Superconductivity and the quest for Roy Aleksan the fundamental laws of Universe CEA
Introduction The world of PP • PP challenges: A matter of broken symmetries • The Frontiers of PP • Next Accelerator Technology Challenges for PP • Conclusion Nobels
J. Bardeen L. N. Cooper J. R. Schrieffer for Nobels
S. L. Glashow A. Salam S. Weinberg D. Gross D. Politzer F. Wilczek
And many others … S. Van C. Rubbia Y. Nambu M. Kobayashi T. Maskawa der Meer Universe Story in a slide Cosmos is • Stars are born, live and die • … and life appears Our Univers is on its way • Atoms form • Transparent Universe (our horizon 380 000 year) Nucléosynthèse • Nuclei form Neutrinos escape from dense universe (1 mn) Baryogénese (some 10s) • Protons and neutrons are formed u 10-13 m u d Symmetries break (
10-35 m E F « Symmetric Universe » What is at stake? Understanding what happened in the very early Universe (<10-9s)
In particular, • Knowing the fundamental/primordial constituent of the Universe • Understanding their properties (type, mass, quantum properties) • Understanding the forces and mechanisms governing the interactions • Understanding the origin of the masses • Understanding the origin and the mechanism leading to matter/antimatter asymmetry
Building a general predictive theory describing and unifying all the above BEH mechanism at the origin of Hard to understand such a large gap symmetry breaking, mass of bosons New interactions and particles expected, Z,W and fermions, and CP Violation such as Supersymetry linking fermions and bosons
~100 GeV ~1015 GeV ~1019 GeV
Standard Model E F
Lepton (Neutrino) 1.00E+12 # 1.00E+11 ! 1.00E+10 ν γ e νμ ντ 1.00E+09 1.00E+08 e μ τ Z0 , W+ ,W− Higgs Mechanism does it all … 1.00E+07 at first look: • 1.00E+06 Brakes interaction symmetry Mass (eV) u c t SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) • Generates masses 1.00E+05 • Enables particle/antiparticle Everyday’s world 1.00E+04 symmetry breaking d s b But 1.00E+03 • Only Electroweak symmetry 1.00E+02 ! " SU(2)xU(1) is broken 1.00E+01 ! ! • Does not explain the >15 order of magnitude of masses 1.00E+00 01234 • Enabled particle/antiparticle 1.00E-01 asymmetry not enough to 1.00E-02 explain absence of antimatter
1.00E-03 … and does not say anything SU(3)xU(1) about 95% of Universe Main tools: Sources of particles The Universe But in most cases, need to build our own tools: Accelerators The LHC at CERN (Geneva) Proton Most powerful example Photon Neutrino (muon) WIMPS? … 27 km up to 1020 eV
…also in some particular cases pp
14 x 1012 eV
Proton, electron, muon, neutrino Neutrino, neutron … up to few 106 eV … but also neutron, pion, kaon Indeed, most ofthefundamental Indeed, L E Today max max Both energy andintensity frontiers μ μ μ μ =2x10 =8 TeV @LHC(pp collider) 34 discovered thanks to accelerators discovered thanks cm
-2 s -1 @ KEKB (eecollider) ν
e ν μ in d u s past 50 Years
c τ τ τ τ b particles (14/18) havebeen W W Z Accelerator era 0 − − + + − − + + Superconductivity era had to bechallenged had
¨Ɣ¼ t
ν τ È»Ì ¯Ɣ̍úü Ɣ ¯ Ä
¸ Éʚ¹Ã ª ̊
