the building phase of the ILC.” was a statement from Nick Walker during the tour through AMTF. The ILC will use the same accelerating technology but it has 20 times as many accelerating structures than the European XFEL (which already needed a mass production). Here additional space and planning for the necessary mass production of accelerating structures is needed for the ILC campus. Walker could give many important insights about the ongoing European XFEL production as stepping stones for the ILC.

    Campus transportation of equipment and personnel will also be an issue for the possible site of the 30km long ILC with all buildings and needed infrastructure. “A good number of bicycles are in use at DESY but they also need maintenance and parking space.” was one of the first answers which were given by Fleischer. DESY solved some of the issues of transportation on campus site by using bicycles, installing a car pool (including transport vans) and during the time of the use of the HERA accelerator a bus shuttle was provided towards the experimental halls. Onuki and their colleagues were interested in all those solutions and of course how these things are used and received within DESY staff.

    Steffi Killough, Leader of the International Office at DESY, was giving helpful insights about social support which would be needed for foreign researchers and their families. DESY supports the guest-scientists starting with the visa application until the end of their stay in the country. Especially the tax system, insurances and other legal matters need explanations and advising. Also the education system for children is an important topic to visiting scientists and support for the integration into those systems needs to be provided. This issue is also very important for the ILC and its possible host nation Japan. “What would you like to provide if you had more resources?” was one of the questions from Onuki and her colleagues. Here the answer was very clear to Killough: more time which can be dedicated to provide support for each individual, also to provide more language support to address a greater variety of visitors in their native language, and to organize more social events.

    At the end of the day many other topics had been addressed like: scientific outreach, visitor numbers to DESY on open house days and the cooperation with the University of Hamburg and other Universities. “A key factor in the 50 year history of DESY was a close collaboration between Hamburg University and DESY, which has grown over the years.” is one of the statements of Frank Lehner towards the visitors from Tohoku University.
    Also the regional impact of DESY towards Hamburg was detailed and discussed in all areas like economy and education. The possibility for spin-off companies, regional investment for the needed infrastructure, training of skilled personnel in a variety of professions which are needed to provide the support system of a laboratory and growth for the regional economy were also further topics of the discussions.

    The Campus Planning Group from Tohoku University was given as many answers as possible from DESY in all possible areas to assist with the future ILC campus plans.

    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: , , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration   

    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: , , , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration   

    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 6:11 am on June 5, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration, , , ,   

    From LC Newsline: “Future large colliders in Asia – a personal perspective” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    28 May 2015
    Prof. Jie Gao, Institute of High Energy Physics, CAS, China

    1
    Qinghuada is the potential site for the Chinese collider.

    With the discovery of the Higgs particle at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in July 2012, after more than 50 years of searching, particle physics has finally entered the era of the Higgs, and the door for human beings to understand the unknown part of the Universe is wide open!

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

    The Standard Model theory of particle physics is now gloriously complete: all particles that it has predicted have been found through experimental discovery with particle colliders.

    2
    Standard Model of Particle Physics. The diagram shows the elementary particles of the Standard Model (the Higgs boson, the three generations of quarks and leptons, and the gauge bosons), including their names, masses, spins, charges, chiralities, and interactions with the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. It also depicts the crucial role of the Higgs boson in electroweak symmetry breaking, and shows how the properties of the various particles differ in the (high-energy) symmetric phase (top) and the (low-energy) broken-symmetry phase (bottom).

    Now is the time to nail it down with precision and to match to new theories to cover the unknown components of the Universe, such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy, through Higgs with its field stretched out to the whole Universe space. The Higgs couples not only to known fundamental particles in the Standard Model but might also couple to unknown parts of the Universe. To understand the whole Universe, with 5% of known Standard Model particles, 27% of Dark Matter and 68% Dark Energy, on the basis of the fundamental principles, the key of keys is to understand the 125-GeV Higgs with great precision. In fact, this task has great importance in science in terms of the fundamental understanding the Universe as a whole, including its beginning, its current status and its evolution. It is in this sense that studying the Higgs with great precision becomes one of the top subjects of big science.

