HIGGS Factory Overview of technology optionsin NLC/GLC framework and optimised for early phase of...
Transcript of HIGGS Factory Overview of technology optionsin NLC/GLC framework and optimised for early phase of...
HIGGS Factory Overview of technology options
J.P Delahaye / SLAC (CERN)
Circular e+e- Colliders
γ-γ Colliders Muon Colliders
Linear Colliders
Higgs Factories
ILC CLIC SLC-type Adv. Concepts
LEP3 TLEP Super-Tristan FNAL Site-filler IHEP, + …
SAPPHIRE, CLICHÉ, SLC like …
Accelerators for a HIGGS Factory workshop @ FNAL (Nov 14-16, 2012) https://indico.fnal.gov/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=5775
2 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Data from Report of the ICFA HF2012 Workshop
(FERMILAB-CONF-13-037-PAC)
( A.Blondel, A.Chao, W.Chou, J.Gao, D.Schulte, K.Yokoya)
A Zoo of Candidates for a Higgs Factory
• Linear e+e- collider: Ø ILC Ø CLIC Ø X-band klystron based
• γγ collider: Ø ILC-based Ø CLIC-based Ø Recirculating linac-based
(SAPPHiRE) Ø SLC-type
• Circular e+e- collider: Ø LEP3 Ø TLEP Ø SuperTRISTAN Ø Fermilab site-filler Ø China Higgs Factory (CHF) Ø SLAC/LBNL big ring
• Muon collider Ø Low luminosity Ø High luminosity
Ø Plasma Ø Laser driven Ø Beam driven
Two strategies:
• Projects focused on HIGGS Physics: - γγ collider - E+/E- colliding rings
• HIGGS factory as first stage of a facility upgradable to (multi)-TeV energy range
- Linear Colliders - Muon Colliders
W.Chou @ HIGGS Fact. Wkp (FNAL,Nov2012)
3
High energy colliders: luminosity challenge
Linear Colliders
Circular colliders
e+ e-
main linac
4
• Generation and preservation of ultra-low emittances
• Focusing to extremely small beam sizes at IP
• Acceleration: MWs of beam power with high gradient & high efficiency
Keys: Beams with high power and extreme quality & stability Efficiency, Efficiency, Efficiency!!!!
CLIC 3 TeV: 48 km CLIC 0.5 TeV: 13 km
Linear Colliders http://www.linearcollider.org/cms http://clic-study.web.cern.ch/CLIC-Study/
ILC 0.5 TeV – 30 km ILC 1 TeV – 50 km
5 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
150 MeV e-linac
PULSE COMPRESSION FREQUENCY MULTIPLICATION
CLEX (CLIC Experimental Area) TWO BEAM TEST STAND PROBE BEAM Test Beam Line
3.5 A - 1.4 µs
28 A - 140 ns
30 GHz test stand
Delay Loop
Combiner Ring D FFD
DF
F
D F DD F D
F
FD
D F D
D F D
DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF
D F DF DF D
D FFFDD
DF
FDD
FF
FF
D F DD F DD F DD F D
F
FD
F
FD
F
FD
D F DD F D
D F DD F D
DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DFDF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF
D F DD F DF DF DF DF D
total length about 140 m
magnetic chicane
Photo injector tests, laser Infrastructure from LEP
Addressing all major CLIC technology key issues in CLIC Test Facility (CTF3)
" Demonstrate Drive Beam generation (fully loaded acceleration, beam intensity and bunch frequency multiplication x8)
" Demonstrate RF Power Production and test Power Structures
" Demonstrate Two Beam Acceleration and test Accelerating Structures CLIC technology feasibility demonstrated Conceptual design published in 2012
Accelerator: h"ps://edms.cern.ch/document/1234244/ Physics&Detectors: h"p://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.5940v1 Executive summary: h"p://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.2543v1
Summary to European Strategy update http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.1402v1
Cost practical limitations
Additional offset due to drive beam injectors
PLASMA
CLIC
ILC
7.8B$ 14400FTE
Reduced cost/GeV due to - reduced tunnel length (>acc. field) - reduced equipment per unit length
HIG
GS
Fact
ory ILC less expensive
< 500GeV
CLIC efficient cost/energy 3.4MCHF/GeV
Favored > 500GeV
~17.7 m, ∅16.3 cm
2-‐pack solid state modulator
59 MW 1.95 µs
PPM klystrons
118 MW 1.95 µs
492 MW 244 ns
2 m, 1.83 active
x 8 accelerating structures, 100 MV/m loaded gradient
TE01 900 bend
TE01 transfer line (? m) Inline RF distribuNon network
Common vacuum network
460 kV, 2 µs flat top
x 4.64
Compared to NLC, the energy gain per unit in CLIC’k case is 26% lower (need more klystrons per meter), but the unit acNve length is ~ 2 Nme shorter.
