where do we go from here?

Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

1

Where do we go from here?

Brian Foster

Bristol University/DESY

What are the prospects?

Where we are.

The next steps

ECFA LC Study,

Amsterdam

4th April, 2003


2

Where we are

The publication of the TESLA TDR precipitatedthe start of the “modern era” in LC.


3

The JLC TDR

Approximately 2 years later, we now have a seconddesign on the table – the “JLC” – which is shortly to be renamed to emphasise its international character.

JLC TDR was presented in large symposium inKEK on 12th February, attended by ~400 peoplewith strong delegations from South Korea, India and China. Large number of talks; including from me and M. Tigner on view from Europe and US.


4

The JLC TDRThe preliminary cost estimate for 500 GeV machine is495 B¥ (~3.8 B€) c.f. the TESLA cost estimated on thesame basis of ~ 3.5 B€).

KEK have established a strong industrial “club” with 49members. This will grow and they intend this year to contactother industries in Asia & Oceania to broaden theindustrial base further. The coordinator of the club said that “Japanese industry expects that the JLC project will startsoon.”

They have identified many possible suitable sites. Selectionprocess will take some time – at least 3 years to get approval.Expect final engineering design by 2007 and first lumiby 2012 if decisions could be made on this timescale.


5

ECFA/ELCSG activity

Some of this activity has already been covered by A. Wagnerand D. Miller.

Almost all of ECFA’s current activity is dominated by the LC.

International. Comm. ForFuture Accelerators

ICFA

European Comm.for Future Acceler.

Asian Comm.for Fut. Acc.

US HEPAdv. Panel

Techn. Rev.Committee

International LCSteer. Comm.

ILCSC

European LCSteering Comm.

Asian LC Steering Comm.

US LC Steering Comm.

AcceleratorSub panel

Sub Group on Organ.& Manag.

Physics&Detectors

Outreach


6

ECFA/ELCSG activity

The subcommittee on Organisation under George Kalmusand the Accelerator group under Reinhard Brinkmann arewell established and working. GK will report preliminaryconclusions to ELCSG/ECFA early in July.

ELCSG has met seven times since it was formed just over ayear ago; latest meeting here yesterday.

Members are BF (Chair), L. Maiani, A. Wagner, D. Miller,S. Bertolucci, F. Richard.

Similar exercises are going on in the other regions. ACFA’sreport already available and prefers a “CERN-like” solution.US version should report on same time-scale as ours.


7

ECFA/ELCSG activityOrganisation subcomittee membershipGeorge Kalmus (Chair) (RAL)Peter von Handel (Secretary) (DESY)Umberto Dosselli (INFN)Lorenzo Foa (Pisa)Guy Wormser (IN2P3)Joel Feltesse (Saclay)Helmut Krech (ESRF)Ian Corbett (ESO)Chris Llewellyn Smith (Oxford)Eva Groniger Voss (CERN)Jos Engelen (NIKHEF)Kurt Hubner (CERN)Norman McCubbin (RAL)Torsten Akesson (CERN)


8

ECFA/ELCSG activity

You, of course, or at least your organising committee, areour physics subcommittee, and the discussion on the “scope”of the LC project was most useful and will be the basis forthe “European” position that R. Heuer and F. Richard willtake into the ILCSC “gang of six” discussion that will beginshortly.

I would welcome your suggestions as to “wise people”- approximately 3 from each region – who should form the group who will recommend the technology.

[email protected]


9

The situation with thefunding authorities

The lead-up to the German government decision as reportedby A. Wagner on Tuesday showed that at least in some governments, the LC is rising to the top of the agenda. Therehave certainly been detailed discussions within and betweenthe UK and German governments at ministerial level.

There are also reported to have been informal discussionsof LC issues at G8 science ministers’ meeting.

There is a clear need to broaden these discussions bothwithin Europe and internationally.


10

The situation with thefunding authorities

I. Halliday, CE of PPARC in UK, was approached by R. Orbach (DoE) and the NSF, with the question “Who speaks for Europe on LC issues.” In an attempt to answerthis, he proposed a meeting of the funding authorities for asubset of the European countries. This was originally scheduled to be held in London on 10th March, but was movedto DESY since J. Marburger, the President’s Science Advisor,would be at DESY that day.

Representatives from UK, Germany, Italy, France and Spainturned up and expressed a very wide range of opinions, andrevealed a very wide range of possible resources available inthe various countries. There was also a wide divergence ofviews on the role of CERN.


11

The situation with the funding authorities

In general, the smaller countries are keen that any LC fundingshould be channelled through CERN. Some of the largercountries share this view; others, notably Germany and UK, prefer to have more direct control of negotiations with otherpartners. However, all agree that both CERN, and CERN Council, have important roles to play in the LC enterprise. The parties present agreed that the meeting had been veryuseful to understand the situation in the various countries inan informal atmosphere. They agreed on a joint line to presentto Marburger. There was agreement that some subset, preferably including a CERN representative, would meet withUS and Japanese reps., if the latter could be organised, sometime in May/June of this year to do a similar job of afrank exploration of the situation in the regions. .