    Different from a hundreds years ago, big science requires big instruments, a big scientific community, and big collaborations, especially in particle physics, which is becoming one of the precious cultures in human beings’ scientific activities. Different from a hundreds years ago, big science requires big investment in terms of both finance and human resources. However, just like a hundred years ago, big science rewards human beings in all aspects of life and activities on this planet and in space, such as electricity, nuclear power, and the World Wide Web as a (big!) byproduct out of big science research activity. And who knows, maybe (in at least philosophical point of view) human beings might one day be able to collide Dark Matter with the Higgs to release energy just like what we have done to hit atomic nucleus with neutrons to release nuclear energy.

    Concerning precise Higgs studies and beyond, the International Linear Collider (ILC), baptised by the International Committee of Future Accelerators (ICFA) in 2004, is one of such future big instruments. It is an electron-positron linear collider based on superconducting linear accelerator technology, with a potential of exploring centre-of-mass energies up to 1 TeV. In 2013, the ILC team finished its Technical Design Report (TDR), and Japan is considering to become its hosting country.

    In September 2012, right after the Higgs was found at the LHC, Chinese scientists proposed a circular electron-positron collider in China at 240 GeV centre of mass for Higgs studies with two detectors situated in a very long tunnel at least twice the size of the LHC at CERN. It could later be used to host a proton-proton collider well beyond LHC energy potential to reach a new energy frontier.

    From 12 to 14 June 2013, the 464th Fragrant Hill Meeting was held in Beijing about the strategy of Chinese high energy physics development after Higgs discovery, and the following consensuses were reached: 1) support ILC and participate to ILC construction with in-kind contributions, and request R&D fund from Chinese government; 2) as the next collider after BEPCII in China, a circular electron-positron Higgs factory(CEPC) and a Super proton-proton Collier (SppC) afterwards in the same tunnel is an important option and a historical opportunity, and corresponding R&D is needed.

    BEPII Beijing Electron Positron Collider
    BEPII Beijing Electron Positron Collider interior
    BEPII

    The vision of the 464th Fragrant Hill Meeting consensuses is that firstly, ILC is the right machine to be built globally in the world with its centre- of-mass energy potential up to 1 TeV, and China will be one of its important participants and contributors, and secondly, China should contribute not only through ILC collaboration and participation, but also make contributions to precise Higgs measurement through CEPC jointly with ILC for a period of time as a combined instrument with three detectors taking data during ILC and CEPC operation to ensure the excellent joint precision, and thirdly, shifts from CEPC operation to SppC construction and operation to explore physics in energy frontier as long term contribution.

    In fact, ILC and CEPC are complementary, and the complementarity between ILC and CEPC manifests itself not only through more detectors to increase joint measurement precision, but also through their energy region running scenarios. The ILC and CEPC are planning starting times that are almost the same. The ILC runs only at 500 and 350 GeV in the first five years, while CEPC during this time is running at 240GeV. After 5 to 7 years running, CEPC will start its shift to SppC, while the ILC continues a 20-year programme running at 500GeV, with possible upgrades to 1TeV and beyond.

    Finally, the fact that Japan and China, both Asian countries, having strong willingness to contribute to the high-energy physics community and science in general with world participation, one for hosting ILC and another for CEPC, is really excellent, it responds well to the fact that we have entered the era of the Higgs, and ILC and CEPC are a needed united big instrument to have excellent joint precision for Higgs study and beyond.

    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 2:29 pm on March 19, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration, ,   

    From LC Newsline: “Updating the physics case for the ILC” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    19 March 2015

    3
    Hitoshi Yamamoto

    Director’s Corner

    1

    The physics case of the ILC has been studied intensively for many years, culminating in the physics volume of the Technical Design Report (TDR).

    ILC schematic
    ILC

    It was followed by efforts to compare various machines such as the European Strategy studies and the Snowmass studies. Still, the scientific and political environments surrounding the ILC keep changing. On the scientific front, the LHC has found the Higgs particle and placed limits on new physics.

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

    The LHC is now upgrading the energy and a new run is about to start. On the political side, the committees of the MEXT in Japan are evaluating the case for the ILC both technically and scientifically. It is thus important that we continue to update the physics case for the ILC and communicate it to relevant people.

