1 / 62

TLEP: a first step on a long vision for HEP

TLEP: a first step on a long vision for HEP. M. Koratzinos Univ. of Geneva On behalf of the TLEP study group Athens, 6 December 2013. C ontents. The physics case Circular collider challenges TLEP implementation TLEP physics reach TLEP design study.

dianne
Télécharger la présentation

TLEP: a first step on a long vision for HEP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TLEP: a first step on a long vision for HEP M. Koratzinos Univ. of Geneva On behalf of the TLEP study group Athens, 6 December 2013

  2. Contents • The physics case • Circular collider challenges • TLEP implementation • TLEP physics reach • TLEP design study Acknowledgements: I am indebted to the whole TLEP community and especially R. Aleksan, A. Blondel, P. Janot, F. Zimmermann for liberal use of material This talk would not have been complete without the comparison data with the ILC. I hope I have represented them accurately

  3. The physics case • The energy scale of any new physics is already pushed to beyond a few hundreds of GeV and will probably be pushed to 1TeV or more with the next LHC run. • In this scenario, Physics beyond the standard model is only accessible via loop corrections rather than direct observation of a (heavy) state. • The sensitivity of precision measurements can be to energy scales far above what is directly accessible in current or next generation machines (LHC, ILC, CLIC) • A clearer picture on this will emerge after the next LHC run. • Meaningful over-constraining of the standard model can only start now that the Higgs sector is known and might lead to revealing weaknesses of the standard model

  4. Precision needed • Higgs couplings: sensitivity to new physics • Typical deviations of SM Higgs couplings: with |d| < 5% Where is the energy scale for new physics (exact value of d depends on coupling and model) • Need at least a per-cent accuracy for a 5s observation if ΛNP = 1 TeVand a sub-per-cent accuracy for multi-TeV New Physics scale • Z pole measurements • Increase sensitivity to new physics by an order of magnitude  need 100 times smaller errors  10,000 more statistics • W and top mass determination • Need to match the precision of direct measurements by improving by one order of magnitude • (It is not clear that the ILC can deliver these accuracies)

  5. Circular colliders • In the next few slides I would like to overview the parameters that affect circular collider performance. • I will then show what can reasonably be achieved in terms of luminosity. • The following is not TLEP specific; it can apply to any circular machine (CEPC?)

  6. Major limitations • The major limitations of circular colliders are: • Power consumption limitations that affect the luminosity • Tunnel size limitations that affect the luminosity and the energy reach • Beam-beam effect limitations that affect the luminosity • Beamstrahlung limitations that affect beam lifetimes(and ultimately luminosity)

  7. Energy reach • In a circular collider the energy reach is a very steep function of the bending radius. To make a more quantitative plot, I have used the following assumptions: • RF gradient: 20MV/m • Dipole fill factor: 90% (LEP was 87%) • I then plot the energy reach for a specific ratio of RF system length to the total length of the arcs and

  8. Energy reach Assumptions: 20mV/m, 90% dipole fill factor. What is plotted is the ratio of RF length to total arc length TLEP175 sits comfortably below the 1% line LEP2 had a ratio of RF to total arc length of 2.2%

  9. Luminosity of a circular collider Luminosity of a circular collider is given by Which can be transformed in terms of and to:

  10. Luminosity of a circular collider The maximum luminosity is bound by the total power dissipated, the maximum achievable beam-beam parameter (the beam-beam limit), the bending radius, the beam energy, , and the hourglass effect (which is a function of σzand )

  11. Total power • Luminosity is directly proportional to the total power loss of the machine due to synchrotron radiation. • In our approach, it is the first parameter we fix in the design (the highest reasonable value) • Power loss is fixed at 100MW for both beams (50MW per beam)

  12. Machine radius • The bending radius of the collider also enters linearly in the luminosity formula • The higher the dipole filling factor, the higher the performance • [there is a small dependance on the maximum beam-beam parameter since smaller machines for the same beam energy can achieve higher beam-beam parameters]

  13. Beam-beam parameter The maximum beam-beam parameter is a function of the damping decrement: where Or, more conveniently: The damping decrement is the fractional energy loss from one IP to the next. Therefore, for a specific machine, for 1IP is generally higher than for 2IPs