12

The situation with the funding authorities

After the “Halliday” meeting, the participants met the President’s science advisor for a wide-ranging discussion.

The hope is that the 2005 US budget will contain fundingfor a LC, together with a roadmap for US involvement insuch an international project. Dr Marburger was clear thatthe LC was an important one and one in which the US wished to play an important role.

He strongly welcomed the “Halliday” group and encourageda meeting in the next 2-3 months between the European, Asianand US representatives of the funding authorities.

2005 is too early for a US decision on LC construction;2007 is “not unrealistic”.


13

OECD GSF CG2 meetingParis 27/3/03

First meeting of the reconstituted GSF CG2 meeting tookplace in Paris on Thursday under chairmanship of R. Wade (PPARC,UK). Well attended, with member-statereps. and variety of observers, including EU and China.It was mainly exploratory meeting, taking stock of progress since last meeting of GSF CG1 last year. There weresummaries of the regional LCSGs and ILCSG. I reportedon the ELCSG and ECFA developments. There was a detailed report from ACFA on the JLC launch.Several of the countries represented, includingGermany, France, US, Spain made statements on the situationwrt LCs in their countries. Everyone is happy with the current “ICFA process” to maketechnology decisions and to make progress with the LC.


14


I. Halliday proposed that CG2 recognise his group as a subsetof CG2. Although Japan is very wary of this process,they didn’t rule out participating in the Halliday process. US wasn’t ready to discuss money, but would be interested ininformal discussions and knowing other people’s timetables.The European countries wanted CERN represented. Somewanted CERN to represent them; others didn’t. In the endI think that it was agreed that the “Halliday group” willproceed as an ad hoc subgroup of CG2 which would reportback to it on the exploratory discussions of the “Phase 0” meeting in June.


15


The main business of the meeting was involved with theMinisterial Meeting of the GSF at OECD, which will take place at the end of January, 2004. We were reminded thatthe Ministers rarely made recommendations, but a previousone ~ “ to investigate mechanisms to set up biodiversityprogramme” had turned out to be very important as a spurwhen the detailed negotiations got tricky. We could benefitfrom a similar declaration.

We have to decide what, in general terms, we wish to submitto ministerial by June. Detailed language can be polishedbetween then and November for approved by OECD and discussion at ministries.


16


It was decided to try to draft something asking for some sortof action; there was a wide range of views over what could beasked. Three points, of increasing risk, were outlined:1) note the world consensus on LC as the next step for pp;2) welcome that physicists had process to arrive at single technology project;3) encourage discussion among world funding authoritiesto realise project.Last point is thought to be highly optimistic!

There is a straight choice between giving Ministers onlyinformation or asking for some sort of action. The risk ofthe former us that they are in any case drowned in paperand will not notice the LC; the risk of the latter is that theyWILL notice the LC.


17

CERN involvement in LC

The problem is of course that the success of the LHC is vitalto us all and nothing must be allowed to interrupt CERN’sconcentration on that. Also, all of CERN’s resources aredevoted to the LHC until 2010, so that any CERN role ina LC must either come after then or would require extraresources.

There was a substantive discussion on CERN’s role in the LCat both Scientific Policy Committee and Committee of Council10 days ago. The CERN management had produced a verygood document outlining the issues. A wide diversity of viewswas expressed, ranging over the same width as I discussedwrt the Halliday committee. Everyone agreed that CERNmust play an important role.


18

CERN involvement in LC

There was a complicated discussion, knowledge of the exact outcome of which will have to await the appearance of the minutes. It was agreed that nothing must hinder completionof the LHC or the possibility of its upgrade. The above wording was somewhat modified. It was agreed that DG andCouncil President would attend “Halliday group” meeting.

The document before CC proposed:CERN Council, given its mission, composition and authority,should play a major role in the definition of the Europeanparticipation in a LC;Given appropriate resources, CERN is prepared to participatein any of the present LC projects;CERN urges Council to ensure that the participation leavesopen the option of a next step in the High Energy frontier, namely a MultiTeV LC (CLIC) to be constructed at CERN afterLHC

?


