Torsten Åkesson l(R)ECFA –Terms of reference –2003 meetings –Treated subjects »Linear...

Torsten ÅkessonTorsten Åkesson

(R)ECFA– Terms of reference

– 2003 meetings

– Treated subjects» Linear collider

» ESGARD -factory

» CERN

» DESY

» Countries Spain Belgium Finland

– 2004 program

Brian FosterOxford University

Brian FosterOxford University

Jorma TuominiemiHelsingfors

Jorma TuominiemiHelsingfors

ChairChair SecretarySecretary


ECFAECFAEEuropean CCommittee for FFuture AAccelerators

Long-range planning of European high-energy facilities– regular meetings of Restricted and Plenary ECFA

– ad hoc symposia and conferences sponsored or organized by ECFA

– study groups, set up by ECFA, or jointly with other organizations, for special problems

– demographic studies of the high-energy physics community and resources in the ECFA countries, repeated at regular intervals

Advisory to CERN Management, CERN Council and its Committees, and to other organizations, national or international

Members– Physicists from CERN member states

– Management of CERN, DESY and Grand Sasso are ex-officio ECFA consists of Plenary ECFA, Restricted ECFA, Chairman B Foster (Oxford) and

Secretary J Touminiemi (Helsingfors) and permanent or ad hoc working groups. Plenary ECFA (From Sweden: G Ingelman, T Åkesson, B Åsman)

– Decides on all ECFA activities

– Meets twice a year RECFA: Restricted ECFA (From Sweden: T Åkesson)

– Assists and advises the Chairman and the Secretary in the current running of ECFA, and acts as the communication channel to each participating country, its physics community and national institutes and authorities.

– Meets five times a year


RECFA, March 29-30 in Barcelona, Spain

RECFA, May 9-10 in Brussels, Belgium

RECFA/ECFA, July 3-4 at CERN

RECFA, September 26-27 in Helsinki, Finland

RECFA/ECFA, November 27 at CERN

(R)ECFA in 2003(R)ECFA in 2003


StrategyStrategyEurope: Formulated in

ECFA/01/213 In the immediate future:

– 1) the allocation of all necessary resources to fully exploit the unique and pioneering LHC facility;

– 2) continued support for ongoing experiments, since they promise significant scientific results, provide an optimal physics return on previous investment, and are vital for the education of young physicists;

– 3) the realisation, in as timely a fashion as possible, of a world-wide collaboration to construct a high-luminosity e+e- linear collider with an energy range up to at least 400 GeV as the next accelerator project in particle physics; decisions concerning the chosen technology and the construction site for such a machine should be made soon;

– 4) an improved educational programme in the field of accelerator physics and increased support for accelerator R&D activity in European universities, national facilities and CERN.

For the long-term:– 5) a co-ordinated collaborative R&D effort to

determine the feasibility and practical design of a neutrino factory based on a high-intensity muon storage ring;

– 6) a co-ordinated world-wide R&D effort to assess the feasibility and estimate the cost of a 3-5 TeV e+e– linear collider (CLIC), a very large hadron collider (VLHC) and a muon collider; in particular, R&D for CLIC is well advanced and should be vigorously pursued.

International– Regional recommendations were

amalgamated in June 2002, when the Consultative Group on High-Energy Physics presented a report to the OECD Global Science Forum.

» “The Consultative Group concurs with the world-wide consensus of the scientific community that a high-energy electron-positron collider is the next facility on the Road Map.

» “There should be a significant period of concurrent running of the LHC and the LC, requiring the LC to start operating before 2015. Given the long lead times for decision-making and for construction, consultations among interested countries should begin at a suitably-chosen time in the near future.”


Linear colliderLinear collider


International Linear Collider Steering Committee, International Linear Collider Steering Committee, ILCSCILCSC

Appointed by ICFA Met three times in 2003 (Tsukuba, Fermilab and Paris)

Parameter subcommittee– Mission: Define parameters for LC, being the basis for

technology comparison– Report is produced (http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/LC_parameters.pdf )

Appoint review committee (ITRP) to choose technology. Should be done latest eof 2004– From Europe: J-E. Augustin, G. Bellettini, G. Kalmus and V.