ª Î ü ͦ ̋ ? ʛ Ï Indeed, most of the fundamental particles (14/18) have been discovered thanks to accelerators Both energy and intensity frontiers had to be challenged in past 50 Years e+ e- colliders p+p+, p+p-, e p+ Colliders 1.00E+35 LHC-14TeV 1.00E+34 KEKB B LHC-8 TeV 1.00E+34 PEP II SC Era LHC-7 TeV
1.00E+33 CESR 1.00E+33 BEPC II DAFNE ) ) -1 -1
s Tevatron s
-2 VEPP 2000 LEP II 1.00E+32 --2 CESR-C PEP DORIS TRISTAN RHIC VEPP IV LEP I 1.00E+32 BEPC PETRA HERA 1.00E+31 SPEAR II
SLC >3 orders of magnitude in Luminosity (cm Luminosity Luminosity (cm Luminosity 1.00E+30 Energy and Luminosity SPEAR 1.00E+31
ADONE SPPS ISR 1.00E+29 DCI >2(5) orders of magnitude 1.00E+30 1.00E+28 in Energy(Luminosity) 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 Energy (GeV) Energy (GeV) In past 50 years, >2(3) orders of magnitude in Energy in e(p) colliders and >5 (3) orders of magnitude in Luminosity for e (p) colliders
Energy Frontier vs Time Intensity Frontier vs year 100000 1.00E+35
e+e- SC Era KEK B LHC-14 TeV pp,ep LHC-14 TeV 1.00E+34 PEP II LHC-8 TeV 10000 LHC-8 TeV LHC-7 TeV LHC-7 TeV CESR 1.00E+33 BEPC-II ) DAFNE Tevatron Tevatron -1 s RHIC 1000 -1 LEP II 1.00E+32 SPPS HERA CESR-CVEPP 2000 RHIC PEP TRISTAN HERA DORIS PETRA LEP LEP II VEPP IV 1.00E+31 SLC SPEAR II BEPC Energy (GeV) Energy SPPS 100 LEP I TRISTAN ISR SLC ISR PETRA (cm Luminosity PEP 1.00E+30 SPEAR CESR VEPP IV 10 DORIS KEK B ADONE SPEAR II PEP II 1.00E+29 DCI BEPC BEPC-II SPEAR CESR-C ADONE DCI VEPP 2000 1.00E+28 1 DAFNE 1964 1974 1984 1994 2004 2014 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 Start Date Year Why is SC needed in accelerators & detectors? ̍ ÉÈ
PS 19MHz cavity Make B small! Possibly 0 or use large m particles PSρ 19MHz cavity First PS dipole (m)
Make B as large as possible ̋
CELLO detector How is SC used in HEP so far? Two main areas: Magnets and RF cavities LHC Cavity cryomodule
XFEL Cavity LHC dipole
ATLAS Toroid ESS type elliptical & spoke Cavities Most of the fundamental particles have been discovered thanks to accelerators Magnetic Field SC (NbTi) 9 LHC 7 TeV Era 8 x2 in ~20 years 7 6 HERA LHC-4 TeV 0,92 TeV 5 SC Cavity Gradient vs year 4 SPPS Tevatron RHIC LHC-3.5 TEV 3 0,45 TeV 0,98 TeV 0,25 TeV 35.0 2 FLASH 1 30.0 Magnetic Field Magnetic (T) 6,9 km 6,3 km 6,3 km 3,8 km 27 km (60) 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 25.0 Year 20.0 15.0 SNS LEP200 (81) (280) 10.0 TRISTAN Detector SC-Magnet Stored Energy Gradient (MV/m) (32) HERA (16) LHC 10000 5.0 (16)
CMS 0.0 1000 ~4 T 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 ATLAS-Tor. YEAR of commissionning ALEPH 100 H1 DELPHI BELLE CDF ATLAS-Sol. TOPAZ BABAR 10 TPC CELLO
Stored Energy Energy (MJ) Stored PLUTO ISR 1-2 T 1 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year Main Advantages/Disadvantages of Superconducting Magnets
Z SC allows to reach much higher fields essentially with no dissipation Z => Smaller accelerator rings and “low power” consumption Z LHC: 40MW for 1200 dipoles “conventional LHC”: ~4GW and 6000 dipoles (120 km)
X Huge cryogenic system X Cost Main Advantages/Disadvantages of Superconducting Cavities
