Where do we go from here?

1. What are the prospects? Where we are. The next steps Brian Foster Bristol University/DESY ECFA LC Study, Amsterdam 4th April, 2003 Where do we go from here? Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

2. The publication of the TESLA TDR precipitated the start of the “modern era” in LC. Where we are Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

3. JLC TDR was presented in large symposium in KEK on 12th February, attended by ~400 people with strong delegations from South Korea, India and China. Large number of talks; including from me and M. Tigner on view from Europe and US. Approximately 2 years later, we now have a second design on the table – the “JLC” – which is shortly to be renamed to emphasise its international character. The JLC TDR Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

4. KEK have established a strong industrial “club” with 49 members. This will grow and they intend this year to contact other industries in Asia & Oceania to broaden the industrial base further. The coordinator of the club said that “Japanese industry expects that the JLC project will start soon.” The preliminary cost estimate for 500 GeV machine is 495 B¥ (~3.8 B€) c.f. the TESLA cost estimated on the same basis of ~ 3.5 B€). They have identified many possible suitable sites. Selection process will take some time – at least 3 years to get approval. Expect final engineering design by 2007 and first lumi by 2012 if decisions could be made on this timescale. The JLC TDR Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

5. International. Comm. For Future Accelerators ICFA Some of this activity has already been covered by A. Wagner and D. Miller. Techn . Rev. International LC Committee Steer. Comm. European Comm. Asian Comm. US HEP Almost all of ECFA’s current activity is dominated by the LC. ILCSC for Future Acceler . for Fut. Acc. Adv. Panel European LC Asian LC US LC Steering Comm. Steering Comm. Steering Comm. Accelerator Physics& Sub Group on Organ. Outreach Sub panel Detectors & Manag . ECFA/ELCSG activity Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

6. The subcommittee on Organisation under George Kalmus and the Accelerator group under Reinhard Brinkmann are well established and working. GK will report preliminary conclusions to ELCSG/ECFA early in July. ELCSG has met seven times since it was formed just over a year ago; latest meeting here yesterday. Similar exercises are going on in the other regions. ACFA’s report already available and prefers a “CERN-like” solution. US version should report on same time-scale as ours. Members are BF (Chair), L. Maiani, A. Wagner, D. Miller, S. Bertolucci, F. Richard. ECFA/ELCSG activity Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

7. George Kalmus (Chair) (RAL) Peter von Handel (Secretary) (DESY) Umberto Dosselli (INFN) Lorenzo Foa (Pisa) Guy Wormser (IN2P3) Joel Feltesse (Saclay) Helmut Krech (ESRF) Ian Corbett (ESO) Chris Llewellyn Smith (Oxford) Eva Groniger Voss (CERN) Jos Engelen (NIKHEF) Kurt Hubner (CERN) Norman McCubbin (RAL) Torsten Akesson (CERN) Organisation subcomittee membership ECFA/ELCSG activity Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

8. I would welcome your suggestions as to “wise people”- approximately 3 from each region – who should form the group who will recommend the technology. b.foster@bris.ac.uk You, of course, or at least your organising committee, are our physics subcommittee, and the discussion on the “scope” of the LC project was most useful and will be the basis for the “European” position that R. Heuer and F. Richard will take into the ILCSC “gang of six” discussion that will begin shortly. ECFA/ELCSG activity Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

9. There is a clear need to broaden these discussions both within Europe and internationally. The lead-up to the German government decision as reported by A. Wagner on Tuesday showed that at least in some governments, the LC is rising to the top of the agenda. There have certainly been detailed discussions within and between the UK and German governments at ministerial level. There are also reported to have been informal discussions of LC issues at G8 science ministers’ meeting. The situation with thefunding authorities Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

10. I. Halliday, CE of PPARC in UK, was approached by R. Orbach (DoE) and the NSF, with the question “Who speaks for Europe on LC issues.” In an attempt to answer this, he proposed a meeting of the funding authorities for a subset of the European countries. This was originally scheduled to be held in London on 10th March, but was moved to DESY since J. Marburger, the President’s Science Advisor, would be at DESY that day. Representatives from UK, Germany, Italy, France and Spain turned up and expressed a very wide range of opinions, and revealed a very wide range of possible resources available in the various countries. There was also a wide divergence of views on the role of CERN. The situation with thefunding authorities Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

11. In general, the smaller countries are keen that any LC funding should be channelled through CERN. Some of the larger countries share this view; others, notably Germany and UK, prefer to have more direct control of negotiations with other partners. However, all agree that both CERN, and CERN Council, have important roles to play in the LC enterprise. The parties present agreed that the meeting had been very useful to understand the situation in the various countries in an informal atmosphere. They agreed on a joint line to present to Marburger. There was agreement that some subset, preferably including a CERN representative, would meet with US and Japanese reps., if the latter could be organised, sometime in May/June of this year to do a similar job of a frank exploration of the situation in the regions. . The situation with the funding authorities Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