    The task of updating the physics case for the ILC largely lies on the shoulders of the physics working group of the LCC. With the members of the MEXT committees as audience in mind, they have produced a document called Precis of the Physics Case for the ILC. This turned out to be an extremely useful document for newcomers such as incoming graduate students to learn about the physics of the ILC. It was, however, a little too technical for the audience originally intended. To fill the gap, it was followed by a shorter document intended really for general public – Scientific Motivations for the ILC. This latter document is now mostly ready for distribution. The content of these documents are used by members of those committees in their discussions.

    When evaluating the competitiveness of the ILC, we need to consider circular electron-positron colliders as well as a luminosity-upgraded LHC. At present, there are two studies on next-generation circular electron-positron collider: one at CERN and another in China. The one at CERN is called the FCC (Future Circular Collider) study the main part of which is a proton-proton collider with an optional electron-positron collider to start with. It would start after the LHC ends around 2035. The stated timing of the Chinese circular electron-positron collider, called CEPC, is earlier and about the same as that of the ILC. The CEPC is a Higgs factory with the design luminosity per collision point is about three times that of the baseline ILC running as a Higgs factory. It should be noted, however, that the upgraded ultimate ILC luminosity as a Higgs factory is four times that of the baseline. A merit of a circular collider is that multiple collisions points can be arranged. The CEPC would run with two collision points. All in all, the ILC
    as a Higgs factory is quite similar in luminosity to the CEPC. The wall plug power for the ultimate ILC Higgs factory is 187 MW, which is about the same as the current LHC, while that of CEPC is more than twice as much.

    2
    LC, LHC and the Chinese CEPC in overview

    At the latest LCB (Linear Collider Board) meeting, the way to communicate the physics case of the ILC to public was one of the topics intensively discussed. The LCB has then agreed that we need a short bulleted list of the physics case for the ILC. Several of us then sat down and came up with three points. Here they are with some editing:

    Important properties are the interaction strength between Higgs and other particles. ILC can measure them 3 to 10 times more accurately then the ultimate LHC. This means that the ILC is equivalent to 10 to 100 ultimate LHCs running simultaneously.

    The LHC can reach higher energy than the ILC, but can miss important phenomena.

    At the Tevatron collider, which is similar to the LHC, more than 10,000 Higgs particles were created but no clear signal was detected. At the ILC, about 100 Higgs particles are enough.

    FNAL Tevatron
    Fermilab CDF
    Fermilab DZero
    Tevatron at FNAL

    Circular electron-positron colliders have fundamental limits for energy increase due to synchrotron radiation.

    In the Standard Model of particle physics, the Higgs particle is the key particle and top quark is the heaviest particle.

    5
    Standard Model of Particle Physics. The diagram shows the elementary particles of the Standard Model (the Higgs boson, the three generations of quarks and leptons, and the gauge bosons), including their names, masses, spins, charges, chiralities, and interactions with the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. It also depicts the crucial role of the Higgs boson in electroweak symmetry breaking, and shows how the properties of the various particles differ in the (high-energy) symmetric phase (top) and the (low-energy) broken-symmetry phase (bottom).

    Higgs-Higgs, Higgs-top interactions cannot be directly measured at the circular electron colliders since they cannot reach high enough energy. When a new particle sits at just above the energy limit, the ILC could be upgraded to reach the energy by making it longer or using higher accelerating gradient while it is difficult for a circular collider.

    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 2:49 am on March 6, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration,   

    From LC Newsline: “Linear collider technology checks LHC lumi” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    5 March 2015
    Barbara Warmbein

    1
    The luminometer was installed in the CMS detector in January. Image: CERN

    There’s a piece of linear collider detector technology that is getting ready to take real collision data. The linear collider may be at planning stage, but right in the middle of the CMS detector, a luminometer based on work done for the forward region of the ILC’s ILD detector is very much a working piece of kit. It will measure the luminosity in CMS, ie the rate of collisions that the LHC produces per second, and the beam-induced background.