Z SC cavity reduces the wall dissipation by many orders of magnitude over copper cavity
Z => Affordable higher CW/long £ ̉ Ɣ pulse gradients => robust ®¯ operation Z Larger aperture cavity geometry for better beam quality
X Gradient limitation (Nb) X Cost July 4th: the Day H came to Geneva ä Ŵíí ¯Ɣ̉Q̋ Verify further the consistency of the Standard Model
∝ ∝ Mt² ln(MH)
MW= 80.385 ± 0.015 GeV
Mt= 173.5 ± 1.0 GeV
Need to improve
• Mw and Mt • MH Study of the Higgs properties, its couplings and the potential ̋ ϡ ϡ ̋ Interaction strength varies with ²¤¿½½É ƔƎö Ĉ ĈƍõĈ Ĉ energy scale, depends on quantum numbers and particle field self coupling ĈÃ¿Ä ƔÌƔ̉ species H potential Strong coupling
H H ∝∝λλ H ö̋ H Ĉ ƔÌƔ »ͯ¿î Ã¿Ä ̋õ H
∝∝λλ1/2M H H λ runs too H
ÿ Ɣ ̋̍̏£»² Consistency Check Vaccuum instability ̋ ©¤ Ɣ ̋õÌ Study further the Higgs properties and couplings ̋ ϡ ϡ ̋ ²¤¿½½É ƔƎö Ĉ ĈƍõĈ Ĉ ƍ 迵¿ÀĂ®ÀĈƍ¾T¹T
ÿÀ ȸµ¿ÀÌ ∝ H coupling to fermions mf²
H ∝ Yν f f Do we have the technology to Study Higgs properties 1. Upgrade LHC luminosity (by factor ~10) • Improve current and focussing 2. Build a dedicated « Higgs factory » • e+e- linear or circular collider Upgrading LHC luminosity early 2020’s Z Increase beam current protect SC dipole (diffracted protons) Z Reduce beam size at IP Stronger focussing quads near IP 8T-15m 11T-11m dipoles "$ $$Ii"T 8yyv $$Ii"T Ar vyhi8@SI8yyhi hv 9rvtyri r U! Ur)r tq #U Irqryiirtvvts ! "
Change Quadrupole Triplets 200T/m, 70mm (~8T, <6m>) 140T/m, 150mm (13T, 8m) Uh trh hrr s CGGC8
``1H1VJH7 1 RV`1JVR : .V `: 1Q GV 1VVJ .V :JJ%:C C%I1JQ 1 7 :`$V Q` `GR Q0V` .V ]Q VJ 1:C C%I1JQ 1 7 .: H:J GV `V:H.VR 11 . :J 1RV:C H7HCV `%J 1IV 11 . JQ
Q] `Q` R:7 7 `%JY CV0U RVHU %`J8 ".V %`J:`Q%JR 1IV :` V` : GV:I R%I] 1 :@VJ :
.Q%` 5 RVH:7 1 . 1.1CV CV0 RV]VJR QJ .V Q :C GV:I H%``VJ ihryvr LQS-4m LARP (US LHC program) Magnets
Test:~220T/m
~11T BGThiivG7IG HQ Test:~200T/m
13T HTS links Protection of Electrical Distribution Feedbox’s (DFBX) In the tunnel, feed power from room temperature power converters to the « cold world » of LHC. Actual LHC use short Nb-Ti links. 4.5 K 1.9 K D1 DFBX Q3,Q2,Q1
IP5
∼3m Need to be protected against radiation and provide easier access Move DFBX on surface To be decided 2×100 kA
~500m HTS links
&`1 1H:C "VI]V`: %`V GR 1 GJ $ R 1R &QJR%H Q`
Note: LHC uses 1400 Bi-2223 current leads On going HTS link test at CERN
2m long MgB2 cables tested at 2x4500A
HTS cabling
Possible cable configuration for high current : 7 × 14 kA, 7 × 3 kA and 8 × 0.6 kA cables Itot∼120 kA @ 30 K = 62 mm Nexan Cryoflex® line (20 m long semi-flexible cryostat of link) procured and installed in the CERN SM-18 laboratory 20 kA – 4 to 80 K test
MgB2, YBCO… tests 67hyyh v8@SI starting end 2012 « Crab » Crossing Improving further the luminosity by better overlap of the 2 beams SC RF «Crab» Cavity, for p- beam rotation at fs level! Technology pioneered successfully on KEKB, Japan • Effort at SLAC-ODO and in BNL, USA • Effort in Daresbury (Cockcroft Institute and STCF) with CERN. Also help to adjust the luminosity to ease experiments’ life (Luminosity levelling) $b )) % ! &'(& ) &* % Progress in SC « Crab » Cavities