  14. Maximum beam-beam • It is not trivial to predict what can be achieved in terms of beam-beam parameter at TLEP or other machines. • LEP is a good yardstick to use • LEP achieved at 45GeV and run up to 0.08 at 100GeV without reaching the beam-beam limit • Going up in energy increases the damping decrement (and therefore ) • Values between 0.05 and 0.1 should be achievable with relative ease at future circular colliders. At beam energies of 120GeV or higher, higher values might be possible

  15. Beta* and hourglass We are opting for a realistic β*y value of 1mm. σz beam sizes vary from 1mm to 3mm. In this range the hourglass effect is between 0.9 to 0.6 Self-consistentσz at different energies for TLEP

  16. Luminosity of a circular collider • Single IP luminosity of a circular collider of 9000m bending radius as a function of beam energy. • Power loss is 100MW. • ξy between 0.05 and 0.1. • β*y= 1mm. • =0.75

  17. Beamstrahlung • Beamstrahlung is the interaction of an incoming electron with the collective electromagnetic field of the opposite bunch at an interaction point. • Main effect at circular colliders is a single hard photon exchange taking the electron out of the momentum acceptance of the machine. • If too many electrons are lost, beam lifetime is affected • [the beamstrahlung effect at linear colliders is much larger and it increases the beam energy spread]

  18. Beamstrahlung (2) • The beamstrahlung limitation was introduced by Telnov* • It depends on where is the momentum acceptance, the beam sizes in x and z (note no dependence!) and is the number of electrons per bunch • It has a γ2 dependence, so it is only important at high energies (>~120GeV per beam) • It is mitigated by high momentum acceptance, small emittances and very flat beams *: arXiv:1203.6563

  19. Beamstrahlung limitation Plot on left is if we run with a value of the beam-beam parameter of 0.1 Above ~180 GeV is difficult to run without opting for a more modest beam-beam parameter value (which would reduce the luminosity) TLEP Latest parameter set, mom. acceptance 2.2% Can even run at 250GeV with a beam-beam parameter of 0.05

  20. A specific implementation: TLEP • A study has been commissioned for an 80-km tunnel in the Geneva area. • For TLEP we fix the radius (conservatively 9000m) the power (100MW) and try to have beams as flat at possible to reduce beamstrahlung. • Our arc optics design (work in progress) conservatively uses a cell length of 50m, which still gives a horizontal emittance of 2nm at 120GeV • We assume that we can achieve a horizontal to vertical emittance ratio of 500-1000 (LEP was 200) LHC Possible TLEP location

  21. Other tunnel diameters • …but of course other tunnel diameters and locations are equally good • Many other proposals floating, but I would like to mention the Circular Electron-Positron Collider in China (CEPC) – certainly the tunnel can be built more cheaply in China • Performance scales with tunnel size, but in case no funds are available for a new tunnel, the LHC tunnel can be used after the end of the LHC physics programme (a project we call LEP3)

  22. TLEP implementation • At 350 GeV, beams lose 9 GeV / turn by synchrotron radiation • Need 600 5-cell SC cavities @ 20 MV/m in CW mode • Much less than ILC(8000 9-cell cavities@ 31 MV/m) • Length ~900 m, similar to LEP (7 MV/m) • 200 kW/ cavity in CW : RF couplers are challenging • Heat extraction, shielding against radiation, … • Luminosity is achieved with small vertical beam size : sy~ 100 nm • A factor 30 smaller than at LEP2, but much more relaxed than ILC (6-8 nm) • TLEP can deliver 1.3 × 1034 cm-2s-1 per collision point at √s = 350 GeV • Small beam lifetime due to Bhabha scattering (~ 15 min) + beamstrahlung • Need efficient top-up injection BNL 5-cell 700 MHz cavity RF Coupler (ESS/SPL) A. Blondel F. Zimmermann

  23. SuperKEKB: a TLEP demonstrator • SuperKEKBwill be a TLEP demonstrator • Beam commissioning starts early 2015 • Some SuperKEKB parameters : • Lifetime : 5 minutes • TLEP : 15 minutes • b*y : 300 mm • TLEP : 1 mm • sy : 50 nm • TLEP : ~100 nm • ey/ex : 0.25% • TLEP : 0.20%-0.10% • Positron production rate : 2.5 × 1012 / s • TLEP : < 1 × 1011/ s • Off-momentum acceptance at IP : ±1.5% • TLEP : ±2.0 to ±2.5%

