Zoom was running. I'm set up. Okay. I am told that we can proceed and our second half of today's afternoon is about beams, accelerator R&D and future facilities.
We present thing a ACO sell rater frontier vision. By empower empower, Tor Raubenheimer and Vladimir Shiltsev. Of the accelerator frontier. For the general audience , briefly go through what accelerators are. You can understand the complexities of the world
we live in. And the previous progress since 2014 P5. And the bulk is in three and four, acceleratorrers for neutrinos, neutrinos, accelerators for rare processes and colliders. And then the final messages, we call them asks. Accelerators are approaching centennial. They start
ed at approximately the end of 1920s , early 1930s when C ockroft and Walton , Lawrence and van devGra af created the accelerators. Since then , it was awarded by four Nobel Prizes , just for development of few acceleration techniques. But, of course, as we understand , accelerators are important for more than ourselves . Approximately a third of the physics Nobel prizes are acceleratorrers. And that's only physics, many more in biology, chemistry chemistry, came from the accelerators as well. At
present, there are approximately 140 accelerator s used for research. Of course, the total number is 30,000 to 40,000. But mostly industrial. Small scale. Most of the research facilities are numerous. And be aware that we have approximately 4500 experts working, running with and designing, constructing these facilities and about 15,000 of technical staff helping us to make all that happen.
And all together, we, as a world community , serve approximately 80,000 users. Of course, it's not only high energy physics, but also condensed matter, scientists, biologist s, nuclear physicists, et cetera, et cetera. Approximately one quarter of that workforce, a quarter of the expertise, and a quarter of users is in the United States . And we also push ing the envelope. Because the demands of our
user base push us to invent new approaches to find to go to high energies, deliver better performance in terms of beam power , luminosity, brilliance, species, all kinds of particles. Cost, complexity, size and R&D required. All that grows and grows and grows. So, we are almost on the frontier. So, the most advanced tech know logically are known to be colliders. Relatively young. Already 60 yearsapproximately young. When they started, they started at the energy range of approximately 1 GeV or less, this is 1, this is 10 10,000 GeV. Approximately
50, 60 years, the energy greatly progressed . Particularly for hadron colliders, go up and up and occupy. This is LHC. but you can see the overall trend for hadron colliders, we don't expect the trend to continue forever. It flattens out a little bit. For the lepton colliders, our energy ies go down in order to explore enormously the fine detail particle s like zones and other particle like super K KB KEK-B . It went down after the early 2000s. Currently we have seven colliders operational. Over
the history of accelerator s, we have made 31. Two are under construction. One is in Russia, NICA, and EIC in Brookhaven here in the United States. This is about energy. It is the most important characteristic. But not the only one. Collide
er luminosity is another important characteristic . You see that early colliders have 10 to the 9, 10 to the 30, we have one, two, three, four, increase ing in luminosity over the six decades. The record luminosity right now set by super-KE KB just a month ago is 46.5 reverse nano barns per second . Or in our units, and what's remarkable , luminosity grows by an impressive factor. Six orders . It doesn't fall because it's there and that's usually the demand of high energy physics. Luminosity progresses close between like energy and the power of like 1.2, 1.3
or something like that. And I can tell you up front that what I have shown about colliders is actually not the most impressive development in the field of accelerators. Other applications of beams are showing such a tremendous progress that there's no surprise that society follows them much more closely. And those are, for example, if you look on the picture of peak brilliance. And my march stop microphone stopped working . It is working. That's from the year 1950, approximate ly the same -- you can see they had almost 25 orders of magnitude progress. In brilliance is number of photons per second per millimeter square, radiance, bandwidth and so on and so forth. Scientists were able to generate several
techniques and light sources, one, two, three, four generation s. And lately, we have the idea of free- electron lasers, which have the an enormous brilliance of the flux of photons . Other accelerators are extremely, extreme ly successful. And to continue that message, accelerator serve a much broader part of society.
In the last three decades, the cost of the accelerator construction projects. Collect everything we know about accelerators built between 2000 and 2010. We built LHC , up to 2000, there's a major high energy physics facilities, particle physics facilitieses. And approximately $3 billion worth of light sources, neutron source and so on and so forth. Look at the decade between 2010 and 2020. The investment in fact
particle physics facility was significant ly smaller. Under $2. Injector upgrades, all goes there. But number of light source s, sources, fields and so on and so forth is significantly bigger. They already accounted for $8 billion. And in the planning decade decade, the trend continues. Now in 2030, we plan to build so many, again, new type of light source s, colliders for nuclear physics, electron ion collider. And that you see it's coming
close to $10 billion, 10, 11 billion total. While the investment in the high energy physics construction, the high energy particle physics is gonna be in the range of 2 to $3 billion. That's upgrate of the high luminosity LHC, PIP-II, and LB NF construction. So, what will happen in 20307 30s to 2040s , we don't know, but the trend will probably continue on. And why -- why we kind of stop or kind of why we have this picture? So, why we have so many small accelerators and not that many big accelerators we are pushing for. Of course, one of the
biggest reasons is the cost. Cost of accelerators is extremely touchy and an extremely important subject and we take into account if the first small accelerators , for example, for medical industry or industrial security applications may cost between 10 to $30 million , then larger facilities could be $300 million. Third and fourth generation light sources were approaching a billion. And X-ray fields, 1 to 3 billion. And colliders, maybe up to $10 billion. And colliders for the big, bright future, breaking the limit of $10 billion. That makes things extreme
