Download The European Strategy for particle physics

SuperB project status
Guy Wormser
LAL Orsay
Computing meeting
Dec 16, 2008
Super B project status
•
•
•
•
The Italian process
The European process
The US process
Interferences with KEK roadmap?
The Italian process
– International Review Committee report to
R. Petronzio, INFN president
– MiniMAC
– INFN special project status
– INFN-Lazio region contacts
– Contacts from Italian government
The European process
• European strategy recognition process
– SuperB project presented to he CERN
Council in September 2008. recognition
possible in March 2009
– ECFA subgroup report in Nov 2008
Flavour
physics
The European Strategy for particle physics
ECFA report summary - 1
• We consider that flavour physics should be seen as an
important part of the European research programme of
elementary particle physics, complementary to physics
provided by the energy frontier experiments. For the coming
~5 years, LHCb will do this job in the b and c quark sectors.
To follow-up this progress, collecting 50 ab−1 or more at
Υ(4S) energy with e+e− storage rings by the end of the
next decade would be a significant milestone, if this can
be realised at a moderate cost.
• The INFN Super Flavour Factory project team proposes a
novel scheme to obtain luminosity of ≥1036 cm−2s−1, two
orders of magnitude more than what has been achieved up
to now, without increasing the beam currents. This is a
distinct advantagefor some of the machine operation aspects
and background to the experiment, as well as for the running
cost of the machine. This idea of obtaining a high luminosity
with tiny beam spots at the collision point based on very
small emittance beams and crab waist collisions could
revolutionize the design of the future colliders. Therefore,
westrongly support the R&D effort to see if such a
machine can really be built.
ECFA report summary –Part 2
•
•
•
The current tests at DAFNE are promising and we would like to
congratulate the team for this impressive achievement. However, a
substantial amount of work is still required for producing a
Technical Design Report, which will be a base for establishing an
international consortium for the realisation of the project. A strong core
team of experienced accelerator physicists and engineers based at
one location should be established already for the TDR work.
Without it, contributions from the various interested laboratories cannot
be effectively utilized. A strong team of experienced machine
physicists will be needed also for the operation. This machine has to
achieve its design luminosity in order to be truly competitive.
Given the complexity of the project, we feel that a clear plan containing
realistic technical milestones and resource requirements together
with a strategy how to obtain them is needed as a necessary
condition for an approval of the project.
Such a plan should aim at obtaining an integrated luminosity of
significantly more than 50 ab−1 by not much later than the end of
the next decade. Given the very ambitious time scale, a clear decision
taking process must be established soon.
The European Strategy procedures
•
3. Recognition and follow-up of projects by the European Strategy
Sessions of Council
• 3.1 Emerging projects in their "initial phase"
Given the strategic importance of emerging projects, the Strategy
Secretariat will need to interact with projects deemed to be relevant to
the European Strategy for Particle Physics right from their earliest
phase and submit their plans to the European Strategy Session of
Council to ensure that they receive the necessary priority and attention.
The basic procedure to monitor, to report on and ultimately to recognise
such emerging projects is as follows:
• The Strategy Secretariat will identify the planned projects that are
relevant for the implementation or further development of the European
Strategy for Particle Physics, and will inform Council about their status
and plans. The Strategy Secretariat will establish formal lines of
communication with the projects, as required, at an early stage, with
typically one or two persons reporting to the Secretariat. ECFA, in its
role of monitoring the ongoing implementation of the European Strategy
for Particle Physics in the CERN Member States, will naturally develop
a bottom-up view of the national involvement andinterest in such "initialphase" projects.
European strategy procedures (2)
•
•
•
If and when a project relevant to the European Strategy for Particle Physics
reaches maturity and a clear plan towards approval emerges, the Strategy
Secretariat will present this plan to the Council and ask the Council to take
note and comment, in particular on the foreseen European role in the project.
The Council should be informed about important considerations such as
technical feasibility, scientific objectives, resources, schedules and project
organisation, enabling it to comment on the project plan and to discuss
priorities between projects. The Strategy Secretariat will work with the projects
to promote implementation of the Council's comments and European
involvement in the period leading up to approval.1 During this period, the
project will be presented to the SPC, which will advise the Council as to
whether or not the project should be recognised, and the formal channels of
communication between the European partners and the Strategy Secretariat
will be defined.
Projects that successfully reach the end of this phase and are being approved
by their host organisations will be brought to the Council for recognition as
an ongoing project within the European Strategy for Particle Physics.
Once a project has been thus "recognised" it will be deemed to be in its
ongoing construction and operation phase and followed up according to the
procedure described in section 3.2, below.
.
In summary
• Three steps
Initial Presentation to Council( Done in
Sept 2008): Council takes note
SPC advises council : Council takes note
and comments: March 2009
Formal recognition once the project is
approved
The US process
• One offshore Super B factory project
official part of the US P5 report in
« scenario B »
Interactions with Japan
• KEKB upgrade part of KEK roadmap
• Nobel prize effect?
• Interference with SuperB project
negative or positive?
• The « one joint program , two phases »
model ?
TDR organisation
TDR scope and contents
• TDR scope definition
– By contents, eg « ready to build » documents
– By schedule, eg « needed in Nov 2010 » for
project approval
• 5 different documents
–
–
–
–
Physics, Machine, Site, Detector, Computing
Not necessarily issued at the same time
« Distance to build » not necessarily the same
My personal view: site document should be
« ready to build », Machine « half iteration away,
detector and computing one iteration away,
physics book post TDR
Next milestones
• Orsay collaboration meeting Feb 15-18
– Official launch of the TDR phase
– Open session on Feb 17
– Parallel sessions: focus on joint sessions
• Computing and site
• Computing and detector
• Computing and machine?
• Physics workshop in Warwick, April 15-18
• MiniMAC in April as well
Conclusion
• SuperB project approval is progressing
well on different fronts
• Key signal from Italian government
expected in 2009
• Official TDR launch in Februray 2009
in Orsay