CLIC’k the CLIC first phase of a HIGGS factory
RF power source based on Klystrons developed in NLC/GLC framework and optimised for early phase of HIGGS factory to be upgraded later to Two Beam scheme when mature enough for HEP LC
8 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
γγ Collider as a Higgs Factory High power lasers are Compton back- scattered from electron beams arranged as an e-/e- linear collider
SAPPHiRE
Beam Energy 80 GeV
Power Consumption 100 MW
Polarization 80%
Ave Beam Current 0.32 mA
E-e- geometric luminosity
2.2x10^34
Laser wavelength 351 nm
Repetition rate 200 kHz
Laser pulse energy ~5 J
CLICHÉ: CLIC Higgs Experiment
9 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Primary Parameters of γ-γ Colliders for a HIGGS factory
10
Parameter CLIC-Higgs Sapphire SILC cms e- Energy 160 Gev 160 GeV 160 GeV Peak γ-γ Energy 128 GeV 128 GeV 130 GeV Bunch charge 4e9 1e10 5e10 Bunches/train 1690 1 1000 Rep. rate 100 200 kHz 10 Hz Power per beam 9.6 MW 25 MW 7 MW γεx / γεy [um] 1.4 / 0.05 5 / 0.5 6 / 5 βx / βy at IP [mm] 2 / 0.02 5 / 0.1 0.5 / 0.5 sx / sy at IP [nm] 138 / 2.6 400 / 18 140 / 125 L_geom 4e34 2e34 1e34 L_gg (Eγγ > 0.6 Ecms) 3.5e33 3.5e33 2e33 CP from IP 1 mm 1 mm 4 mm Laser pulse energy 2 J 4 J 1.2 J J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
T.Raubenheimer @ ICHEP2010
11 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Plasma Acceleration (Beam-driven or Laser-driven)
50 GV/m demonstrated • Potential use for linear
colliders and radiation sources
Simulation of 25 GeV PWFA stage
Drive bunch
Witness bunch
Laser pulse or
12 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Test facilities for Plasma-based Linear Colliders DOE OHEP has funded two new plasma accelerator test facilities: FACET and BELLA
• Both are aimed at linear collider relevant parameters: - ~1nC per bunch, several GeV energy gain, small emittance beams
• Will address next generation challenges: emittance preservation, small energy spreads, stability and efficiency
FACET Test Facility (SLAC) BELLA Test Facility (LBL)
13 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Concept of Laser-Driven Plasma Linac
W.Leemans et al. Physics Today March 2009
Replace by new version
14 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Novel concept of a beam driven PWFA Linear Collider : A 2.5km HIGGS Factory
Beam parameters and luminosity similar to ILC but in a CW operation mode • E-/E+ collisions in single bunch at 12.5kHz repetition frequency (80µs) • Drive beam accelerated by 25 GeV SC CW linac with recirculation (a la CEBAF) • Reduced dimensions due to high plasma acceleration gradients: 12.5 GV/m • Excellent wall-plug to beam efficiency(8%@250GeV,18%@3TeV) • Upgradable over large energy range: from HIGGS fact. to 3 TeV