    CERN CMS New II
    CMS

    The luminometer, part of the beam radiation instrumentation and luminosity (BRIL) project at CMS, consists of the so-called pixel luminosity telescope PLT and another part called BCM1F. It’s the BCM1F, a DESY-CERN coproduction, that has its roots in the forward calorimeter. The forward calorimeter is located in a tough area that needs radiation-hard equipment in order to survive. Already several years ago the FCAL collaboration tested several different technologies and settled on diamond sensors. It was actually during one of the test beam periods at CERN that the collaboration for the CMS luminometer was born when the LC FCAL started chatting to CERN experts on beam halo monitoring.

    2
    The BCM1F sets itself apart thanks to diamonds and speed. Image: Wolfgang Lohmann, DESY

    Radiation-hardness isn’t the only thing that sets the BCM1F lumi tool apart: its sensors use diamond crystals that deliver ultra-short signals when a particle passes through. The application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) to amplify the signal, developed and commissioned by a team from AGH-UST Cracow, CERN and DESY (Zeuthen), takes only a few nanoseconds to be back online, making it possible to count particles that pass through at very short intervals. Physics can deduce whether the particle comes from a collision or from beam background based on the time they passed through.

    The luminometers were installed in CMS in January. The setup consists of two semi circles with an outside radius of 10 centimetres. They sit at 1,8 metres distance from the interaction point and, once the LHC starts up again, send their information about luminosity and particle count from the beam-induced background to the CMS and LHC control rooms every second.

    Meanwhile, over at the linear collider’s FCAL, the FCAL collaboration will use the experience acquired in the operation of the CMS luminometers in the LHC’s run 2 for the construction of prototypes of forward calorimeters. ASICs experts will get to work on FCAL-specific integrated circuits with the help of funds from the AIDA2020 programme. So in true particle physics cross-fertilisation tradition the technology that started in the linear collider community will give its first performance in the LHC only to to be developed further with the experience gained from that first performance.

    3
    The BRIL collaboration. Image: CERN

    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: , , , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration, ,   

    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 2:52 pm on October 16, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration, ,   

    From LC Newsline: “Full ILC-type cryomodule makes the grade” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    16 October 2014
    Joykrit Mitra

    For the first time, the ILC gradient specification of 31.5 megavolts per metre has been achieved on average across all of the eight cavities assembled in an ILC-type cryomodule. A team at Fermilab reached the milestone earlier this month. It is an achievement for scientists, engineers and technicians at Fermilab and Jefferson Lab in Virginia as well as their domestic and international partners in superconducting radio-frequency (SRF) technologies.

    The cryomodule, called CM2, was developed and assembled to advance superconducting radio-frequency technology and infrastructure at Americas-region laboratories. The CM2 milestone achievement has been nearly a decade in the making, since US scientists started participating in ILC research and development in 2006.

    cryo
    CM2 cryomodule being assembled at Fermilab’s Industrial Center Building (2011). Photo: Reidar Hahn

    “We’ve reached this important milestone and it was a long time coming,” said Elvin Harms, who leads the cryomodule testing programme at Fermilab. “It’s the first time in the world this has been achieved.”

    An accelerating gradient is a measure of how much of an energy boost particle bunches receive as they zip through an accelerator. Cavities with higher gradients boost particle bunches to higher energies over shorter distances. In an operational ILC, all 16,000 of its cavities would be housed in cryomodules, which would keep the cavities cool when operating at a temperature of 2 kelvins. While cavities can achieve high gradients as standalones, when they are assembled together in a cryomodule unit, the average gradient drops significantly.

    The road to the 31.5 MV/m milestone has been a long and arduous one. Between 2008 and 2010, all of the eight cavities in CM2 had individually been pushed to gradients above 35 MV/m at Jefferson Lab in tests in which the cavities were electropolished and vertically oriented. They were among 60 cavities evaluated globally for the prospects of reaching the ILC gradient. This evaluation was known as the S0 Global Design Effort. It was a build-up to the S1-Global Experiment, which put to the test the possibility of reaching 31.5 MV/m across an entire cryomodule. The final assembly of the S1 cryomodule setup took place at KEK in Japan, between 2010 and 2011. In S1, seven nine-cell 1.3-gigahertz niobium cavities strung together inside a cryomodule achieved an average gradient of 26 MV/m. An ILC-type cryomodule consists of eight such cavities.

    cm2
    CM2 in its home at Fermilab’s NML building, as part of the future Advanced Superconducting Test Accelerator. Photo: Reidar Hahn

    But the ILC community has taken big strides since then. Americas region teams acquired significant expertise in increasing cavity gradients: all CM2 cavities were vertically tested in the United States, initially at Jefferson Lab, and were subjected to additional horizontal tests at Fermilab. Further, cavities manufactured by private vendors in the United States have improved in quality: three of the eight cavities that make up the CM2 cryomodule were fabricated locally.