ly, of course, challenging. So understand part of the challenge is not just where we can make some difference. We are showing this following slide. The cost, of course, of a big facility, accelerator facilities set by the scale. Larger, more expensive. Like if you have higher energy, longer and more powerful accelerator it will cost more. But also, it's accelerator technology. There is, of course, the core technology , core accelerator technology, normal and super conduct ing MAG knelts, super conducting and normal conducting , and so on and so forth. But
we shouldn't forget, the big part of the cost is in the civil construction. And that civil construction technology, we don't invent it. We take it from society. Whatever it costs, it costs. Same for power delivery distribution technology. Right? We take it from bigger world, right ? So, and typically for big projects, for accelerators, we are talking about the first part. That's where we can make difference is account for approximately 50 plus or minus 10%. And the second part is
equally important. It's another 50%. Even if you reduce costs of our take your favorite superconducting magnets to zero, still your project will cost a lot. Because a lot of investment is require ed in the second part of this -- of the equation. Another important factor is timeline. So,
timeline, which becomes longer when you build big things. So, bigger in size and cost of your accelerators takes it a longer time to build. And the timeline consists of three big components. Obviously, probably there are details. But three components. Pre-project R&D, requires a certain amount of time and effort. That depends on how novel the technology is . If you want to build it on something well-explored, start construction tomorrow. If it takes
R&D in order to prepare, your technology takes certain time . That's component number one. Second component is construction project itself. So, tough so many -- I would say billion dollars -- to construct, you most of us do have certain limit on annual spending. And it's a very well usually defined limit. You can't go beyond something. And that sets the limit on how fast you can build your project. For example, this is a
plot in the corner. Showing that for a project construction time in years versus cost in total project cost, European billion, Swiss Franks, and they are there, smallerprojects there . It's substantial time. 4, years to 12 year s. Another important consideration which you should take into account, we call it -- that's the limit obvious available workforce. So, in our community we have kind of rule of thumb . We Oide law, the famous scientist from KEK, who said we need approximately one expert to spend a intelligently $1 million per year. So, intelligently, keyword
. Yeah, of course, I can spend $10 billion a year , it will be a waste of money. Right? If you wanted to minimize the cost, that's approximately how many experts you need. And remember what I told you initially? That we have only that many experts in the field of accelerators worldwide . Right? That's a big limit. Consider, for example, ILC . It's a $7 billion or so, or $10 billion , nobody knows, facility. Right ? Because we haven't built it yet, right? But it requires, of course, 10,000 FTEs, that means over 10 years of construction, a thousand people. A thousand experts who build that collider. And if
you have worldwide pool of 4500, you understand the challenge, right? So, where we get them? Final contribution to the timeline is commissioning. And commissioning takes time. And it strongly depends on complexity. And complexity is not just a word from the dictionary. So, accelerators, certain mean
ing. It's actually -- we understand very well what complexity is. And the past large colliders, experience shows, yeah, it takes significant time. On average about 5 years. There's some record fast colliders in the past
, which you were commissioned very quick ly. But there's also colliders that take approximately 5, 6, 7, 8, even 9 years to get to the design luminosity . That makes the timeline of big facilities extremely long, right? So, now we go into the second part of the presentation. So, how do we fare compared to previous P5? So, in the previous P5 and Snowmass P5, 2013-20 2013-202014, and contributing to the LHC and HL- LHC. Contributed in Japan, contributed if it goes . Build 1 milliwatt proton source , PIP-II stands for proton improvement plan II. And for LBNF and DU
NE. And provide beams for g-2 and m u2e experiments. And reassess muon accelerator program and MI CE. I will talk about that. And there was a separate panel which followed up these recommendations and they improved several thrusts of accelerator, the general accelerator R&D. Like beam physics, sources and targets. What to do in the area of RF acceleration, magnets and material s and advanced acceleration. And again, we are happy
to report that we greatly progressed along all these line s. Of course R&D continues and it's always in progress. But major recommendations addressed pretty well. So, either done or in-progress. Situation is unclear. It's developed to the final -- so, we started construction of the facilities for research and so on and so forth. So,
next slide summarizes it. So, in terms of facilities and programs, we are contributing into the upgrade of the LHC called high luminosity LHC upgrade. We are building dozens of new technology , it quadruples IR quads for HL-LHC. So, the project is already in the CD-3 stage. And to be ready by the launch shutdown 3. They are heavily involved in that. We have started a construction of a PIP-I I linac at Fermilab, with the goal of 1.2
milliwatt for LBNF and D UNE. And the next is booster due in 2029. And 30% of the cost is by international partner s. Which is great news. Also, we have great progress on muon peoples for g-2 and m u2e experiments at Fermilab. It's
operational, basically we deliver muons. Good news. Basically , there are experiments that are running and give beams for them as well . And so, we have completed in -- between previous P5 and now , we have completed the ILC program in the US. Significant investment. So, the peak of the investment was in development in construction, installation and test with beam, a full, fully operational, 1.3 gigahertz at Fermilab, showing the full I LC acceleration structures. So, in terms of R&D, we were quite successful. Many of you heard about records in development, superconduct ing magnets, 14.5 Tesla
magnet dipole was constructed, part of the development program. And again, those MAG knelts used conductors . We have minuted the experiment with the ion ization cooling. And with the UK and other international partners. So, in a laboratory. And that experimented 107% remittance in one pass as specified . At Fermilab, another test facility called IoT A. IoT A ring
has been built and now starting to show results. And optical stochastic cooling to make beams a little bit smaller. And finally, we should say that our colleagues which work on the advanced methods like acceleration by wake fields and structures. They have tremendous success. They built a facility called FAC ET-II, used for accelerator R&D.