1 TeVcm in 4km (3 TeVcm in 8km)
1 TeV in 4km 3 TeV in 8km 15 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Higgs Factory Accelerator Pros and Cons
Linear Collider
Circular Collider
Muon Collider
γ-γ Collider
Technical Maturity J JJ L L Size L L J J* Cost L K K J* Power Consumption K L K K Energy Resolution L L J L MDI K K L L TeV Upgradability (Energy) J LL JJ J TeV Upgradability (Cost, Size, Power) K LL J K
S.Henderson @ HIGGS Fact. Wkp (FNAL,Nov2012)
16 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Lepton colliders main parameters Parameter Unit ILC CLIC PWFA Muon Collider
Energy (cm) GeV 250 250 250 126
Luminosity (per IP) 1034cm-2s-1 0.75 1.37 1.60 0.01
Peak (1%)Lum(/IP) 1034cm-2s-1 0.65 1.19 0.94 0.01
Yearly HIGGS (/IP) 1000 23 34 30 50
# IP - 1 1 1 1
Length or circumference km 21 13.2 2.5 0.3
Power (wall plug) MW 128 235 133 200
Polarisation (e+/e-) % 80/30 80/0 ?/? 15/15
Lin. Acc. grad. (peak/eff) MV/m 31.5/? 40/? 104/103 -
# particles/bunch 1010 2 0.34 1 500
# bunches/pulse - 1312 842 1 1
Bunch interval ns 554 0.5 - -
Average/peak current nA/A 21/0.006 22.9/1.09 48.6/- -
Pulse repetition rate Hz 5 50 30000 15
Beam power/beam MW 2.63 2.87 6.08 0.15
Norm Emitt (X/Y) 10-6/10-9rad-m 10/35 0.66/25 10/35 200/200000
Sx, Sy, Sz at IP nm,nm,µm 729/66/300 150/3.2/72 671/3.8/20 1,2.105/1,2.105/4.104
Crossing angle mrad 14 18.6 14? 0
Av # photons - 1.17 0.7 0.57 ?
δb beam-beam % 0.95 1.5 2.75 ?
Upsilon - 0.02 0.05 0.084 ? 17 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Circular colliders main parameters Parameter Unit LEP3 TLEP STristan FNAL IHEP80 SLACLBL
Energy (cm) GeV 240 240 240 240 240 240
Luminosity (per IP) 1034cm-2s-1 1 4.9 1 0.52 3.85 1
Yearly HIGGS (/IP) 1000 20 100 20 13 77 20
# IP - 2 2 1 1 1 1
Length or circumf. km 26.7 81 40 16 70 26.7
Power (wall) MW 300 296 250 300 300 300
Polarisation (e+/e-) % 0 0 0 0 0 0
# particles/bunch 1010 100 50 67 80 60 8
# bunches/beam - 4 80 8 2 52 50
Beam intensity mA 7.2 24.3 6.5 5 21.3 7.2
Synchrotron loss/turn GeV 7.0 2.1 3.5 10.5 2.35 7.0
Synchro. power/beam MW 50 50 22.5? 50 50 50
RF voltage GV 12 6 8.3 12 12 12
Norm Emitt (X/Y) 10-3/10-6radm 5.87/23 2.21/12 9.4/9.4 5.32/27 3.36/16.7 1.01/5.05
Sx, Sy, Sz at IP mm,nm,mm 71/320/3.1 43/220/1.7 89/63/1.2 67/476/2.9 53/266/1 15/2.6/1.5
Crossing angle mrad 0 0 0 0 0
Tune shift (x/y) -/- 0.09/0.08 0.1/0.1 0.03/0.08 0.070.095 0.08/0.08 0.04/0.07
Beam lifetime sec 1080 1920 ? 1080 600 ?