Soergel Prepare for the Pre Global Design Organization, Pre-

GDO Appointed subgroup to establish the implementation Pre-GDO should be launched when technology choice is made

At start of 2005:At start of 2005:Technology chosenTechnology chosen

A global design-organization is startingA global design-organization is starting

At start of 2005:At start of 2005:Technology chosenTechnology chosen

A global design-organization is startingA global design-organization is starting


European development, ELCSGEuropean development, ELCSG

ECFA has reappointed D. Miller, for two years as chairman for the LC study group

ELCSG– Established an outreach steering group

– Subcommittee to produce a European perspective on organization (next slide)

– Outreach web-site under preparation in Orsay

– Discuss strategy on how to approach politicians


LC European organization perspectiveLC European organization perspective Committee

– Torsten Åkesson – Ian Corbett– Umberto Dosselli– Jos Engelen– Joel Feltesse– Lorenzo Foa– Eva Gröniger-Voss– Peter von Händel (Secretary)– Kurt Hübner– George Kalmus (Chairman)– Helmut Krech– Chris Llewellyn Smith– Norman McCubbin– Guy Wormser

Recommendations– LC an international legal entity

established as a time-limited project; an intergovernmental organization

– Located at, or in the vicinity of, an existing laboratory

– Governance organized on a regional basis

– The European regional board is the CERN Council or a sub-set of it.

– Host-state pays a 25% premium

– Contributions according to GDP

– Contributions predominantly as inkind


OrganigrammeOrganigramme

CERN CouncilCERN CouncilCERN CouncilCERN Council


Interactions with agencies and political leadership, OECDInteractions with agencies and political leadership, OECD

Halliday, CEO of PPARC, has been approach by Orbach from DoE with the question: ”Who speaks for Europe?” Led to a meeting at DESY in March 2003, a meeting to which a subset of European funding agencies were invited. Representatives from UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain participated. This is the so-called Halliday group

– They agreed on a joint view to present to J. Marburger (Pres. Bush science advisor) who also visited DESY.

» Stated that a “US LC decision by 2007 is not unrealistic”– Expand group to include US and Japan– Group becomes an informal sub-group of the OECD

Other contacts– Informal LC discussions at G8 ministerial meeting– Governmental contacts between Germany and UK

OECD– OECD GSF Consultative group (Chairman R. Wade PPARC)

» Meeting in Paris eof March 2003 Happy with process driven by ICFA Main point was text to submit to ministerial meeting in January 2004

» Meeting Paris in November 2003 Clear that ministerial meeting will endorse the proposed HEP statement Informed that USA DoE put on 1st place among middle-term projects


High-energy physics

21. Ministers acknowledged the importance of ensuring access to large-scale research infrastructure and the importance of the long-term vitality of high-energy physics. They noted the worldwide consensus of the scientific community, which has chosen an electron-positron linear collider as the next accelerator-based facility to complement and expand on the discoveries that are likely to emerge from the Large Hadron Collider currently being built at CERN. They agreed that the planning and implementation of such a large, multi-year project should be carried out on a global basis, and should involve consultations among not just scientists, but also representatives of science funding agencies from interested countries. Accordingly, Ministers endorsed the statement prepared by the OECD Global Science Forum Consultative Group on High-Energy Physics (Annex 3).

High-energy physics

21. Ministers acknowledged the importance of ensuring access to large-scale research infrastructure and the importance of the long-term vitality of high-energy physics. They noted the worldwide consensus of the scientific community, which has chosen an electron-positron linear collider as the next accelerator-based facility to complement and expand on the discoveries that are likely to emerge from the Large Hadron Collider currently being built at CERN. They agreed that the planning and implementation of such a large, multi-year project should be carried out on a global basis, and should involve consultations among not just scientists, but also representatives of science funding agencies from interested countries. Accordingly, Ministers endorsed the statement prepared by the OECD Global Science Forum Consultative Group on High-Energy Physics (Annex 3).