  24. TLEP Cost (Very Preliminary) Estimate • Cost in billion CHF As a self-standing project : Same order of magnitude as LHC As an add-on to the VHE-LHC project : Very cost-effective : about 2-3 billion CHF Cost per Higgs boson : 1 - 3 kCHF / Higgs (ILC cost : 150 k$ / Higgs) [ NB : 1CHF ~ 1$ ] Cost for the 80 km version : the 100 km version might be cheaper. Absolutely Preliminary Not endorsed by anybody Note: detector costs not included – count 0.5 per detector (LHC) LEP/LHC (1): J. Osborne, Amrupstudy, June 2012 (2): Extrapolation from LEP (3): O. Brunner, detailed estimate, 7 May 2013 80-100 km tunnel (4): F. Haug, 4th TLEP Days, 5 April 2013 (5): K. Oide : factor 2.5 higher than KEK, estimated for 80 km ring (6): 24,000 magnets for collider & injector; cost per magnet 30 kCHF (LHeC);

  25. Power consumption Highest consumer is RF: Limited by Klystron CW efficiency of 65%. This is NOT aggressive and we hope to be able to do better after dedicated R&D Total power consumption for 350GeV running: • CERN 2010 power demand: • Full operation 220MW • Winter shutdown 50MW IPAC13 TUPME040, arXiv:1305.6498 [physics.acc-ph]

  26. A note on power consumption • TLEP is using ~280MW while in operation and probably ~80MW between physics fills. So for 1×107 sec of operation and 1×107 sec of stand-by mode, total electricity consumption is ~1TWh • CERN is currently paying ~50CHF/MWh • TLEP yearly operation corresponds to ~50MHF/year • This should be seen in the context of the total project cost (less than 1% of the total cost of the project goes per year to electricity consumption)

  27. TLEP parameter set Too pessimistic! 2nm @120GeV or lower should he easy By definition, in a project like TLEP, from the moment a set of parameters is published it becomes obsolete and we now already have an improved set of parameters. The new parameter set contains improvements to our understanding, but does not change the big picture. Revised (taking into account BS) but similar IPAC13 TUPME040, arXiv:1305.6498 [physics.acc-ph]

  28. Luminosity of TLEP TLEP : Instantaneous lumi at each IP (for 4 IP’s) Instantaneous lumi summed over 4 IP’s Z, 2.1036 WW, 6.1035 HZ, 2.1035 tt , 5.1034 • Why do we always quote 4 interaction points? • It is easier to extrapolate luminosity from the LEP experience. Lumi of 2IPs is larger than half the lumi of 4IPs • According to a particle physicist: “give me an experimental cavern and I guarantee you that it will be filled”

  29. Upgrade path • TLEP offers the unique possibility to be followed by a 100TeV pp collider (VHE-LHC) • Luminosity upgrade: a study will be launched to investigate if luminosity can be increased by a significant factor at high energies (240 and 250GeV ECM) by using a charge-compensated scheme of four colliding beams. We will aim to gain a factor of 10 (to be studied and verified)

