390 likes | 480 Views
http://www-hep.fzu.cz/~chyla/SGOrsay.ppt. Strategy Group Remit
E N D
Strategy Group Remit At a meeting in Zeuthen-Berlin from 2-5/6 May 2006, the Strategy Group shall produce a Draft Strategy Document (DSD) addressing the main lines of Particle Physics in Europe, accelerator-based and non-accelerator based, including R&D for novel accelerator and detector technologies. The DSD shall comprise a series of ordered and concise statements, of 1-2 pages, followed by presentations and discussions not exceeding 25 pages. In the DSD, the SG shall aim: to enhance the visibility of existing European particle physics programmes; to foster increased collaboration among Europe's particle physics laboratories; to promote a coordinated European participation in world-wide projects; to reiterate theCERN Council’s 2004 positionon the European strategy for the International Linear Collider; to encourage knowledge transfer to other disciplines, industries, and society; to outline priorities, at least implicitly; to consider time scales; to follow a thematic or project approach, whichever is more appropriate. The SG shall submit the DSD to the CERN Council for discussion and unanimous approval at a special meeting in July 2006.
The CERN Council’s 2004 position on the European strategy for the ILC The Council: Confirms that the first priority for the world particle physics community is to complete the LHC and its detectors in order to unveil, as soon as possible, the physics at the new energy frontier; Encourages the effort towards the design and development of a linear collider as a unique scientific opportunity at the precision frontier, complementary to the LHC; Confirms its endorsement of accelerated R&D activities for CLIC; Recognises the overall value for the world particle physics community of a decision to construct a TeV linear collider, and encourages the efforts of the leading players in that direction; Takes the view that, in the course of this process, it will be appropriate to take stock of the LHC and accelerator R&D results and produce a new assessment of the physics and the technology by 2010; Is of the opinion that, in the initial phase (2004-2007), the organisational structure of the global design initiative, in particular the Central Design Team, should be light.
LHC luminosity upgrade Progressive start of an intensive development programme,both for the LHC accelerator and its detectors should be carried out with thehighest priority as soon as the LHC construction is completed. The aim should be toproduce physics at a luminosity substantially above 1034/cm2/sfrom about 2014on. LHC energy upgrade An energy upgrade to LHCis not at this moment an item ofhigh priority. However, CERN should be prudent and encourage, and should maintainan interest in, R&D concerned with high-field magnets in other laboratories. CLIC CLICshould be regarded as CERN’s highest priority after the LHC.Knowing whether or notCLIC is feasiblein the medium term would be a very important planning element in makingsensible decisions by the end of this decade. The SPC urges action by CERN and thecollaborating institutions to ensure the availability of the resources to provewithout delay the feasibility of CLIC. LC In line with previous recommendation of the SPC in March 2003,CERN should be prepared to participate in any of the present LC projects, especially if some member states wish that participation in the LC to be channelled through CERN. Suchparticipation should leave open the option of constructing a multi-TeV LC at CERN.
In the immediate future: • the allocation of all necessary resources to fully exploit the unique and pioneering LHCfacility; • 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 ofyoung physicists; • the realisation, in as timely a fashion as possible, of a world-wide collaboration to constructa high-luminosity e+e- linear collider with an energy range up to at least 400 GeV as the nextaccelerator project in particle physics; decisions concerning the chosen technology and theconstruction site for such a machine should be made soon; • an improved educational programme in the field of accelerator physics and increased supportfor accelerator R&D activities. For the long-term: • a collaborative R&D effortto determine the feasibility and practical design of aneutrino factory based on a high-intensity muon storage ring; • a co-ordinated world-wide R&D effort to assess the feasibility and estimate the cost of a 3-5TeV e+e– linear collider (CLIC), a very large hadron collider (VLHC) and a muon collider; inparticular, R&D for CLIC is well advanced and should be vigorously pursued.
THE HIGH ENERGY FRONTIER I R.-D. Heuer, DESY Orsay, 01/02/2006
(Some) Questions for Discussion from Klaus Desch’s talk 1. What is the physics case for upgrades or new machines if LHC provides a null result? 2. Clear statements (ECFA, ACFA, HEPAP, ICFA, GSF,…) in 2001-2004 that a Linear Collider of up to at least 500 GeV, upgradeable to 1 TeV, should be the next major project and requires timely realization. Has the physics case changed since then? 3. Is there a clear physics case for multi-TeV lepton colliders now? At which energy? 4. What is the physics case for SLHC/DLHC? Which priority? 5. Muon Collider: any physics reason to discuss it (already) now?
4. What is the physics case for SLHC/DLHC? Which priority? • LHC luminosity upgrade (SLHC) increases discovery reach by 20-30%, better precision for statistically limited processes. • Energy upgrade (DLHC) has larger discovery reach. • SLHC: natural extension of the LHC but physics case (at present) debated • DLHC: requires physics justification from future data SLHC: need to prepare with accelerator and detector R&D DLHC: magnet R&D required
3. Is there a clear physics case for a multi-TeV lepton collider now? At which energy? Our current knowledge does not indicate a clear case for multi-TeV collisions need input from the LHC (and ILC) to set the scale need for continued accelerator R&D (CLIC)
Unanimous view: physics case has not changed since 2001 • Physics case for 400 (500) GeV is solid (see • ECFA statement) • Technology is at hand we are ready to go for it (GDE timescale) 2. Consensus statements in 2001-2004 that a Linear Collider of up to at least 500 GeV, upgradeable to 1 TeV, should be the next major project and requires timely realization. Has the physics case changed since then?
In how far should the decision about ILC construction be connected to LHC results? The bulk of the discussion was directed to this question with differing opinions YES: discussion of scenarios with limited ILC sensitivity NO: Clearly outspoken (not only from the young generation): coupling the ILC to LHC results leads to many drawbacks • Time line is not well defined (moving target) • Can lead to discouragement and tensions (what precisely should one demand to see in the LHC data?)