Science, Technology and Innovation for the 21st Century. Meeting of the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy at Ministerial

Level, 29-30 January 2004 - Final Communique

Science, Technology and Innovation for the 21st Century. Meeting of the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy at Ministerial

Level, 29-30 January 2004 - Final Communique

OECD January 2004OECD January 2004


ANNEX 3International Co-operation on Large Accelerator-based Projects in High-energy PhysicsMinisters expressed their appreciation for the work of the OECD Global Science Forum Consultative Group on High-Energy Physics. They welcomed the report from the Group and commended the clarity and worldwide consensus they found among the high-energy physics community in developing the roadmap for future large accelerator-based facilities.

In particular, the Ministers noted several important points that were articulated in the report:A roadmap that identifies four interdependent priorities for global high-energy physics (HEP) facilities:

i) the exploitation of current frontier facilities until contribution of these machines is surpassed; ii) completion and full exploitation of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN; iii) preparing for the development of a next-generation electron-positron collider; and iv) the continued support for appropriate R&D into novel accelerator designs.

The need to have large, next-generation facilities funded, designed, built, and operated as global-scale collaborations with contribution from all countries that wish to participate.

The need for strong international R&D collaboration and studies of the organisational, legal, financial, and administrative issues required to realise the next major accelerator facility on the Consultative Group's roadmap, a next-generation electron-positron collider with a significant period of concurrent running with the LHC.

The need to continue to educate, attract and train young people in the fields of high-energy physics, astrophysics and cosmology in the face of the increasingly competitive environment where all areas of science, industry and commerce are seeking to capture the imagination of the most creative minds.

Ministers agreed that, given the complexity and long lead times for decision making of major international projects, it is important that consultations continue within the scientific communities and, when it becomes appropriate, within interested governmental communities in order to maximise the advantages offered by global collaboration.

ANNEX 3International Co-operation on Large Accelerator-based Projects in High-energy PhysicsMinisters expressed their appreciation for the work of the OECD Global Science Forum Consultative Group on High-Energy Physics. They welcomed the report from the Group and commended the clarity and worldwide consensus they found among the high-energy physics community in developing the roadmap for future large accelerator-based facilities.

In particular, the Ministers noted several important points that were articulated in the report:A roadmap that identifies four interdependent priorities for global high-energy physics (HEP) facilities:

i) the exploitation of current frontier facilities until contribution of these machines is surpassed; ii) completion and full exploitation of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN; iii) preparing for the development of a next-generation electron-positron collider; and iv) the continued support for appropriate R&D into novel accelerator designs.

The need to have large, next-generation facilities funded, designed, built, and operated as global-scale collaborations with contribution from all countries that wish to participate.

The need for strong international R&D collaboration and studies of the organisational, legal, financial, and administrative issues required to realise the next major accelerator facility on the Consultative Group's roadmap, a next-generation electron-positron collider with a significant period of concurrent running with the LHC.

The need to continue to educate, attract and train young people in the fields of high-energy physics, astrophysics and cosmology in the face of the increasingly competitive environment where all areas of science, industry and commerce are seeking to capture the imagination of the most creative minds.

Ministers agreed that, given the complexity and long lead times for decision making of major international projects, it is important that consultations continue within the scientific communities and, when it becomes appropriate, within interested governmental communities in order to maximise the advantages offered by global collaboration.

OECD January 2004OECD January 2004


CERN Council as the European Particle CERN Council as the European Particle Physics Coordination BodyPhysics Coordination Body

The new CERN management wants the CERN Council to fill its full mandate

Restricted Council has now started (2004-03-18) to discuss the European participation in a sub-TeV linear collider– First CERN discussions beyond the Geneva laboratory– Issues touched upon

» Timescale (a range of different opinions)» Establishment of the pre Global Design Office» DESY director invited to future meetings

Restricted Council meetings are now fully confidential, e.g. the discussions are not reported to RECFA.