  30. The physics case Our first paper treating exclusively the physics case will be published in JHEP shortly (submitted 23/9/2013): M.Bicer et el., “First Look at the Physics Case of TLEP” http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.6176(130 authors) Author(s): M. Bicer, H. Duran Yildiz, I. Yildiz, G. Coignet, M. Delmastro, T. Alexopoulos, C. Grojean, S. Antusch, T. Sen, H.-J. He, K. Potamianos, S. Haug, A. Moreno, A. Heister, V. Sanz, G. Gomez-Ceballos, M. Klute, M. Zanetti, L.-T. Wang, M. Dam, C. Boehm, N. Glover, F. Krauss, A. Lenz, M. Syphers, C. Leonidopoulos, V. Ciulli, P. Lenzi, G. Sguazzoni, M. Antonelli, M. Boscolo, O. Frasciello, C. Milardi, G. Venanzoni, M. Zobov, J. van der Bij, M. de Gruttola, D.-W. Kim, M. Bachtis, A. Butterworth, C.Bernet, C. Botta, F. Carminati, A. David, D. d’Enterria, G. Ganis, B. Goddard, G. Giudice, P. Janot, J. M. Jowett, C. Lourenco, L. Malgeri, E. Meschi, F. Moortgat, P. Musella, J. A. Osborne, L. Perrozzi, M. Pierini, L. Rinolfi, A. de Roeck, J. Rojo, G. Roy, A. Sciaba, A. Valassi, C. S. Waaijer, J. Wenninger, H. Woehri, F. Zimmermann, A. Blondel, M. Koratzinos, P. Mermod, Y. Onel, R. Talman, E. CastanedaMiranda, E. Bulyak, D. Porsuk, D. Kovalskyi, S. Padhi, P. Faccioli, J. R. Ellis, M. Campanelli, Y. Bai, M. Chamizo, R. B. Appleby, H. Owen, H. Maury Cuna, C. Gracios, G. A. Munoz-Hernandez, L. Trentadue, E. Torrente-Lujan, S. Wang, D. Bertsche, A. Gramolin, V. Telnov, P. Petrov, P. Azzi, O. Nicrosini, F. Piccinini, G. Montagna, F. Kapusta, S. Laplace, W. da Silva, N. Gizani, N. Craig, T. Han, C. Luci, B. Mele, L. Silvestrini, M. Ciuchini, R. Cakir, R. Aleksan, F. Couderc, S. Ganjour, E. Lancon, E. Locci, P. Schwemling, M. Spiro, C. Tanguy, J. Zinn-Justin, S. Moretti, M. Kikuchi, H. Koiso, K. Ohmi, K. Oide, G. Pauletta, R. Ruiz de Austri, M. Gouzevitch, S. Chattopadhyay

  31. TLEP : Possible Physics Programme • Higgs Factory mode at √s = 240 GeV: 5+ years • Higgs boson properties, WW and ZZ production. • Periodic returns at the Z peak for detector and beam energy calibration • Top Threshold scan at √s ~ 350 GeV: 5+ years • Top quark mass, width, Yukawa coupling; top quark physics; more Higgs boson studies. • Periodic returns at the Z peak for detector and beam energy calibration • Z resonance scan at √s ~ 91 GeV: 1-2 years • Get 1012 Z decays @ 15 kHz/IP. Repeat the LEP1 Physics Programme every 15 minutes. • Continuous transverse polarization of some bunches for precise Ebeam calibration • WW threshold scan at √s ~ 161 GeV: 1-2 years • Get 108 W decays; Measure the W mass; Precise W studies. • Continuous transverse polarization of some bunches and returns to the Z peak. • Longitudinally polarized beams at √s = mZ: 1 year • Get 1011 Z decays, and measure ALR, AFBpol, etc. • Polarization wigglers, spin rotators • Luminosity, Energy, Polarization upgrades • If justified by scientific arguments (with respect to the upgrade to VHE-LHC)

  32. Higgs: the situation today The mass dependence of the couplings of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons, from a two-parameter fit (dashed line) to a combination of the CMS and ATLAS data. The dotted lines bound the 68% C.L. interval. The value of the coupling of the Higgs boson to the c quark shown in the figure is a prediction of the fit. The solid line corresponds to the Standard Model prediction

  33. TLEP as a Mega-Higgs Factory (1) Unpolarized cross sections PJ and G. Ganis Z → All Z → nn

  34. TLEP as a Mega-Higgs Factory (2) • Example : e+e- → ZH → l+l- + anything • Measure sHZSummary of the possible measurements : (TLEP : CMS Full Simulation + some extrapolations for cc, gg) e- H From P. Azzi et al. arXiV:1208.1662 Z* ILC TDR e-, m- Z e+ • gHZZ e+, m+ TLEP-240 1 year 1 detector

  35. Global fit of the Higgs couplings • Model-independent fit • NB : Theory uncertainties must be worked out. M. Bachtis 1.0% Snowmass 2013