12. He strongly welcomed the “Halliday” group and encouraged a meeting in the next 2-3 months between the European, Asian and US representatives of the funding authorities. After the “Halliday” meeting, the participants met the President’s science advisor for a wide-ranging discussion. The hope is that the 2005 US budget will contain funding for a LC, together with a roadmap for US involvement in such an international project. Dr Marburger was clear that the LC was an important one and one in which the US wished to play an important role. 2005 is too early for a US decision on LC construction; 2007 is “not unrealistic”. The situation with the funding authorities Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

13. Several of the countries represented, including Germany, France, US, Spain made statements on the situation wrt LCs in their countries. First meeting of the reconstituted GSF CG2 meeting took place in Paris on Thursday under chairmanship of R. Wade (PPARC,UK). Well attended, with member-state reps. and variety of observers, including EU and China. It was mainly exploratory meeting, taking stock of progress since last meeting of GSF CG1 last year. There were summaries of the regional LCSGs and ILCSG. I reported on the ELCSG and ECFA developments. There was a detailed report from ACFA on the JLC launch. Everyone is happy with the current “ICFA process” to make technology decisions and to make progress with the LC. OECD GSF CG2 meetingParis 27/3/03 Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

14. I. Halliday proposed that CG2 recognise his group as a subset of CG2. Although Japan is very wary of this process, they didn’t rule out participating in the Halliday process. US wasn’t ready to discuss money, but would be interested in informal discussions and knowing other people’s timetables. The European countries wanted CERN represented. Some wanted CERN to represent them; others didn’t. In the end I think that it was agreed that the “Halliday group” will proceed as an ad hoc subgroup of CG2 which would report back to it on the exploratory discussions of the “Phase 0” meeting in June. OECD GSF CG2 meetingParis 27/3/03 Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

15. We have to decide what, in general terms, we wish to submit to ministerial by June. Detailed language can be polished between then and November for approved by OECD and discussion at ministries. The main business of the meeting was involved with the Ministerial Meeting of the GSF at OECD, which will take place at the end of January, 2004. We were reminded that the Ministers rarely made recommendations, but a previous one ~ “ to investigate mechanisms to set up biodiversity programme” had turned out to be very important as a spur when the detailed negotiations got tricky. We could benefit from a similar declaration. OECD GSF CG2 meetingParis 27/3/03 Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

16. It was decided to try to draft something asking for some sort of action; there was a wide range of views over what could be asked. Three points, of increasing risk, were outlined: 1) note the world consensus on LC as the next step for pp; 2)welcome that physicists had process to arrive at single technology project; 3) encourage discussion among world funding authorities to realise project. Last point is thought to be highly optimistic! There is a straight choice between giving Ministers only information or asking for some sort of action. The risk of the former us that they are in any case drowned in paper and will not notice the LC; the risk of the latter is that they WILL notice the LC. OECD GSF CG2 meetingParis 27/3/03 Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

17. The problem is of course that the success of the LHC is vital to us all and nothing must be allowed to interrupt CERN’s concentration on that. Also, all of CERN’s resources are devoted to the LHC until 2010, so that any CERN role in a LC must either come after then or would require extra resources. Therewas a substantive discussion on CERN’s role in the LC at both Scientific Policy Committee and Committee of Council 10 days ago. The CERN management had produced a very good document outlining the issues. A wide diversity of views was expressed, ranging over the same width as I discussed wrt the Halliday committee. Everyone agreed that CERN must play an important role. CERN involvement in LC Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

18. ? There was a complicated discussion, knowledge of the exact outcome of which will have to await the appearance of the minutes. It was agreed that nothing must hinder completion of the LHC or the possibility of its upgrade. The above wording was somewhat modified. It was agreed that DG and Council President would attend “Halliday group” meeting. The document before CC proposed: CERN Council, given its mission, composition and authority, should play a major role in the definition of the European participation in a LC; Given appropriate resources, CERN is prepared to participate in any of the present LC projects; CERN urges Council to ensure that the participation leaves open the option of a next step in the High Energy frontier, CERN involvement in LC namely a MultiTeV LC (CLIC) to be constructed at CERN after LHC Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

19. ESGARD Reminder of the Goals, the Events and their Chronology Long term Objectives The ESGARD should develop a proposalto optimise and enhance the outcome of the Researchand Technical Development in the field of accelerator physics in Europeby q       promoting mutual coordination and facilitating the pooling of European resources q       promoting a coherent and coordinated utilization and development of infrastructures q       promoting inter-disciplinary collaboration including industry • Take benefit of FP6 and • Submit a set of bids for EU funding in 2003 • One Integrating Activities bid (April 15th) • One or more Design Study bids (October 15th ) • 2004 … Short term Objectives Nomination of the members of ESGARD by Lab. Directors and ECFA • completed by October 24 R. Aleksan (Chair, Saclay-CEA), A. Antonelli (LNF), G. Guignard (CERN, secretary), H. Haseroth (CERN), P. Norton (RAL), F. Richard (IN2P3/Orsay), D. Trines (DESY), A. Wrulich (PSI) Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