Next Restricted Council 2004-06-17


Accelerator R&DAccelerator R&D Initiative of M. Spiro

(since eof February 2003 new in2p3 director)

– Proposed in early 2002 that an FP6-bid is made for accelerator R&D

RECFA-decisions– Ask Saclay to be coordinating

laboratory– Roy Aleksan to be coordinator

European Steering Group on Accelerator R&D (ESGARD) with administrative support from CEA– Optimize and enhance accelerator RTD in

Europe– Prepare and conduct a coherent set of EU-bids


ESGARDESGARD


ESGARDESGARD Integrating activities (CARE). Approved and starting!

– Submitted April 2003– Approved

» Funding 35 Meuros (15.2 Meuros from EU) Electron linear collider (62%) High intensity/energy proton beams (10%) Neutrino beams (28%)

– Kick-off meeting in November 2003– 22 contracting participants– First 5 Meuros arrived– Swedish participant: Uppsala

Design studies: Proposal for EUROTeV submitted– Coordinated by DESY– Swedish participant: Uppsala– In total 29 Meuros, ask EU for 11 Meuros


-factory-factory Prospects to make -beams using

storage rings prompted ECFA to mandate a study group in 1999

– Intense proton accelerator (MW of beam power)

– Target to withstand proton-beam– Pion collection gives muons with

large momentum spread– Shrink momentum spread to 5-10%– Accelerate to about 50 GeV– Muon storage-ring with long straight

sections– High intensity neutrino beam

Following ECFA recommendation: European Coordinating Group (EMCOG) is created. Reports to

the funding agencies laboratory directors point of contact with ECFA

A. Blondel reappointed as contact person for 2 years

Long term goals Conceptual design report when LHC

startsShort term goals: Practical projects

High intensity proton driver Target studies Horn studies Cooling studies


CERN issues 2003CERN issues 2003

Focus of the LHC construction project– Accelerator

» Most critical: Installation of cryoline. Eight months delay

– Experiments» Most critical: CMS crystal

production and cavern completion

Implementation of new management procedures– Earned Value Management

Appointment of new management– CEO– CSO– CFO


DESY issues 2003DESY issues 2003 HERA

– Background problems» Solved, and a very positive

continuous improvement

– Luminosity problems» Solved, and a very positive

continuous improvement

– Post-2006: HERA III» Not approved

» However, will run until mid-2007

PETRA-ring post 2006– Build dedicated ESRF-like

synchrotron light source X-FEL

– Minister decided to approve construction

TESLA – February 5, 2003, Minister Buhlman:

”Today, there will be no proposition for a German location for the TESLA linear collider. The decision is related to the fact, that the project is to be realized in a world-collaboration. Previous to the decision making for a location of the TESLA linear collider, it will be necessary to wait for the developments on the international level. The internationally embedded research work for the project will be continued by DESY, in order to make possible a German participation in a future global project.”

– Test-results» Accelerator gradient is the key issue

Routine-operation at 25 MV/m (500 GeV)

Working on approach to reach 35 MV/m (800 GeV) in routine operation (35 MV/m already achieved as such)


OutreachOutreach European coordination of outreach in particle physics (EPOG)

– Exist since five years– Chair and deputy chair on 2nd year of 3 year mandate:

» Chair E. Johansson and C. Sutton» Secretary M. Draper appointed by CERN

– Network and forum for outreach activities» Students, teachers and general public» Preparations for 2005 World Year of Physics

– Meets twice a year, once at CERN once outside– In 2003

» Meetings ( CERN, Vienna )» Memo asking for funding help

Sent to ministries, funding agencies» Decided about master classes for the 2005 year of physics

Each country arrange – Institutes arrange a one day event– Students come with teachers – End of the day a web-cast with other institutes, to compare results