  36. TLEP as a Mega-Top Factory - • Scanning the tt threshold at √s ~ 350 GeV • Effect of beamstrahlung on E_beam at TLEP is small compared to Linear Colliders Luminosity E Spectrum Effect on top threshold • No need to measure the luminosity spectrum @ TLEP reduced mtopuncertainty • Slightly larger cross section @ TLEP • Beam energy calibration from e+e-→ WW and mW; as from Z and W leptonic decays. • Still need to work on theoretical predictions (40 MeV uncertainty on mtop) M. Zanetti TLEP, TLEP ILC • Expected sensitivity for TLEP (full study to be done) and ILC Stat. only

  37. TLEP as a Tera-Z and Oku-W Factory (1) • TLEP repeats the LEP1 physics programme every 15 minutes • Added value: Transverse polarization up to the WW threshold (LEP: up to 60GeV) • Exquisite beam energy determination with resonant depolarization • Up to 5 keV precision – unique at circular e+e- colliders • Measure mZ, mW, GZ, … with unbeatable accuracy • Measure the number of neutrinos • From the peak cross section at the Z pole – Luminosity measurement is a challenge • From radiative returns to the Z from the WW threshold – e+e- → gnn Z lineshape, asymetries WW threshold scan New Physics in loops ? - No beamstrahlung is a clear advantage

  38. TLEP as a Tera-Z and Oku-W Factory (2) • This is a unique part of the TLEP programme. It is also very challenging for the accelerator (intensity, longitudinal polarization), experiments (rate) and Theory • Measurements with Tera-Z • Caution : TLEP will have 5×104 more Zsthan LEP - Predicting achievable accuracies with 250 times smaller statistical precision is difficult • The study is just beginning : errors might get better with increasing understanding • Much more to do at the Zpeak e.g., asymmetries, flavour physics (>1011b, > 1011 c, > 1010 t), rare Z decays, … • Measurements with Oku-W • Caution : TLEP will have 5×106 more W than LEP at the WW threshold -Predicting achievable accuracies with 1000 times smaller statistical precision is difficult • Much more W physics to do at the WW threshold and above e.g., GW, lW, rare W decays, diboson couplings, … • Measurement with longitudinal polarization • One year data taking with luminosity reduced to 20% of nominal (requires spin rotators) • 40% beam longitudinal polarization assumed – NB: LEP kept polarization in collisions - hardware needed is challenging NB: ILC limited to a factor > 30 larger errors

  39. EWSB Precision tests at TLEP: Teaser Warning : indicative only. Complete study being done mH=126 GeV ILC TLEP TLEP Very stringent SM closure test. Sensitivity to weakly-interacting BSM Physics at a scale > 10 TeV

  40. TLEP Design Study: provisional Structure 26 Working Groups: Accelerator / Experiment / Phenomenology Soon to be replaced by an official structure in the framework of FCC

  41. TLEP Design Study: People 346 • 295 subscribers from 23 countries (+CERN) • Distribution reflects the level of awareness in the different countries • 4 physicists from Greece: subscribe at http://tlep.web.cern.ch !

  42. Michael Benedikt The twopillars: pp and e+e- mandate is to deliver full CDR for both machines with an extendedcostreview

  43. The combination of TLEP and the VHE-LHC offers, for a great cost effectiveness, the best precision and the best search reach of all options presentlyon the market. First look at The Physics Case of TLEP arXiv:1308.6176v2 [hep-ex] 22 Sep 2013

  44. TLEP and FCC in the news FCC front-page news in the CERN bulletin:

  45. TLEP and FCC in the news II …meanwhile in the same issue:

  46. Our web page • http://tlep.web.cern.ch • Last event : Sixth TLEP workshop 16-18 October 2013http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?ovw=True&confId=25771 • Joint VHE-LHC + TLEP kick-off meeting 12-15February 2014

  47. Conclusions • TLEP is a 3-in-1 package: • It is a powerful Higgs factory • It is a high-intensity EW parameter buster • It offers the path to a 100TeV pp collider • TLEP is based on solid technology and offers little risk, has a price tag which is expensive but not out of reach, has reasonable consumption, offers multiple interaction points and might even have an upgrade potential.

  48. end Thank you

  49. Extra slides

More Related