Average # photons - 0.6 0.5 3.2 0.36 0.48 0.24
δb beam-beam % 0.03 0.035 0.02 0.022 0.057 0.0088
Upsilon - 0.00231 0.00348 0.00320 0.00212 0.0057 0.00186 18
J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Collider ‘Wall Plug’ AC Power use ILC and 80 km ring: ILC -H ILC-nom Ring - H Ring - t
E_cm (GeV) 250 500 240 350 SRF Power to Beam (MW) 5.2 10.5 100 100 Eff. RF Length (m) 7,837 15,674 600 1200 RF klystron peak efficiency (%) 65 65 65 65 klystron operating margin, HVPS, Klystron Aux and klystron water cooling (% inefficiency)
30 + 20 Additional inefficiency due cavity fill-time
20* 20
Overall system RF efficiency (%) 10 14 45 45 Cryo (MW) 16 32 20 40 Normal Conducting (exc. Injector complex) (MW)
6 10 120** 120
Injector complex 32 32 16*** 16 Conventional (Air, lighting, ..) 6 6**** 18 18 Total (exc. detector) 112 153 396 416 * 5% for operating margin, 2% for auxiliaries, 3% for HVPS and 10% for water cooling ** assume 1.5 kW / m tunnel inclusive (ILC avg. 3 kW / m) *** from SSC / Fermilab injector (linac + LEB + MEB); assumes LHC not needed **** 6 MW for 30 km beam tunnel complex; ~3x more for 80 ring
Assume two separate collider rings – similar to B Factories
M.Ross @ Aspen March 10, 2013
19 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Total luminosity per IP of the various HIGGS Factory proposals and their variation with collision energy
20 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
ILC
ILC
ILC
CLIC
CLIC
CLIC
PWFA
PWFA
PWFA
PWFA
TLEP
TLEP FNAL
IHEP
IHEP
SLAC/LBL Muon Collider Muon Collider
Muon Collider
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
1034
cm-2s-1
C.M. colliding beam energy (TeV)
ILC CLIC PWFA LEP3 TLEP
Super-Tristan FNAL IHEP SLAC/LBL Muon Collider
Total luminosity per IP in the energy region of HIGGS interest
21 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
ILC
ILC
CLIC
CLIC
PWFA
PWFA
TLEP
TLEP FNAL
IHEP
IHEP
SLAC/LBL Muon Collider
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
1034
cm-2s-1
C.M. colliding beam energy (TeV)
ILC CLIC PWFA LEP3 TLEP
Super-Tristan FNAL IHEP SLAC/LBL Muon Collider
Peak Luminosity integrated over all IPs
22
𝑳 ∝𝑳↓𝟎.𝟎𝟏 √#𝑰𝒑
J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
ILC
ILC
ILC
CLIC CLIC
CLIC
PWFA PWFA
PWFA
PWFA
TLEP
TLEP
FNAL
IHEP IHEP
Muon Collider
Muon Collider
Muon Collider
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
1034
cm-2s-1
C.M. colliding beam energy (TeV)
ILC CLIC PWFA LEP3 TLEP
Super-Tristan FNAL IHEP SLAC/LBL Muon Collider
Peak luminosity integrated over all Ips in the region of HIGGS interest
23 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
ILC
ILC CLIC
CLIC
PWFA PWFA
TLEP
TLEP
FNAL
IHEP IHEP
SLAC/LBL Muon Collider
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
1034
cm-2s-1
C.M. colliding beam energy (TeV)
ILC CLIC PWFA LEP3 TLEP Super-Tristan FNAL IHEP SLAC/LBL Muon Collider
𝑳 ∝𝑳𝟎.𝟎𝟏√#𝑰𝒑
Wall plug power
24 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
ILC
ILC
ILC
CLIC CLIC
CLIC
PWFA PWFA
PWFA
PWFA TLEP
TLEP
Super-Tristan
FNAL SLAC/LBL
Muon Collider Muon Collider
Muon Collider
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
MW
C.M. colliding beam energy (TeV)
ILC CLIC PWFA LEP3 TLEP Super-Tristan FNAL IHEP SLAC/LBL Muon Collider
Maximum Tolerable?