    Hands-on experience played a major role in improving the overall CM2 gradient. In 2007, a kit for Fermilab’s Cryomodule 1, or CM1, arrived from DESY, and by 2010, when CM1 was operational, the workforce had adopted a production mentality, which was crucial for the work they did on CM2.

    “I would like to congratulate my Fermilab colleagues for their persistence in carrying out this important work and for the quality of their work, which is extremely high,” said the SRF Institute at Jefferson Lab’s Rongli Geng, who led the ILC high-gradient cavity project there from 2007 to 2012. “We are glad to be able to contribute to this success.”

    But achieving the gradient is only the first step, Harms said. “There is still a lot of work left to be done. We need to look at CM2’s longer term performance. And we need to evaluate it thoroughly.”

    Among other tasks, the CM2 group will gently push the gradients higher to determine the limits of the technology and continue to understand and refine it. They plan to power and check the magnet—manufactured at Fermilab— that will be used to focus the particle beam passing through the cryomodule. Also in the works is a plan to study the rate at which the CM2 can be cooled down to 2 kelvins and warmed up again. Finally, they expect to send an actual electron beam through CM2 in 2015 to understand better how the beam and cryomodule respond in that setup.

    Scientists at Fermilab also expect that CM2 will be used in the Advanced Superconducting Test Accelerator currently under construction at Fermilab’s NML building, where CM2 is housed. The SRF technology developed for CM2 also has applications for light source instruments such as LCLS-II at SLAC in the United States and DESY’s XFEL.

    And it’s definitely a viable option for a future machine like the ILC.

    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 2:30 pm on October 16, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration, , ,   

    From LC Newsline: “Calorimeters enjoy beam time” 

    Linear Collider Collaboration header
    Linear Collider Collaboration

    16 October 2014
    Barbara Warmbein

    There are prototypes and there are prototypes. Some are needed to verify that a chosen detection technology actually works, some help scientists test one technology against another, some help them design sturdy detector infrastructure with little material budget, working power supply and cooling, while others set out to prove that it is possible to have full detector functionality with all electronics set up like in the final detector. And then there are those that do it all at the same time.

    calice
    CALICE crowd around detector setup in the T9 beamline at CERN. All images by Katsushige Kotera

    The CALICE collaboration’s analogue hadronic calorimeter, or AHCAL, is an example of the last type. It is a prototype for a calorimeter – a subdetector that measures the energies of passing particles – that might one day be part of the ILD detector. It would work together with trackers, electromagnetic calorimeter and muon system to record, reconstruct, track and identify every particle produced in the collisions at the future ILC. The CALICE scientists are currently testing a prototype that takes a close look at detector infrastructure like cooling and power supply while at the same time comparing different kinds of silicon photomultipliers or SiPMs. These do the actual job of detection, and the collaboration is testing the latest and much advanced commercial silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs) from Russia, Ireland, Japan and Germany.

    fd
    Flying detectors: after craning the hadronic calorimeter into its test beam destination…
    in
    …it gets installed and set up before starting its data taking run.

    The HCAL prototype consists of one module, which corresponds to a slice of one sector of the future calorimeter barrel of the final detector. It has 1000 channels per square metre and it shares the space in the test beam area with CALICE electromagnetic calorimeter prototype modules from Japan – a true collaboration that also shares the same readout electronics. It’s also the first time that these calorimeters are taking data in a hadron beam after a few runs in electron beams at DESY in Germany.

    …it gets installed and set up before starting its data taking run.

    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: , , , , LCC-Linear Collider Collaboration, ,   

    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

     
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 462 other followers

%d bloggers like this: