Crystal Ball : On the Future High Energy Colliders * Vladimir Shiltsev Fermilab, Batavia, IL , USA Accelerator Physics Center August 4, 2015 *FRA, LLC operates Fermilab under contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359 with the U.S. DOE Far Future Content .?. Future FCC-pp, SppC, Muon Collider, CLIC
Near Future CepC, ILC, LHeC, FCC-ee... Now & Past LHC,Tevatron, 2 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders B-facts, SSC Past and Present shape Future When one wants to analyze options for future HEP accelerators, the question comes to right balance btw PHYSICS vs FEASIBILITY FEASIBILITY of an accelerator is actually complex: Feasibility of ENERGY Is it possible to reach the E of interest / whats needed ?
Feasibility of PERFORMANCE Will we get enough physics out there / luminosity ? Feasibility of COST Is it affordable to build and operate ? What can we learn/take from the past/present? (besides that all built/existing machines are feasible) 3 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Cost Analysis Known Costs for 17 Big Accelerators: Actually built: RHIC, MI, SNS, LHC Under construction: XFEL, FAIR, ESS
Not built/Costed: SSC, VLHC, NLC ILC, TESLA, CLIC, Project-X, Beta-Beam, SPL, -Factory Is it possible to parameterize the cost for known technologies ? V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders 4 2014 JINST 9 T07002 V.Shiltsev, A phenomenological cost model for high energy particle accelerators 5 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders
Raw Data: look confusing All are Different! Parameters: energy E size/length L power P Currencies Years Technologies Accounting
TPC (US Accounting) vs European Accounting To get the TPC one needs to include SWF, OH, Escalation, Contingency, R&D, PED (often missed), and other missing elements TESLA (H.Edwards & P.Garbincius) ~ 1.95 ITER (D. Lehman) ~ 2.3 (10% of 5B$=1.15B$) ILC (2008 DOE/OS) 16.5/6.7=2.45 - ? Use factor of 2-2.4 as typical 6 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Approach: Though the TPC is complex mix break it in just three parts Three parts: Accelerator f (ECM) Tunnel f (LTunnels)
Infrastructure f(Psite) Parameterize each by one parameter SumTPC (unitarity condition) 7 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Our Key Feasible Technologies NCRF Normal Conducting Magnets SC RF 8 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders
SC magnets Phenomenological Cost Model 1/2 1/2 1/2 Cost(TPC)= L + E + P Tunnels Cost Site PowerEnergy Cost of Total Project Cost in the US accounting Civil Construction Accelerator Components Infrastructure where ,, technology dependent constants 2B$/sqrt(L/10 km) 10B$/sqrt(E/TeV) for SC&NC RF 2B$ /sqrt(E/TeV) for SC magnets 1B$ /sqrt(E/TeV) for NC magnets 2B$/sqrt(P/100 MW) 9
V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Illustrations Comment: Sqrt-functions are quite accurate over wide range because such dependence well approximates the initial cost effect : 10 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Total Cost vs Model (Log-Log) The -model is good to +-30%
11 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Part II: Near Future Facilities Ecm L P -TPC FCCee CepC ILC CERN 0.25 100 300 10.93 China 0.25 55 500 10.23
Japan 0.5 36 163 TeV km MW 13.14 * B$ * official 2013 est. 7.8B$+13,000 FTEs (Eur.Acct.) 12 Energy Feasibility No Doubt! Cost Feasibility ?? TBD ?? V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Feasibility of Performance
Luminosities : ~(2-5)1034/IP feasible, but there are issues Luminosity vs SRF power - trade off (P=I EEpass) 13 (power consumption in general) HOM heat-load in the cold RF system beam-strahlung: DA, lifetime, IR optics * beam-beam effects pretzel separation if one ring Earth field effects if injection energy is low Not so easy injector: e+/e- source and booster V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders
Unfair Competitive Advantage CepC : the project to be built in China Case study: modern light sources 14 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders SSRF China Spring-8 Japan Diamond NSLSII
UK USA 792 m 3 GeV 912 M$ 2015 432 m 1436 m 562 m 3.5 GeV 8 GeV
3 GeV 1.2B RMB 2007 11 BY 1997 383 M 2007 Account infln, convert to USD and scale to sqrt(1 km): 350 M$ 15 772 M$ V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders
1040 M$ 1024 M$ Part III: Future Colliders Ecm L P -TPC CLIC CERN 3 Muon C. US? 6 60 589 27.08 20 230 14.45
FCCpp CERN 100 100 400 30.39 SppC China 50+ 25.59 TeV 54 300
km MW B$ Cost Feasibility ?? probably not ?? ...if tunnel/injector exist Muon Collider cheapest 16 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Feasibility of Energy CLIC NC RF Muon C. SCMag 100 MV/m @ 1e-7 spark
tough no doubt FCC HF-SCMag not (now) SppC HF-SCMag not (now) 16-20 T magnets for >70 TeV 17 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders * for illustration purposes only 100 TeV pp : Qualitative Cost Dependencies
18 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Feasibility of Performance CLIC: e+e- ~5 1034 very tough ** Muon Coll: +- ~2 1034 impossible now *** FCC/SppC: pp ~5 1034 very tough ** (each * is about 1 order of magnitude) 19 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders
Two Comments: 1. Availability of experts : Oide Principle : 1 Accelerator Expert can spend intelligently only ~1 M$ a year + it takes significant time to get the team together (XFEL, ESS) 2. It takes time to get to design Luminosity often 3-7 years 20 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders K.Oide (KEK) Part IV: Is There Far Future ? Post-100 TeV Energy Frontier assumes 300-1000 TeV (20-100 LHC)
decent luminosity (TBD) Surely we know: 1. For the same reason there is no circular e+e- collider above Higgs-F there will be no circular pp colliders beyond 100 TeV LINEAR 2. Electrons radiate 100% beam-strahlung (<3 TeV) and in focusing channel (<10 TeV) +- or pp 21 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Phase-Space is Further Limited Live within our means: for 20-100LHC < 10 B$ < 10 km < 10 MW (beam power, ~100MW total)
New technology should provide >30 GeV/m @ total component cost <1M$/m ( ~NC magnets now) SC magnets equiv. ~ 0.5 GeV per meter (LHC) 3. Only one option for >30 GeV/m known now: dense plasma that excludes protons only muons 22 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Plasma Waves Idea- Tajima & Dawson, Phys. Rev. Lett. (1979) Plasma wave: electron density perturbation Laser/beam pulse ~ p/c Option A: Short intense e-/e+/p bunch
Option B: Short intense laser pulse Few 1016cm-3, 6 GV/m over 0.3m ~1018cm-3, 50 GV/m over 0.1m First looks into Plasma-Collider: staging kills ! ~2 GV/m, 23 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Option C: Crystals & Muons n~1022 cm-3, 10 TeV/m 1 PeV = 1000 TeV V.Shiltsev, Phys. Uspekhy 55 965 (2012)
n ~1000 nB ~100 frep ~106 L ~1030-32 24 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Paradigm Shift : Energy vs Luminosity fundamental problem : limited facility power Pb=IbE Ib=Pb/E L ~ Pb/E 25 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders
HEPs Far (or Far-Far) Future Good News options EXIST 300-1000 TeV muons in plasma/crystals Bad News It will be High Energy Low Luminosity 26 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Conclusions (1) PAST AND PRESENT LESSONS Success of Colliders : 29 built over 50 yrs, O(10)
TeV c.m.e. The progress has greatly slowed down due to increasing size, complexity and cost of the facilities. Accelerator technologies of RF and magnets are well developed and costs understood ( - model) NEAR FUTURE DIRECTIONS (5-15 years) CepC, TLEP and ILC are not simple but ~feasible in terms of energy, luminosity and possibly cost CepC seems to have unfair competitive advantage (cost) 27 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Conclusions (2) FUTURE ENERGY FRONTIER COLLIDERS (15-30 years) All have serious issues: 3 TeV CLIC - with
performance and cost, 6 TeV Muon Collider - with performance, 70-100 TeV FCC/SppC - with cost and performance Key R&D for FCC/SppC is to reduce the cost of ~16-20 T magnets by factor ~3-5 it will take ~2 decades start NOW Three regions are open for such collaboration FAR FUTURE OUTLOOK ( > 30 years) Not many options for 30-100 xLHC !!! Actually, only: linear acceleration of muons in dense plasma 28 V.Shiltsev | APS-DPF-2015: Future Colliders Thank You for Your Attention! 29
Chemistry Examination Board: CCEA This is an exciting and challenging course which should appeal to those of an inquiring mind but students should be aware that the specification for A-level Chemistry assumes a good knowledge of the GCSE Chemistry or...
(Example from CTEQ hep-ph/0303013) We can decompose the uncertainties into eigenvector combinations of the fit parameters-the largest uncertainty is along eigenvector 15 -which is dominated by the high x gluon uncertainty We can translate the current level of PDF uncertainty...
Construct a food web using the following biotic factors: Worm. Human. Grass. Chicken. Cow. Corn. Food Web. What is moving through the food web? Worm. Human; Grass; Chicken. Cow. Corn. Energy! The direction of the arrow represents the direction energy...
Metrics - How Should We Evaluate EV Batteries. US Advanced Battery Consortium has laid out goals for commercialization by 2020. Evaluation points include: energy density, power density, cycle life, safety, cost, and charging speed.
Ready to download the document? Go ahead and hit continue!