Uniqueness of facilities for the first time ever, the beams with significant number of particles like 1 nano cool, and 10 to the 10, compress ed by a 1 micron by a 1 micron by a 1 micron object. It's intense, and it's done miracles and we have a bunch of users lined up to use that facility . Another facility developed over many years, B ELLA, they set wake field acceleration records. The 8GeV over .2 meters
. Quite impressive, right? Recently they demonstrated staging of this laser plasma acceleration stages, .1 G eV demonstrated. Okay. That's what we have done since previous Snowmass in P5. What do
we see now happening in the field? And where do we see the field going to in the next decade? We got information from our topical groups and they created P5 and evaluated options on various future facilities. We start with facilities, accelerators for neutrinos, accelerator s for colliders. Start with accelerators for neutrinos . We said, of course, three times already that Fermilab is build ing this super conducting, PIP-I I. This is a picture taken just yesterday. And the
question is, of course, after. What's going to happen after? So, in 2030. So, what do we plan to do with this facility later on? So, and the answer is following. So, what we hear from our colleagues from neutrino frontier or those who plan to use that facility. Is that what we plan to deliver for them in 2029, 2030, isn't enough. So, what -- what they originally asked for is what they called project phase I. Based on the 1
.2 mega watt proton beam. That's what we're built ing .ing. And the detector in the Lead SD. And now phase II, to discover the potential. In order to get to 5 sigma discover
ry, they needed some moment to go through significant upgrade, phase II upgrade . That will require to go to improve beam power from 1 .2 mega watts to double it, 2 .4. And they will need a new detector and 20 kilotons of liquid argon. How to get there? We ask ourselves and our community what we can do. Looking at the complex at Fermilab , many machines and beam lines. And ask ourselves how to get
from 1.2 to 2. 4 megawatt s in the neutrino beam on target? The question is there's probably no problem with the biggest accelerators. The problem and bottleneck is found to be at the low end accelerator s. Particularly in the synchrotron called booster. And that boost er will probably prevent us from doubling up the power at end because of problems of injection energy and transition crossing limit. There were special topic. When beam goes to special
energy, it lost it essentially. The high energy beam is lost and it's extremely bad. And the same happens at injection energy. When you inject the beam, space forces blow up the beam and you have is the loss es which is bad. There are two proposals. How
to gelt around the bottleneck. One proposal is to build a better modern rapid cycling synchrotron. We build it by 2019. Then build a modern rapid cycling synchrotron which will not have problems with injection or transition cross. We can
do it because we know how beam dynamics plays, okay? I didn't want them . I still don't want them. Okay. You see? The slides are so dense that there is no spot even for -- okay. Fine. And, of course, that -- that new rapid cycling synchrotron with accelerator particles will be more than sufficient to provide a beam for inject or acceleration and 2 .4 upgrade
. That's option number one. The second option is to go straight, and use superconnecting Linac, bypass all and inject in the main injector. And again, you can get 2.4 megawatt . What should be taken into account when we talk about these upgrades? There are challenges, of course. If nothing comes
for free. First of all, be sober about competition. We're not alone. We have a hyper-K program, fed bit beam from J-PARC facility. These close ed captions are extremely -- can we move them ? Extremely unwelcome in this talk. All right. Move them. To the left, lower corner. Yeah, fine! That's
That's -- [ Laughter ] Yeah, leave them here. All right. Oh , even better. Even better. No, no -- no, no, no. To the left. I'm serious. Move it to the left so it doesn't interfere . Okay. Going to that, look that the picture. It shows
that average beam power on target for two major leading facilities in the world. One is Fermilab main inject or complex, which delivers to , and J-PARC in Japan. What matters this is, of course, years. We right now have a report for an average of 893 kilowatts on target and they have 500 500, they have extremely aggressive updates come ing. We think they will cross the 1 megawatt
line and go over us. That's where our upgrades, 2. 4 will be extremely helpful. Help scientists get further ahead with the discovery in the neutrino center.
That's number one. Number two is we have a really short timeline. And there are a number of design curations. What do you want to do? In general, these big facilities can't be always used for something. It's one experiment. We have to figure out how to make sure that when we design something, later it can be used for something else . For dark matter, for processes, searches for muon collider or something else. Then, of course, there is the cost challenge. Of course, the rest of the complex will need to be upgraded
as well. It's not just this bottleneck to be fixed . But also main injector RF needs upgraded , so on and so forth, 2.4 megawatt target. It's not in hand. There's various losses caused by instabilities, injection , collimation, and there's R&D although Fermilab. These are all
important questions to be taken into account with the decision, how to get to 2 .4 megawatt. Slide change doesn't work. You need to click every time. You need to click this black caption. Yes, stay next to computer, please. Okay. Click. Okay. Now it works. Switching gears to accelerators for processes. Physics, right? So, again, looking through Snowmass white papers, there are many. So, our colleagues in corresponding topical group figured out there is a lot of interest in accelerator facility ies needed for dark matter searches, axion , violation experiments , beam dump experiments. There are calls for correspond
ing facilities at Fermilab, at J-lab, SMS. There are a variety of beams which should be used for these searches. Start ing with electron beams, GeV or multi- GeV to proton beams of all kinds and structures. Quite a diverse set of requirements. I don't, of course, have time to go through
the list of possible experiments. It's enormously long. Our previous two speakers show you how many things we have in mind. We don't flow what don't know what exactly or will or won't work from our colleagues in the accelerator field. In many cases, existing and planned utilization
ifs can be and should be fully utilized. That's a good point. If you have a facility, why don't you try to utilize it for something else? An excellent example is SLAC. There's
a project ongoing for SLAC . Welcome parasitic ally, they plan to use the S RF linac. And the experiment, the construction has started. Within that, many experiments can also be present. But some require minor investment. For example, one of the greatest ideas
comes so far was can we build parallel to injection into the -- into the booster? Question we use PIP-II lin ac beam and shape it properly to be used for dark matter search experiments, for example? Coming out is expected to be long, approximately 1 millisecond every 10, 20, so on and so forth. That's not what dark matter search experimentalists want, they want few pulses with high charge. The beam structure should be reshaped from flat to four distinct short pulses. That can be done by injections in PIP- II accumulator. And it's figure 8 folds. You can do that. Injected the beam. Many, many of these
H minus particles, turn them into protons and extract them one by one at certain times. So, it's a great idea. Can deliver up to 100 kilowatt of power for the contact sector program with 100 hertz. And we hope you will find it interesting among you guys . And P5 will support it. Right? So, now switching gears to particle colliders. It's topic number three. Very important that there are too many collider concepts to cover in any detail. Brief technical descriptions are available in RMF and PDG.
And in the group reports and the ATF, and I will say what that's about and through the Frontier website. And it's most important to figure out what do you guys want? And the first slide we always start with is the energy frontier draft report . What does -- what do our energy frontier colleagues want? And they clearly spell out in each period of 5 years, starting in 20 25, 2030 and 35, what cothey want? Targeted Higgs factory R&D R&D. Develop initial design for first-stage Te TeV-scale muon collider in the US , and plus and minus Higgs factories, first- stage TeV-scale menuon collide ers -- so, again, basic messages , they want Higgs factories or factory. One or two, I don't know how many. And multi-TeV muon collid ers. That we clearly got and I will address it.
But for the energy frontier, we got input from other sources. For example, just a couple days ago, you heard a report from our plus and minus collider forum. And put together by the frontiers. They looked into a options for Higgs fact ors and looked at FEE-eh e and CEP C. They have luminosity. They are a little
bit more expensive than ILC and CCC, built faster and probably less costly. And the US could contribute to any Higgs factory, which region A, B, or C will be committed to. Basically, they call for collapse of functions. If someone decides to build something, we should be part of it. I forgot to mention, thinking about 10
TeV colliders, wake field accelerators, we need to continue R&D towards the closer to colliders to become closer to colliders . So, mu plus and minus collider , and the frontiers work together. And their statement is that 10 plus TeV center of mass muon collider is best. And they see no showstoppers. And the luminosity per kilowatt hours, and relatively inexpensive -- still expensive, you will see the numbers later. Significant
engineering effort. And some targeted R&D. They plan -- they actually call to the development of pre-CDR by 2030, establish ment of the Uggs muon collider organization and joining the international collaboration create ed a the CERN by partners, called the IMCC, international muon collide er collaboration. Implementation task force is another organization. I will say a few words about the organization later on . But they have two collider proposals on the table in terms of cost, schedule, technical readiness, power requirements and physics reach and didn't make a priority. And finally , the US national collider R&D initiative. They claim
-- and they correctly claim there is a gap, significant gap , in accelerator R&D in this country towards collider facilities of the future. So, and they call ed to establishment of the targeted program in the office of high energy physics and took an integrated approach to cover international efforts like like ILC, FCC, International Muon Collider Collaboration , and options available in the US, CCC, HELEN, et cetera, et cetera. Let's go through various proposals. Start with the Higgs factor ies, the most mature ones, the list is not prioritize ed. I will just briefly go through advantages and challenges . Advantages, something positive. Challenges is something less positive. Right? So, we start with FEE-eh e, kind of a kilometer -long collider. And CPC, a
similar one to be placed in China. And the big advantage is it's already supported by the European strategy. CERN is behind program . Started a feasibility study and the collider promises significantly higher luminosity than any other Higgs factory. But on the other hand,
the FEE-eh e is the longest one. Quite expensive. And power consumption is a challenge. CLIC is a linear machine, provides 72 megawatts per meter. It's 11 kilometer s long. The it's the lowest power consumption and the
shortest of the three machines. It's based on relative novel two-beam acceleration scheme, probably replaced by kly st it rons at some expense, and tolerances, jitter and so on and so forth. Last, but not least by any means is the international linear collider. Which we all know for many years it is ready to go. Physics-wise, it has great advantage of being a collider with polarized beams Both beams are polarized. But look into the scheme, the scheme show
ed that the ICL is -- it's 21 kilometer s long. Because gradient is relatively small. It require s a significantly sophisticated positron source. We are all waiting for positive news from Japan that, you know, they start, you know, contributing more actively into ILC . Interesting new developments. That's why I said new. A couple of linear collider- based Higgs factories which can fit the Fermilab site. So, of course, Fermilab site is limited, about 4 by 5 miles. And 7 kilometer
s. In order to fit Higgs factory, need gradients, approximately 7 per meter. And given that will be relatively compact collider, will potentially cost less. And there are two great option which is we consider in some detail and actually strongly support further considerations of them . One is called Cool Copper Collide er. Normal cool
ed to the liquid nitrogen, 77K. And at 5.7 gigahertz, they can deliver probably more. The other option is called HEL EN, that's traveling wave ILC-type collider. After the modification of the ILC superconducting, they can achieve these gradients at 2K element and frequency at 1.3 gigahertz
. It's basically a substantial change of RF technology. But quite feasible , basically. Don't need to change current model design of the ILC. Right? These are two facilities. There are other more aggressive alternative s, includes energy recovery base ed on E + E - colliders. You can use your beam many, many times and recover energy after collision, basically. You collide particles and then return them
back. Ask them to, you know, send back their energy to the RF cages. That's a way to reduce power consumption . This approach shows promise of high luminosity per megawatt power consumption. But in general, they're not yet mature. Their technology is orders of magnitude in beam current which they can circulate and the Q zero needs to be improved. It's long and expensive.
Other approach is gamma-gamma linear collide ers. Instead much plus and minus particles, collide two gammas. need it from the side, and those photons collide with each other. In that F channel , the collision, need only half of the energy. Makes it shorter and
potentially less expensive. And you need no positron s, which is one of the big problems for other colliders. So, of course, this advantage or challenge is that they need to be on state-of-the-art in the FEL LS to generate. It is significant ly beyond what we can achieve right now. Significant energy will be required if you go that way. Muon
collider Higgs factory, it's complex and expensive. But it's too long to develop. Because it requires 10 years or more of time to fully demonstrate muon cooling and again, it does have small luminosity, but cross-section of muon-muon collision s is 40,000, high, right? So, if you switch gears to much higher energies. Energies of the scale of 3 to 10 Te V per power in constituent , per parton. And there are option
s. CLIC, increase gradient of the CL IC technology to parameter . And in the 50 50 kilometer footprint, you can get to 3TeV. It has -- they have demonstrated the gradients and what else is necessary. But as I said, 50 kilometers is long, it's expensive, and huge approach, 500 to 600 mega megawatts compared to 200 mega watts at the side. Another is FCCh h, the largest hadron -hadron collider in E + and E - collider. If you put the magnets, 16T MAG magnets required. It will
get to much higher luminosities and they have significant help from the LHC experience where we understand how these beams behave. Proton beams at high energy ies and high intensities but experts estimate that the two decades are required to develop the 16 Tesla magnets. Not as a record demonstration, but as industrial ly available magnets. Far apart from the collider. Yes , these colliders will be expensive and also require significant electric power. Right? So, same for collider SPPC in China. Proposed in China . Right? so, they need 20 Tesla magnets.
That would require I would say another qualitative leap in technology . Instead of the magnets technology , they will need to go to what they call iron -based superconducting magnet technology. That's something we haven't seen before. Right? Finally, muon collide ers, compact, 10 to the 14 14 TeV center of pass, 12 to 16 long. Require s a lot of cost. Potentially lowest cost, and these what these captions don't show us, and development on many sub-systems required. So, R&D on muon cooling is necessary and development of the system. Because there are many of
them. From targets to acceleration to magnets to fast ramping magnets and so on and so forth . Right. What's interesting about muon collider. Potentially one can consider the concept of Fermilab. The longest you can put is 16 kilometers long. That allows the 10 TeV collider. That's serious ly considered as one of the options. We are
very glad. In one of our white papers, this proposal being described in detail. Other proposals include some simplified approaches. For example, we take certain
technology and push it to the limit. For example, IL C. Nothing for potentially or at least could stop is us to extend it s energy to, for example, 3 it is TeV or more . And colliders, extended to 3TeV. Let's build the collide
er out of the cheapest possible magnets, but the longest, collider under the sea, 2100 kilometer, have the TeV mass energy. What's the problem with these colliders is usually they're long, they're expensive and power consumption just goes beyond anything we can imagine. Right, wakefield acceleration. In plasma, by beams, by lasers. Linear collide
ers, based on these technologies. Definitely they will be most compact. Maybe cost efficient. We don't know yet. Depends on how expensive or inexpensive your drivers will be. And may potentially offer a good
way to multi-TeV collisions . Of course, there are uncertainties. In the range of physics, physics of acceleration, to positron s, staging. Will have VDOM required R&D is required, and a lot of R&D has been done. A lot of ep/ eh colluders, LLeC, FEE-eh h, so on and so forth, it's cost efficient . They're expensive. If you have a great big proconcollider and put a few I can kilometer long next to it , you can arrange really high luminosity collisions at the center of mass, 1 to 1.5TeV, it's a nice addition to proton machines. Very feasible , really inexpensive. But the high current 50 busy Gev needs a demonstration. If you put
them where you want them to be, there's a order of magnitude of 3. Which is big . That's why you see, there are so many details and proposals. And in order to figure out in more or less coherent fashion on the same basis, whether there are any advantages or disadvantages of various proposals. So, we pulled together the accelerator implementation task force which was charged to develop metrics and process es to facilitate comparison between collider projects. This is composition, 10 experts from the us, Japan and Europe were joined by three liaisons to the energy frontier . And the energy frontier, and our Snowmass young patterns. And we
addressed physics power , tech culture risk and readiness, R&D required and the cost and ECMC for all schedule for the three dozen approaches. It's publish ed through the frontier Wiki page. Looking into it, there are many, many tables. Thomas Roser gave a talk on Monday. We saw many, many detail would tables . summarized them in one. Which, of course, I'm missing a lot of information. But take, for example, Higgs factories.
FEE-eh e, ILC and CLIC, most mature projects, right? You see they have their kind of luminosity numbers here, and FCC has the highest of them. Then years of pre-project R&D. This indicateds this one to zero to two years. Essentially this project can start talking about them and building them right now . But years to first physics, that includes industrialization , construction, and commissioning various. So, for ILC, less than 12 years. It's probably the
fastest way to get to Higgs physics. While for FCee and CLIC, technically limited schedule. The range of 13 to 18 years. The cost is different, FEE-eh
e is 12 to 18 billion without escalation or contingency. ILC and C LIC are less expensive. And power consumption numbers are list ed here. So, more novel approaches like HELEN or the approach when you put the accelerator in the FEE-eh FCe e atrium listed in black color here. The three. You can see for them , the cost ranges are different. Time required to
carry out R&D is different too. For example , this might be 3 to 5 years, for HE LEN and C criterion (C, 3 to 5 years. That's a much longer time scale for physics. Pay attention for the energy recovery would allow
us to significantly cut power consumption in principle. If you look into the a my energy collider , the situation is quite different. CL IC, ILC, and muon collider, they're all expensive. 18 to 30
billion, 18 to 30 billion, 7 to 12 billion. Take significant time. The longest time for the muon collid er. Still years to first physics is in the range of 19 to 24 years and and power consumption, muon collider shows the advantage already at that energy. At higher energies, you need significant time to develop technologies for muon colliders. It's at Fermilab or at
CERN or FCChh which is covered by this black bar, right? And again, the years to first physics, various 19 to 24 to more than 25 years. And the cost ranges are shown here, 12 to 18 to 30 to 50 for FCChh. And the power consumption is pretty high for FCChh and relatively low, or modest, for a muon collider. So, take away from the enormous effort put together before these 15 great individuals is following. ITF takeaway is that I TF reviewed concepts to allow comparison, but didn't prioritize. It wasn't their job. IT F did not review luminosity and power consumption of these projects . Again, that requires much more serious discussion about what you can get with certain techniques. Number three
, that ITF recommends and we support them, that the R&D to reduce the cost and the energy consumption of future collider projects should be given high priority. And final ly, ITF regulations should be updated on a regular basis if necessary. So, this power reduction comes from this plot put together by Spencer. Shows that
various collider types, for example, circular e e, ERL, linear, muon colliders, wakefield and hadron colliders, they have different sensitivity when you try toes to increase the energy. If you try to increase the engineer of circular ee and ERL plus, the luminosity in reverse barns, the power, drops down quickly. For ERL- -based, it's expanded on the right. It starts to radiate at high energy, efficiency goes down as well. The only concept which is they fled linear colliders or muon collider, this is inclined that it grows with energy. So, that kind of gives us a food for thought. Our final message, we are approach
ing the end. So, it's what I say the frontier kind of want to communicate to the bigger world, to P5, to Snowmass . And it's following. So, first of all, we have heard from Joann Hewet t at this meeting that we have done so well compared to previous P5. This is previous projects shown in one plot. So, and you see many projects and experiments going from green and completed from blue to constructed and in cooperation , from yellow, from design to construction and operation. Basically, we don't have many projects and experiments and ideas to plan for the next decade. Right? So, that's
where we are right now. So, this is just two yellow bars left. There are not enough I would say serious proposal s on the table. And our message, number one, I think I convinced you in my previous 30 plus slides, that we have a broad array of accelerator technologies and expertise to design and construct prioritize ed HEP accelerator projects. For neutrino physics, processes or for energy frontier. Message number two refers to colliders. We need an integrate
ed future collider R&D program to engage in the design and to coordinate the development of the next generation of collider projects. That program will address in an integrate ed fashion the technical challenges of promising future collide er concepts that are not covered in the existing general accelerator R&D program. If you enable synergistic US engagement in ongoing global efforts, FCC, ILCC and IMC C, and to develop collider conceptses and proposal s in the US, HELEN, et cetera.
It shows over the past 10 years the sum of investment of the advanced R&D budget in million dollars per year from twelve 202-2023 request. This is the money that goes from the facilities, preparation and construction. Red one in the past used to be called directed R&D. And the blue run is
general accelerator R&D. basically generator tool s and beam experiments, simulations and so on and so forth. And you see that there red bar s are vanishing very soon after the previous P5 because of many reasons. ILC , our -- our investment in ILC got reduced . We have completed LHC accelerator research program which was targeted towards making luminosity fast er, or high luminosity sooner. Right
? In the US, muon accelerator program was reassess ed. That's the one which from P5, in real world, that means closed, right? So, right. And afterward, so, what we see is there is no directed R&D. And what I was talking about on the previous slide was about. They propose
to restore stream of funding to support development s towards future colliders in the next 7 years. 2030. So, by 2030, we as a community will have definitely or more less, I would say probably more, definite distinctions of descriptions of what these facilities are . That will empower us to make some informative positions. We are right now not in the position to say anything that's essentially about the many most promising of these collider options. But this national collider, future collider R&D program initiative is supposed to help us to be ready to say something definite by the time of 20 30. Right. And as I said, it has a number of components to consider . At least the proposal. And I think it will be very, very important. And critical for our field to have it and support it. So, message number three is that we have an
ongoing R&D program aimed at fundamental beam physics and long-term level of accelerator concepts and technologies, RF magnets, beam physics, advanced concept , all these items have broad applicability across future varieties with ideas from universities and labs. R&D is key to facilities for neutrino and rare processes and collide ers. Basically, R&D is something we have to continue one way or another. They are important to keep us afloat. And B, not necessarily
dependent on approval or disapproval of some project or another project. So, accelerator R&D in the US is quite diverse. There are many components, money is multi-mega watt attrs. They're focused on 2
.4 for Fermilab, PIP of had I II, and how 4.8 megawatt can be for a future muon collider. Our aspirations in terms of magnet s and RCSs, include development of 16 Tesla magnets, 40 Tesla solenoid s, Tesla fast, and we believe it should be coordinated with existing US magnet development program. Our colleagues working on the technology of superconducting and nonconducting R F put quite impressive goals for 70 to 120 megawatt acceleration for the project. Or super conducting project. They plan to
develop over the next decade new materials which will allow us to have much higher factors. Basically smaller heating and power efficiency. And efficient source s. And wakefield accelerator s, shoot for collider quality beams, efficient drivers and staging and plan to work in close collaboration with international partners. For example, those activities supported
Europe roadmap. And I'm stopping and the last slight, accelerator and beam physics human high intensity and brightness beams and acceleration and control. High >> Computer model, and call for the design integration and optimization. It is overarching for all our efforts. Final message is workforce-wise, we need to strengthen and expand educational programs. Support university modify based research. Encourage lab
s to accept more traineeship students , including international ones. Wrapping up? Finish up. Last message, accelerator development should be part of P5. Planning for accelerators should be aligned with the strategic planning for particle fizzic and should be part of the process. Thank you for your attention. [ Applause ]
So, we have time for a few questions, right? Excellent. So, questions come from Zoom, from audience and the Google Doc and what I said . And Steve and Tor, can you help me? No, you want to -- I don't want to be alone on stage. These guy s wrote -- and I just message deliver. Okay. Yeah. They need the microphone, by the way. They need microphone
. >> Should I go ahead and ask? Yeah. Kind of a following up on our discussions this morning. Some of the issues that came up that we made and Sergey made a strong point about the importance of having an organized program at PIP-II. Both in P IP-II as it's going to be built and possible upgrades depend on having a physics program. And I realize as I was watching it, it doesn't fit here because most of that is not inherently accelerator development . It's effective usage of what's going to be there and making the choices for the next step. You mentioned the
accumulator rig, the next generation charged lepton. We think this is very important to have program, that's important. Where is that in the Snowmass process? >> The issue there, it's a good point. It's a mix between the physics defining what the program is, and then feeding back to the accelerator to help orientate what the upgrade for PIP-III should be.
That's what Vladimir mentioned as a big issue. Figure ing out how you do that will impact on what experiments you can run. But you need to define the physics first. And actually, you have to do it in parallel
because different upgrade approaches have cost impact . >> Co-chair, elective -- I want to say, this is for all of us in the audience . I understand how frustrating it is to deal with the captions and the limited technology that we have . But it is absolutely essential. I want to congratulations Giordon and the others here to make the effort to do the captioning to enable all members of our community to equally participate. And I realize it's really frustrating. >> It is. >> But that's a technological limitation. But imagine how frustrating if you can't understand what's going going on and the wonderful talk that we just heard. So, let's not do that. [ Applause ] >> Hitoshi.
>> I thank you, and I really appreciate it. And the one comment you made about the need for integrated R&D program, that does appear to be essential for the future. So, I can agree with this. And the word "Integrate ed" sounds nice. But what you said looked like a little bit on everything. Is that the right way to do it? What
does actually integrated mean in this context? >> Sorry, the integrated collider R&D program? We have gone to DOE and talked about supporting individual projects. DOE is not interested in doing that. I have asked for funding for FCC, others have for menuon collider. They're interested in common theme
s, tools to design lepton colliders, E + or E - and muon colliders. Columnation is a common thing, beam instabilities, high-power RF or efficient RF sources. Finding common themes like that I think is critical. And as part that have, ultimately we will be in positioned to design studies . And we do an integrate ed design studies. We're losing people that can design a collider. The people that did the IL C, they're gone. We have lost an enormous amount of
resources in the US to do that work. Okay. >> Okay. Tor , I'm here. But any of you can answer
. But the point is, how do we get our other communities from basic energy, science s who benefited a lot from the past accelerator contributions with energy from that, to contribute to the future in favor of let's say building a collider which is more for high energy physics? I don't know how the plan can -- how P5 can recommend something which will be on that. But I think in the Snowmass process, we should be able to say that, you know, the broader community has benefited from high energy accelerator development programs in the past. You should now give back a little bit to us and it will be good for all of us. Right? At least for the electron colliders that work. >> So, I think
there's an element of truth to that. But one needs to be very careful. You know, some of the big work that's happened in SRF technology over the last 5 year s was funded by BES. Okay? It took the cavities that were designed initially for ILC and improved the queue s by a factor of 2. It's funded by BES . It doesn't appear as a BES R&D project , it's part of a construction project. Nuclear physics is doing lots and lots of R&D to support, but it doesn't appear as accelerator R&D. It's a part of the construction project. It's a little
hard. Your basic concern, I think, is correct. And figuring out how we can get more funding explicit ly into the BES program or into some separate offices to offices science program. You know? There is this new stewardship office which is aiming at that. Right now it has little funding, but hopefully that will increase. And that may be a path
path. We can certainly augment that >> Thank you for this nice presentation. So, I was one of the chair s of the electron positron collider forum and we were very surprised. >> Could you drop your mask, please? >> I'm one of the co-chairs of the electron collide -- electron positron collider and we were very surprised about all the new ideas that had been proposed for electron positron colliders. Some are more mature , some are less mature. But it may be very useful to define a strategy on what R&D would be needed to bring some of these technologies to another level of maturity. So, for instance, you mentioned one of the things
that many of these accelerators are very -- consume a lot of power, okay? So, try to define the roadmap of what accelerator R&D would be useful to bring the technologies to another level that may already be good starting point when going to requests for funding, the funding agencies? >> So, that is something that we will be doing as part of the report. As best we can. There are some common themes. I mean, you heard multiple times that high-power or efficient RF power sources, high queue cavity ies are very important. You've heard about the normal conducting RF, cryogenic RF, that being a big step. We can try to map
that out, but at some level, there has to be some prioritization that happens. This is Snowmass, we don't prioritize here. >> So, let me add to that. Of course you're aware there are many other factors in deciding what to build where. And as a community, we make it a easier decision for other options. There's geopolitical and other things. It's up to the next step
to decide that. And the one beyond. >> Yeah. So, you made the case that significant fraction of the cost has to do with civil construction and tunneling. But then I see these diagrams of site filler colliders on the Fermilab site. And so, my question
is, how seriously should I take that as Fermilab specifically or does it make sense or are other sites being considered like a green field site? >> The short answer is everything that is shown today should be taken very seriously, okay? And we talk about details later. Actually, we're look ing more -- for more questions from our non- accelerator community, basically. Particle physicists , cosmologists, astro physicist s, ask us what you're interested in. Okay. Go ahead. >> So, I'll follow-up on the comments from before. For a along
time, people thought that accelerator R&D could be used to reduce costs. I don't know if that was taken into account by the implementation task force or not . And if not, which of the R&D programs would be most likely to reduce costs from say $12 billion to $8 billion? >> Steve? >> I don't know. That's a very good question. It depends on the nature of the accelerator. If it's a linear collider, then
more efficient RF sources and cavity ies would be the way to go. If it's a big collider, then the magnet technology would be the way to go. So, it really depends a lot on what type of machine you're building . >> It also depends on the time scale you're looking at. , you know, for example, the linear collider programs I see in CLIC are out in 2012.