VF 8pxp s VT6P9V Several types of prototypes being designed and made…
… as well as cryomodule
L. Xiao et al.
~250 mm outer radius Y. Yakovlev et al. VUVR HQCC1RV` HHCV:J ()**+ ,-&"./)+I
*V )1& *V
11JV:` *V U 3C7 `QJ G: VR &QCC1RV` &1)& *V
] *V VU VR 16 : 1(& %JJVC
&1`H%C:` &/5 716 T 5V1 %JJVC5 @I &QCC1RV` "16 T 5V1 %JJVC5 @I
*VT 5 @I %JJVC +%]V` "/)+"-5 ILC Gradient: Primary Cost Driver Linac and Civil: ~75% cost • Well extablished SC RF technology (FLASH, XFEL…) • Cavities (1.3 GHz, 31.5 MV/m) • Phase I(II) at 0.25(0.5) TeV CM (Maximum energy 1 TeV) • GDE (Global Design Effort) - International collaboration • Feasibility almost demonstrated (TDR being prepared) • Challenge: deploy and industrialize technology in each region • Prepare for project approval process in each region R & D objectives: 1) SC High Gradient 2) Transfer technology 12/09/12 Krakow – ESG C.Biscari - "High3) Energy Industrialization ILC Gradient Range Yield Gain 1. Upgrade LHC luminosity ~30km • Improve current and focussing 2. Build a dedicated « Higgs factory » • e+e- linear or circular collider +~15%
500GeV @r t8HBrW !$ $ Gvv "#p! &$ ' 7rh vrσ σ &"' #&% 8hvB hqvrHW " $ Qyrq hv &$ &$ >(8ryyphvvr % 7rhr HX $! $ >8 qyr!F ' Uhy 68r HX !' %! >SAv HXFy $% ByihyT8SAUrpuyt
FNAL, ANL Cornell DESY KEK, Japan ❤❤JLAB LAL ❤ SLAC ❤ ❤ ❤ ❤ Saclay ❤INFN Milan
30 U8hqvqhrTvrv
Ehhrrhvyphv
T@AVSD TLEP Ring e+e- collider: Primary Cost Driver Tunnel: ~70% cost
Building on existing LEP/LHC technologies and experience (LEP, KEKB, PEPII…) 80 km tunnel Using SC cavities
@r t8HBrW ( !# "$ Gvv "#p! $ & Could cover a wide 8hvB hqvrHW ! ! ! range of energy up to >$pryy T8phvvr " % 350 Gev collision Uhy 68r HX energy. Particle – antiparticle Asymmetry
Any interaction able to differentiate a particle and its antiparticle? Essential to generate a Universe dominated by matter (over antimatter)!