Circular colliders
Wall plug power in the region of HIGGS interest
25 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
ILC
ILC
CLIC
CLIC
PWFA PWFA
TLEP TLEP
Super-Tristan
FNAL
SLAC/LBL
Muon Collider
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
400.00
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
MW
C.M. colliding beam energy (TeV)
ILC CLIC PWFA LEP3 TLEP
Super-Tristan FNAL IHEP SLAC/LBL Muon Collider
Maximum Tolerable?
Circular colliders
Figure of merit: Integrated Luminosity/Wall plug power
26 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
ILC
ILC
ILC
CLIC
CLIC
CLIC PWFA
PWFA
PWFA
PWFA
LEP3
TLEP
TLEP Super-Tristan
FNAL
IHEP
SLAC/LBL
Muon Collider
Muon Collider
Muon Collider
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
1034/MW
C.M. colliding beam energy (TeV)
ILC CLIC PWFA LEP3 TLEP Super-Tristan FNAL IHEP SLAC/LBL Muon Collider
Figure of merit (Luminosity / wall plug power) in the HIGGS region of interest
27 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
ILC
ILC
CLIC
CLIC
PWFA
PWFA
LEP3
TLEP
TLEP Super-Tristan
FNAL
IHEP IHEP
SLAC/LBL
Muon Collider
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
1034/MW
C.M. colliding beam energy (TeV)
ILC CLIC PWFA LEP3 TLEP Super-Tristan FNAL IHEP SLAC/LBL Muon Collider
Length or circumference
28 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
ILC
ILC
ILC
CLIC CLIC
CLIC
PWFA PWFA PWFA PWFA
TLEP TLEP
Super-Tristan
FNAL
IHEP
IHEP
SLAC/LBL
Muon Collider Muon Collider
Muon Collider
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
km
C.M. colliding beam energy (TeV)
ILC CLIC PWFA LEP3 TLEP Super-Tristan FNAL IHEP SLAC/LBL Muon Collider
LHC
Length or circumference in the HIGGS region of interest
29 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
ILC
ILC
CLIC CLIC
PWFA PWFA
TLEP TLEP
Super-Tristan
FNAL
IHEP
IHEP
SLAC/LBL
Muon Collider 0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
km
C.M. colliding beam energy (TeV)
ILC CLIC PWFA LEP3 TLEP Super-Tristan FNAL IHEP SLAC/LBL Muon Collider
LHC
M.Ross @ Aspen March 10, 2013
31
Capital cost
J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
More on Cost by P.Garbincius on March 22
ILC
ILC
CLIC
CLIC
TLEP (main ring)
Muon Collider (Shiltsev)
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
B$
Colliding beam energy (TeV)
ILC CLIC TLEP (main ring) Muon Collider (Shiltsev)
LHC main ring?
32
Capital cost per 5 years produced HIGGS
J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
ILC
CLIC
TLEP
Muon Colliders (Shiltsev cost)
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
k$/
HI
GGS
5 years produced HIGGS
ILC CLIC TLEP Muon Colliders (Shiltsev cost)
Linear and γ-γ colliders Technical issues to be addressed by specific R&D
ILC: TDR available (2013), ready for construction • Generation of ultra small (6nm) beam spot (70nm @ ATF/KEK) • Target for polarized positrons
CLIC: CDR available (2012) • If based on Two Beam Acceleration (TBA):
- Same as ILC above (3nm beam spot) - Develop a technical design based on CDR - Optimisation of acceleration components and systems - Preparation of industrial procurements (series of accelerating structures and integrated
Two-Beam modules ) • If based on Klystrons:
- Cost optimisation and industrialisation of NCRF Xband (NLC/JLC) technology
γ-γ colliders • Laser power and efficiency • Optical cavity for gamma Ray generation of several joules with MHz repetition rates • Gamma ray generation by (tapered) FEL with high efficiency (10%) • Primary beam as FEL driver in SAPPHIRE • RF guns with low emittance beam generation
33 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Technical issues to be addressed by specific R&D
E+/E- circular colliders • Handling of 100 MW synchrotron radiation losses issues • RF power generation ( high efficiency, RF couplers, Coupling