20. ESGARD- Joint Res. Activities Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

21. Participation from Belgium,Finland,France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK (+ Japan, New Zeeland and US) • All together about 116 institutes (23 contractors + 93 associated entities) • Most PP labs (CCLRC(RAL+Daresbury), CEA/Saclay, CERN, DESY, IN2P3/Orsay, LNF, PSI) • Several NP labs (GSI, IPN-Orsay, Juelich, Legnaro) • A few Synchrotron Radiation Labs (DESY, Elettra, Rossendorf) • large number of universities • Several (11) industrial partners (Accel, Zanon, WSK, Alsthom, Vac, MSI…) ESGARD- CARE • Participants • Coordination CEA/DSM/DAPNIA is in charge of the scientific and administrative coordination • Cost Overall anticipated cost request ~30 MEuros • Design Studies Next step is submission of design proposals with deadline October. ELCSG decided at its meeting yesterday to encourage submission of LoI by end of this month for a European LC Design group to form part of the Pre-GLCC. Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

22. We have a very different, much more inhomogeneous problem in outreach than say the US. The ELCSG therefore decided that our approach must be based on nation states – which by definition implies one representative per country on the central steering group and therefore a large, unwieldy committee. One of the subgroups of the ELCSG has not yet been formed – that on outreach. We spent some months trying to find the right chair to deal with this vital but difficult problem. Yesterday, the ELCSG decided instead to install a “triumvirate” to steer the activity. Suggestions for names are very welcome: we have some ideas. Outreach Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

23. Not all the people nominated need to be experts in outreach – we need a mix of outreach experts along with enthusiasts and experts on LC physics who are committed to explaining this in simple terms. Your RECFA representatives (for Russia & Israel there are observers who will perform this function) will be asked to nominate one person per country to join the steering committee – please contact them with suggestions for names. If you don’t know who your RECFA rep. is, look at http://committees.web.cern.ch/Committees/ECFA/Welcome.html ELCSG place high priority on this activity; although, as we have seen, we have already made an impact in political circles in Europe, there is still an enormous amount to do . Outreach Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

24. The group will only be able to succeed if you all take part. In particular, I have been very concerned recently in discussions with several senior physicists influential with the political process to hear arguments for delay in the LC which I thought we had laid to rest several years ago – including that hoary old chestnut “Lets wait and see what the results from LHC are”. ELCSG decided to ask the group, as soon as it is functional, to concentrate on producing a strategy for: 1) politicians, with a deadline for completion of the end of the year; 2) other scientists; 3) the general public. Outreach Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

25. We all need to redouble our efforts, including talks in our home institutions, to make the physics case for a prompt LC construction, overlapping operation and complementarity with LHC. This has to be our 0th-level priority in outreach. We have a great story to tell – we must make sure that everyone hears it. It really is essential that our own community speaks with a united voice on the necessity for an early LC, or if they don’t feel they wish to do that, at least not to use discredited physics arguments to argue against it. Outreach Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

26. Here is a little sequence I used last week at DPG – thanks to Matthew Wing! Outreach Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

27. The failure of the German government to propose a German site was a disappointment. But given the economic situation in Germany, it is miraculous that they were willing to approve the XFEL. Germany has led the way by being the first government to commit itself publicly to joining an international LC project. The process of XFEL approval has brought the LC squarely into view of governments and funding authorities. This is a massive boost for TESLA technology; the realisation of the XFEL and the industrialisation necessary to build this major project will demonstrate many of the major components of the LC in a realistic situation with full industrial costs. Prospects & next steps Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

28. The unprecedented situation of a world-wide consensus on the LC as the next step, the great effort being put in by ILCSC and the regional steering groups and the progress being made in the design of the accelerator and detector in meetings like this has not gone unnoticed by governments. I have been very impressed this week in listening to some of your reports and in recognising the progress made towards realising the LC detector(s) and in the understanding of the physics case. This understanding and this progress has to continue to be made known to the world outside the ECFA-DESY study. Prospects & next steps Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam

29. The next year will be crucial – we will produce reports on the view from the physicists on the best way to organise an international LC lab; we hope for the first time to obtain major EU funding for pp projects; we are setting up the apparatus to select and concentrate on a single technology and found a central design team; governments are discussing the LC project, mostly in a positive atmosphere. The new ECFA study is the bedrock on which these advances need to be built. In the next two years, we will make major steps on the way to the realisation of the international LC project that is so vital to the future of our field. Prospects & next steps Brian Foster - ECFA LC Study Amsterdam