Countries: SpainCountries: Spain HEP is an expanding field: Factor 4 since 1996

– HEP has not grown out from nuclear physics in Spain– Strong regional support, e.g. from Catalonia to IFAE in

Barcelona– Domestic funding still just 18% of CERN membership fee– Strong contributions in both ATLAS and CMS– Increasing activity in CDF– Strong programmes in astroparticle physics (laboratory in the

Pyrenees and in Canary islands)– Strong theoretical physics

Concerns– Lack of long-term positions for technical staff– Weak link between the theoretical groups

» A stronger national coordination is needed– Un-proportionally low presence of experimental HEP at the

Universities (young field in Spain)


Countries: BelgiumCountries: Belgium Impressive experiment participation with very good track

record– DELPHI, H1, Hermes, CMS, Amanda/Icecube

Two fully separated communities with independent funding agencies– FWO (Flemish) and FNRS (French)– ”Easier for a foreigner to get a position than for a national from the

other language group” General concern

– Need to rejuvenate the senior staff Main concern is in the Flemish part

– Positions previously in the FWO have been moved to the Universities– Senior positions linked to the number of students, resulting in

reduction of such positions in physics– Funds from FWO in one basket, and sub-divided to fields according

to the number of funding applications» Fields with long-term projects suffer, i.e. HEP


Countries: FinlandCountries: Finland In general

– Positive development in the field– Creation of Helsinki Institute of Physics, HIP, is a good thing– Positive close contact between particle and nuclear physics– Graduate School in Particle and Nuclear Physics is a good initiative– Theoretical research hold a high quality

Areas of concern– Small contact between

» Group in CMS» Group in forward physics (CMS/TOTEM) and CDF

– Too large centre of mass in Geneva for the CMS group– Only one professorship– Too high age for PhDs (32-33 years)– All HIP-positions are short term project employments– Lack of long term intermediate and senior positions


20042004 Countries

– Austria, Italy and Slovakia Linear collider

– Technology chosen– Set-up of an international project office

Accelerator R&D HEPCCC report Follow-up

– CERN matters in general and LHC in particular– DESY w.r.t. Globalization of LC-project

Progress on neutrino studies Outreach Selection of new chairman Clarification of ECFA-role and interactions with the

CERN Council


Magnet productionMagnet production


CERN management 2004 -CERN management 2004 -


CERN ConventionCERN Convention (1) The Organization shall provide for

collaboration among European States in nuclear research of a pure scientific and fundamental character, and in research essentially related thereto. The Organization shall have no concern with work for military requirements and the results of its experimental and theoretical work shall be published or otherwise made generally available.

(2) The Organization shall, in the collaboration referred to in paragraph 1 above, confine its activities to the following:

– the construction and operation of one or more international laboratories (hereinafter referred to as "the Laboratories ") for research on high-energy particles, including work in the field of cosmic rays; each Laboratory shall include:

» one or more particle accelerators; » the necessary ancillary apparatus for use in the

research programmes carried out by means of the machines referred to in (i) above;

» the necessary buildings to contain the equipment referred to in (i) and (ii) above and for the administration of the Organization and the fulfilment of its other functions;

– the organization and sponsoring of international co-operation in nuclear research, including co-operation outside the Laboratories; this co-operation may include in particular:

» work in the field of theoretical nuclear physics; » the promotion of contacts between, and the

interchange of, scientists, the dissemination of information, and the provision of advanced training for research workers;

» collaborating with and advising other research institutions;

» work in the field of cosmic rays.

(3) The programmes of activities of the Organization shall be:

– the programme carried out at its Laboratory at Geneva including a proton synchrotron for energies above ten gigaelectronvolts (1010 eV) and a synchro-cyclotron for energies of six hundred million electronvolts (6 x 108 eV);

– the programme for the construction and operation of the intersecting storage rings connected to the proton synchrotron described in sub-paragraph (a) above;

– the programme for the construction and operation of a Laboratory to include a proton synchrotron for energies of about three hundred gigaelectronvolts (3 x 1011 eV);

– any other programme failing within the terms of paragraph 2 above.