Phenomenon initially observed in s quark decays in 1964 but underlying process was not experimentally understood
Observation of dissymmetric behavior in 2001 in b quark decays (BaBar, Belle) Electroweak interactions are responsible »T ½T̉ʚ¸ºʛ Ŵ §ͮʚÉËʛúͯʚ˺ʛ Ƙ ̉ʚ¸ºʛŴ§ͯʚÉËʛúͮʚ˺) Æ·ÈÊ¿¹Â» ƕ ·ÄÊ¿Æ·ÈÊ¿¹Â»
Explained through interference mechanisms because: Z Physical quarks are superpositions of flavor states +#4. e.g. ͡ Ɣ͗ͥ͡ ƍ͗ͦ͡. ƍ͗ͧ͡ Z All quark masses ƕ̉ Z ∃ at least 3 families of quarks !!! Unfortunately the particle/antiparticle asymmetry generated at the electroweak scale by the SM in quark sector is too small to explain matter/antimatter asymmetry in Universe
Good news is however that mechanisms exist in Nature May be different in lepton sector? Z Physical neutrinos are superpositions of flavor states (neutrino mixing observed with cosmics, reactors and accel.) Z ∃ at least 3 families of leptons !!! Z All lepton masses possibly ƕ̉ ν are their own Scenario 1 Scenario 2 antiparticle H H H à ǷµÌ ν Ì̋ ν ÷ à Ƿµ̋ ÷ ˙ ν ν New particles @ Not possible with charged fermions high energy scale Search for asymmetric behavior of neutrino vs antineutrino Search for heavy neutrinos (at high energy accelerators) From neutrino superBeams toward ν-factories Fast 5-10 GeV ν,μ þö Ɣ̋T̋öÉ
Multi- SC cavities Goal: >1021 μ/year stored Z Do we have technology for multiMW proton driver ? Indeed, see for example
~300K ~2 K Cavity type Gradient #cav.(cell) #cryomod. Spoke 8 MV/m 48(2) 16 Ellip. 1 ~14 MV/m 36(5) 9 Ellip. 2 ~21 MV/m 112(5) 14 More generally, we are going toward very high power proton accelerators useful to many applications SC cavities are vital
Courtesy of Mike Seidel, PSI Z Do we have technology for cooling the muons?
Ionization cooling Demonstrator being constructed
Z Cooling section consists of 100 cells 0.75m in length (total length 75m) Z 100 RF cavities (15MV/m) operating in high magnetic field Z 100 superconducting 0.15m coils (2.8T) MICE @RAL From ν-factories toward the “dream” of muon collider Some ultra- challenging components: Z Very high field solenoids (>30T) ĈƖ̎ÁÃ Z High gradient cavities in multi- Require much smaller beam size (i.e. low emittance) Tesla field Very efficient cooling Grand unification of Interactions (Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic)
Interaction strength varies with energy scale depending on quantum numbers and particle species
Strong
Weak Interaction strength
Electromagnetic
Energy (GeV) Grand unification of Interactions (Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic)
Additionnal particles (such as supersymmetric partners) with energy scales of TeVs affect the running of the coupling constants
̊
ë̊ ̊
ë̋
̊
ë̌
Need to explore higher energy regions (up to ~10 TeV) L. Rossi (CERN)
Either using existing Or build (or reuse) a LEP/LHC tunnel to reach 80km tunnel to reach 26-32 TeV collisions 80-100 TeV collisions
In both cases, SC challenge to develop 16-20 Tesla magnets! First consistent conceptual design
Using multiple SC material
80
Nb3Sn Nb3Sn Nb3Sn 60 low j high j high j L. Rossi 40 Nb3Sn Nb3Sn HTS high j Nb-Ti y (mm) low j <: V`1:C 58 %`J &Q1C ``:H 1QJ Q0V`:CC 6V:@ `1VCR ^-LII_ = 20 GR 1 Q Nb Sn Nb Sn HTS 3 3 Nb-Ti GJ^.1$.H_ Q low j high j GJ^Q1H_ Q 0 0 20406080100120 ! Q 8 x (mm) 20 T field!