impedance) • Activation by high critical energy of synch. Rad.(1.5MeV) • High current (Amp) and collective instabilities (MCI) • Beam-beam effects with large synch tune and small βy • Large energy acceptance (2-6%) for acceptable lifetime with
strong beamstrahlung • MDI with strong synchrotron radiation and background
34 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Novel Acceleration Techniques Technical issues to be addressed by specific R&D
Muon Colliders: • High power (4MW) proton driver (Project X if at FNAL) and target • Ionisation cooling (10^6=10^2 transverse and 10^4 longitudinal) • Accelerating fields in low frequency RF cavities immersed in strong magnetic field • Large field solenoids (15 to 20T) • Low beam momentum spread (3.10^-5) and stability (10^-5) of collider at S resonance • MDI and detector in high background environment • Large background and activation due to Muon decays
Plasma based Accelerators (laser or beam driven) • Acceleration over substantial length with high gradient and low momentum spread • Laser power and efficiency (laser driven) • Laser (or drive beam) to plasma and plasma to main beam power transfer efficiency • Emittance preservation during acceleration • Multi-stage acceleration • Alignment tolerances and instabilities (hose, head erosion) • Positron acceleration
35 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
36 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Timelines of Higgs Factory projects Approximate dates, uncertainty increases with time
RDR (CDR) R&D TDR/Preparation Construction Operation
PROPOSED APPROVED
300 fb-1
3000 fb-1
Higgs Factory Accelerator: Pros & Cons Linear Collider
Plasma Wakefield
Circular Collider
Muon Collider
γ-γ Collider
Technical Maturity Proj launch/First beam
JJ 2015/2024
L 2027/2034
J 2018/2024
L 2027/2034
K 2025/2035
Size (km) L 13-20
J 2.5
L 20-80
J 0.3
J 10
Cost L 6-7
K ?
KL ?-11
K ?
K ?
Power Consumption
J 128-235
J 133
L? 300-400
K 200
K ?
Energy Resolution
L 10-2
L 10-2
K ?
JJ 10-5
L ?
Polarisation JJ 80/30
L ?/?
L 0/0
K 15-15
K ?/?
MDI K K K L background
L laser
Energy (TeV) Upgradability
J 1-2
JJ 3
LL 0.35
JJ 3-6
J 1-2
TeV Upgradability (Cost,Size,Power)
K JJ
LL JJ
K? 37 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Conclusion (personal) • Consensus of lepton collider (e+/e- or µ+/ µ-) as precision facility after LHC
• HIGGS factory logical first stage • Several alternative technologies but none of them easy & cheap • Long timeline before HIGGS factory beam available: ILC earliest by 2025
• What will have been measured by LHC at the time? What left to be measured? • Facility limited to HIGGS Physics not worth the (multiB$) investment?
• HIGGS facility only makes sense as near term approach upgradable later to higher colliding beam energies as required by Physics
• γγ colliders as add-on to linear colliders and e+/e- rings (too) limited in energy? • Circular colliders power consuming and not upgradable with electrons/positrons
• Discovery Facility with Protons) expending energy frontier if no new Physics found at LHC • ILC mature technology and ready to build
• expensive and limited in energy upgrade • Japanese initiative to build ILC not to be missed (if confirmed)
• Muon colliders benefit from S channel resonance • Direct measurement of HIGGS mass width but extremely low momentum spread required, • Ideal technology for Multi-TeV operation (no beamstrahlung, no synch rad., low power) • Specific technical challenges and late availability (2034)
• R&D on novel technologies (Two-Beam, Plasmas, Muons..) to be strongly supported to extend colliding beam energy range as (possibly) required by Physics in the future
38 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options
Recommendation Some issues too important to be left to Physicists and/or project leaders: International Committee of “wise” experts to fairly evaluate all projects on:
• Power • Cost • Schedule
39 J.P.Delahaye @ UCLA March 21,2013 Review of HIGGS Factory technology options