It's been a decade since then, you have heard of HEL HELEN, superconducting and normal conducting. Both of the technologies advanced a lot in the last 10 years and you can apply that. And Vladimir mentioned, we're not in a position where we can evaluate the costs of those projects directly. But there's certainly a savings involved in using the new technology. Is it 10
%? 20%? We don't know exactly. But it's something. If you're looking further out, you know, maybe if lasers become substantially cheaper, then laser-based acceleration could be a path. But there has to be huge advances in that technology. And you probably have some time to do that . >> Vladimir, I have the microphone. >> Okay, sorry. >> Vladimir, you had a slide already with R&D investment s that are made. And you showed that directed R&D has died off as those directed projects completed. But there's still
something like 60, $70 million of R&D every year. Is that correct? >> This one? >> Yes. That one. Can you tell us something about what that R&D actually entails? Is some of that -- so, for example, a project like Q cubed, does it appear in there? If it's a recommendation, if it's part of the red or blue, does it become red by fiat? >> The short answer is everything that we know today as a promising technology of the future came from these activities. For example , C cubed came out of initial studies dedicated to how much of performance of normal conducted activities can be pushed. Or initial superconducting RFK with the development . Or this new idea like stochastic , they're all being supported by this pool. What
we're trying to convey in the message number four, this is super -critical, super-important because it basically keeps us afloat. If you want to finish your life 20 years from now, stop that program. That will the best way to kill everything at once. >> Let's see. I believe there's a question on Zoom? Can -- >> How to unmute Zoom? >> Okay. Okay. Well, one of the questions which are on here. One of the questions which I
wanted to discuss is related to what we becomes now more and more how to say on the agenda not only science agency, but beyond the sustain ability. Of course, sustainability of future accelerators and facilities, improving first efficiency, this is one of the elements. Another element is means there is a lot of work in accelerator design which is done is related to the general question, how to identify sustainability. Sometimes whether you try to identify, the question comes according to which standards, for example, are you defining sustainability, et cetera. Do you see the way that this word "Sustainability" can also be in consideration, can be used to more direct fund -- extra fund and directed funding for the accelerator R&D ? In order to go with the global agenda and somehow to make a showcase what our domain is doing in term s of sustainability. Here there are a lot of elements. Is it going to be addressed somehow? Consideration
s about this? >> So, in the report, I don't know if we're going to try and address that. There is a panel on sustain ability which is looking at these questions. And looking at how one can motivate and get additional funding into the field. Whether we put something in the
report or not, we have not yet discuss ed. I think in the US, we're -- >> Repeat his question? >> Oh, the question was, is there anything explicit happening in the US? And I guess the short answer is I don't believe there's any explicit change happening in the US. We're going to go with the recommendation that we consider this more strongly in the US. But I don't know if there's -- >> There's one example that to
make more efficient RF sources. >> Sure. >> So , basically, if you improve efficiency from 50% to 80 %, you save enormous, you know, money and power. >> It also comes directly back to the cost of the project. If you can save money by put ting in less infrastructure, that's a significant saving . And as pointed out by Vladimir, that's 20% of all of these projects do we have anybody from Zoom? >> Alec? >> Can you hear me? >> Please unmute yourself and ask your question. >> Yes, certainly . I was curious whether the accelerator frontier has any plan s to call out taking advantage of the recent availability of large quantities of high temperature super -conducting tape on the commercial market in the magnet development program? Or is that part of one of those US magnet programs already? >> Well , that's a -- that's a tough question to answer. In fact, I mean, it's help
ing. The amount of money that's been dumped into H TS by the fusion community has been helpful and started to bring the cost down a bit. But it's still prohibitively expensive. And it's really hamstringing the R&D program in magnets. On the other hand, I think
that Rebco in particular has a lot of potential. We need to learn how to build magnets out of it for accelerator s. But I think in the long er term, that's a very available option. And we could operate at higher temperature, which could be a cost save ings, energy savings thing as well. So, there's a lot of possibilities there. We just need to keep at it. >> Okay.
>> Great. So, I just had a quick question. I do know a number of young experimentalists who from like the LHC experiments who are interested in participating in accelerator R&D. And I even know at least one person who submitted a proposal. Is there any way that -- yeah. That people from
experiment can participate in any of this? We're very good at machine learning, for instance. >> I mean, the short answer is absolutely . But there -- finding paths to get engaged is important. And so, one of the things that , you know, the IMCC has been put together. So, that's one path in. If we create something like that in the US, that will be a path for people to come in . We have a -- a group -- there's the advanced accelerator concepts group. And again,
they would I think welcome people joining. That's a -- it would be good for them to reach out and communicate and across. They haven't been focused that much on collider design. Having that
impetus would be great. There will be collaborations and, you know, integrated design -- collider design effort is put together, there will be a path through that. And that will also have a collaborative coordination-type effort in it. And there will be p
2022-07-31