Magnet design: 40 mm bore (depends on injection energy: > 1 Tev) Approximately 2.5 times more SC than LHC: 3000 tonnes! (~4000 long magnets) Multiple powering in the same magnet for FQ (and more sectioning for energy) Only a first attempt: cosϑ and other shapes will be also investigated Performance Summary (R1(& R1(& <:$JV 1H ,1VCR "V "V-
(1R1(&
1(& "V "V0: `QJ (/- 1(& /()& 5 "V 5 "V 5 "V 5 "V <:$JV 1H ,1VCR ^"_ +6+
5 @I 5 @I 5 @I 8 @I @I @I *- V:` Q` HQII1 1QJJ1J$ -0V`:$V &:01 7 *`:R1VJ 0 7V:` *CQG:C QC :$V 0 7V:` 8 )1& 8 )1& R,1 8 ,1-+( ^ _ ++ "16 "16 8 1(& +5+ R,1 ++ 8 +5+ 16 ^ _ 16 ,1-+( ^ _ 8 "/)+"-5 *`:R1VJ ^<LI_ (/- ^_ *CQG:C QC :$V ^<_ ^ _ 1(& "/)+"-5 8 ^ _ (/- 8
-/ Q` HQII1 1QJJ1J$ V:` Q` HQII1 1QJJ1J$ …toward new frontiers
JV`$7 ,`QJ 1V` 0 "1IV )J VJ 1 7 ,`QJ 1V` 0 7V:` +%]V` H 8U R1(& +%]V` 33H
(R1(& 1(&R "V 8U &1)&R)) (1R1(& (1R1(& R1(& 33 H 1(&R "V 1(&R "V)1& (R1(& 66 )) &1)& 1(&R "V 8U 16 &1)&R)) 1(&R "V "V0: `QJ 1(&R "V
_ 1(V& &+/ R 8U 1(V& H6&R))
+66+ R 7-,5 /()& )1& "V0: `QJ &1)& /()& (/- 16 )) V/()& 16 )) 16 8U (/- +1& VR/()& 66 &+/R&66 "/)+"-5
Energy (GeV) Energy 16 ) 7./)+ "/)+"-5 6"/-16 )+/ 6"/- 66 ) 8U H6& 66 +6-/ ))+66+ 1%I1JQ 1 7 ^HI )+/ +1& 7./)+&+/ 66 ) 33 H +%]V` H 8U +6-/ )) 66 )) +%]V` 33H +6-/ H6& H6&R)) +6-/ &+/R& -7.5 -7.5 7&) 66 8U 7&) 7-,5 8U Year of commissionning V:` Q` HQII1 1QJJ1J$ Conclusion Superconductivity has been instrumental for completing and verifying the Standard Model of Particle Physics in the past 40 years For example, the recent discovery of the « Higgs » would not have been possible with Superconductivity A new area opens now: SM is complete but does not explain very crucial issues, like dark matter and energy, matter/antimatter asymmetry in Universe, unification of interactions including Gravitation… Past century was marked by the development and consolidation of SM This century will be marked by development of the underlying theory up to the Plank scale To answer those questions in this century, superconductivity will play a major role, for example by developing and/or mastering new materials Z for very high field magnets Z for higher gradient in RF cavities Z … and other yet unsought applications We need You and in You, we thrust … but, please, do it fast G
Neutrino? Supersymetry? ? Axions? other?
Axion search with ADMX larger accelerators larger no crisis later no crisis ance of Science, SSC ance is not canceled and we build even to go to wall street: they would they would not to go to wall street: ng new ng discoveries that will
LEP is build to reach 250 GeV, 250 reach to 1992 is build in discovered is LEP the Higgs the import in US understand Democrats of Many my friends do not leave PP “junk” or like “subprimes” things crazy imagine we heavy neutrinos, understand what is dark SSC supersymmetry, discovers and energymatter in 1999 the becomes Gore Al campaign 2000’s in topic a major becomes Science 43rd US president Afghanistan in Iraq nor in no war more any need of oil no dark matter; of energy to use the a way find We the planet, Energy is not an issue for is Japan year, this VLHC (100TeV) the completed has almost Europe collider linear TeV a 3 building andfactory US a neutrino These machines will make outstandi on … on … and so and so society… our revolutionize Should we have the technology in 1980’s for SC high gradient gradient SC high for 1980’s in the technology have we Should the world!!! changed have we would cavities, Little delay … but large consequences!!! In any case…