Relation with ICFARelation with ICFA(chair (chair J. DorfanJ. Dorfan, Director of SLAC), Director of SLAC)

ICFA European members– B. Foster (ECFA)– L. Maiani (CERN)– A. Wagner (DESY)

ILCSG– Chair M. Tigner– Directors: KEK, DESY,

SLAC, FNAL and CERN– Chairs of regional stering

groups (Asia, USA and Europe)

– China, Russia & RoW– User-reps: Europe, USA and

Asia– Sub-committees

» Accelerator» Physics and exps» Organization» Outreach?

Back-up slideBack-up slideBack-up slideBack-up slide


ParametersParametersBack-up slideBack-up slideBack-up slideBack-up slide


Restricted CERN CouncilRestricted CERN Council Chairperson

– Professor E. Iarocci (IT)– Vice-Presidents

» Dr H. Schunck (DE)» Professor E. Osnes (NO)

Members– Two persons per member-state– Sweden

» Dr M. Johnsson (Department of Education)» Professor M. Larsson (Research Council, Stockholm University)

Ex-Officio– Dr J. Seed (Finance Committee)– Dr J. Feltesse (Science Policy Committee)– Professor B. Foster (ECFA)

In attendance– CERN management


HERA backgroundHERA background


HERA LuminosityHERA Luminosity

H1

HERA luminosity is surpassing the 2000 values:

Specific Luminosity:

- new record: 1.7x1030cm-2s-1

- design: 1.8x1030cm-2s-1


XFEL siteXFEL site


LC parametersLC parameters 2. Baseline Machine

– cms-energy = 500 GeV. Energy range between 200 GeV and 500 GeV.– Leq = 500 fb-1 in the first four years of running, not counting year zero– Allow for energy scans at all centre-of-mass energy values between 200 GeV and

500 GeV. Energy-change time not exceed 10% of the actual data-taking time.– Capable of producing electron beams with polarisation of at least 80% within the

whole energy range– Two interaction regions– The machine should allow for an energy range for calibration that extends down to

90 GeV. 3. Energy Upgrade beyond the Baseline machine

– The energy of the machine should be upgradeable to approximately 1 TeV. – The luminosity and reliability of the machine should allow the collection of order of

1 ab-1 (equivalent at 1 TeV) in about 3 to 4 years. – The machine should have the capability for running at any energy value for

continuum measurements and for threshold scans up to the maximum energy with the design luminosity


ILCSCILCSC Directors

– CERN Robert Aymar– DESY Albrecht Wagner– Fermilab Michael Witherell– KEK Yoji Totsuka– SLAC Jonathan Dorfan

LC Steering Group Chairs – Asian Won Namkung– European Brian Foster– N. American Jonathan Dorfan

Other – Chair Maury Tigner– China (IHEP Director) Hesheng Chen– Russia (BINP Director) Alexander Skrinsky– ICFA outside LC regions Carlos Garcia Canal– Asia Rep. Sachio Komamiya – Europe Rep. David Miller– N. American Rep. Paul Grannis

Secretary– Roy Rubinstein


ELCSG Outreach ESOFELCSG Outreach ESOF “Executive” of Outreach Committee:

– P. Burrows (UK)

– G. Chiarelli (Italy)

– M. Kobel (Germany)

– F. LeDiberder (France)

– EPOG & Erik Johansson are involved.

Active in preparing proposal for European Science Open Forum 2004 conference in Stockholm. Title of session is “From Quarks to Galaxies”:– Speakers are: G. t’Hooft; B. Licia; U. Amaldi; U. Danielsson;

A. Wagner.

– The session fits inside the thematic category “Humanity & Space”.

Back-up slideBack-up slideBack-up slideBack-up slide

Date post:	12-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scot-todd
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Torsten Åkesson l(R)ECFA –Terms of reference –2003 meetings –Treated subjects »Linear...

Documents