19

ESGARDReminder of the Goals, the Events and their Chronology

Short term Objectives Take benefit of FP6 and Submit a set of bids for EU funding in 2003

One Integrating Activities bid (April 15th) One or more Design Study bids (October 15th ) 2004 …

Long term Objectives

Nomination of the members of ESGARD by Lab. Directors and ECFA

R. Aleksan (Chair, Saclay-CEA), A. Antonelli (LNF), G. Guignard (CERN, secretary), H. Haseroth (CERN), P. Norton (RAL), F. Richard (IN2P3/Orsay),

D. Trines (DESY), A. Wrulich (PSI)

completed by October 24

The ESGARD should develop a proposal to optimise and enhance the outcome of the Research and Technical Development in the field of accelerator physics in Europe by promoting mutual coordination and facilitating the pooling of European resources promoting a coherent and coordinated utilization and development of infrastructures promoting inter-disciplinary collaboration including industry


20

ESGARD- Joint Res. Activities


21

ESGARD- CARE Participants

Cost

Coordination

All together about 116 institutes (23 contractors + 93 associated entities) Most PP labs (CCLRC(RAL+Daresbury), CEA/Saclay, CERN, DESY, IN2P3/Orsay, LNF, PSI) Several NP labs (GSI, IPN-Orsay, Juelich, Legnaro) A few Synchrotron Radiation Labs (DESY, Elettra, Rossendorf) large number of universities Several (11) industrial partners (Accel, Zanon, WSK, Alsthom, Vac, MSI…)

Participation from Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK (+ Japan, New Zeeland and US)

Overall anticipated cost request ~30 MEuros

CEA/DSM/DAPNIA is in charge of the scientific and administrative coordination

Design StudiesNext step is submission of design proposals with deadline October.ELCSG decided at its meeting yesterday to encourage submission of LoIby end of this month for a European LC Design group to form part of thePre-GLCC.


22

Outreach

We have a very different, much more inhomogeneous problemin outreach than say the US. The ELCSG therefore decided that our approach must be based on nation states – whichby definition implies one representative per country on the central steering group and therefore a large, unwieldy committee.

One of the subgroups of the ELCSG has not yet been formed – that on outreach.

We spent some months trying to find the right chair to dealwith this vital but difficult problem. Yesterday, the ELCSGdecided instead to install a “triumvirate” to steer the activity.Suggestions for names are very welcome: we have some ideas.


23

Outreach

Not all the people nominated need to be experts in outreach –we need a mix of outreach experts along with enthusiasts andexperts on LC physics who are committed to explaining thisin simple terms.

Your RECFA representatives (for Russia & Israel thereare observers who will perform this function) will be askedto nominate one person per country to join the steeringcommittee – please contact them with suggestions for names.If you don’t know who your RECFA rep. is, look at http://committees.web.cern.ch/Committees/ECFA/Welcome.html

ELCSG place high priority on this activity; although, as wehave seen, we have already made an impact in political circles in Europe, there is still an enormous amount to do .


24

Outreach

The group will only be able to succeed if you all take part.In particular, I have been very concerned recently in discussions with several senior physicists influential withthe political process to hear arguments for delay in theLC which I thought we had laid to rest several years ago –including that hoary old chestnut “Lets wait and see whatthe results from LHC are”.

ELCSG decided to ask the group, as soon as it is functional,to concentrate on producing a strategy for:1) politicians, with a deadline for completion of the end of the year;2) other scientists;3) the general public.


25

Outreach

We all need to redouble our efforts, including talks in ourhome institutions, to make the physics case for a promptLC construction, overlapping operation and complementaritywith LHC. This has to be our 0th-level priority in outreach.We have a great story to tell – we must make sure that everyone hears it.

It really is essential that our own community speaks witha united voice on the necessity for an early LC, or if theydon’t feel they wish to do that, at least not to use discreditedphysics arguments to argue against it.


26

OutreachHere is a little sequence I used last week at DPG – thanks toMatthew Wing!


27

Prospects & next stepsThe failure of the German government to proposea German site was a disappointment. But giventhe economic situation in Germany, it is miraculousthat they were willing to approve the XFEL.This is a massive boost for TESLA technology; the realisation of the XFEL and the industrialisation necessary to build this major project will demonstrate many of the major components of the LC in a realisticsituation with full industrial costs. Germany has led the way by being the first governmentto commit itself publicly to joining an international LCproject. The process of XFEL approval has broughtthe LC squarely into view of governments and fundingauthorities.


28

Prospects & next stepsThe unprecedented situation of a world-wideconsensus on the LC as the next step, the greateffort being put in by ILCSC and the regionalsteering groups and the progress being made in thedesign of the accelerator and detector in meetings likethis has not gone unnoticed by governments.

I have been very impressed this week in listening tosome of your reports and in recognising the progressmade towards realising the LC detector(s) and in theunderstanding of the physics case. This understandingand this progress has to continue to be made knownto the world outside the ECFA-DESY study.


29

Prospects & next stepsThe next year will be crucial – we will produce reports on the view from the physicists on the bestway to organise an international LC lab; we hopefor the first time to obtain major EU funding forpp projects; we are setting up the apparatus to selectand concentrate on a single technology and found acentral design team; governments are discussing theLC project, mostly in a positive atmosphere.The new ECFA study is the bedrock on which theseadvances need to be built. In the next two years, wewill make major steps on the way to the realisation ofthe international LC project that is so vital to thefuture of our field.

where do we go from here?

Documents

design study bids

multitev lc clic

european lc design group

submission of design

eu funding

haseroth cern

guignard cern

mutual coordination