Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 36 references

A gravity-aligned vertical e+e− linear collider in one deep shaft can break the cost-and-scale impasse of horizontal Higgs factories.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 21:42 UTC pith:FPQCGYUO

load-bearing objection A genuinely new collider geometry idea, honestly framed as concept-level, that still hangs on undemonstrated high-gradient performance. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24179 v1 pith:FPQCGYUO submitted 2026-07-27 physics.acc-ph hep-ex

Gravity-Aligned Vertical Electron-Positron Linear Collider

Tetsuo Abe This is my paper
classification physics.acc-ph hep-ex
keywords vertical linear colliderHiggs factoryelectron-positron colliderhigh-gradient accelerationcryogenic normal-conducting structurestwo-beam accelerationdeep shaft civil engineeringSuperKEKB reuse
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper proposes building a Higgs-factory electron-positron linear collider straight up and down a single roughly 3 km vertical shaft instead of in a multi-kilometer horizontal tunnel. Positrons are accelerated downward from the surface and electrons upward from the bottom so they collide at a deep underground interaction point. The concept needs high-gradient cryogenic normal-conducting accelerating structures and two-beam power delivery, and it is designed to reuse the existing SuperKEKB complex. The author argues that the vertical layout yields a tiny surface footprint, natural alignment to gravity, vibration isolation, gravity-assisted cryogenics, a cosmically quiet collision point, and a chance for on-site power self-sufficiency, while a 3 km shaft is within the reach of existing deep-mining practice at a favorable site. The paper is deliberately conceptual: it aims to spur the gradient technology, civil-engineering studies, and new Beyond-Standard-Model searches that would be needed to make the idea real.

Core claim

Orienting an electron-positron linear collider along the local gravitational field inside a single deep vertical shaft, with positrons driven downward and electrons upward to a deep interaction point, can deliver a staged 250–500 GeV Higgs factory while shrinking the surface footprint, reusing SuperKEKB infrastructure, and gaining mechanical, cryogenic, vibration, and cosmic-ray advantages that horizontal machines lack.

What carries the argument

The gravity-aligned vertical shaft geometry itself: one ~3 km shaft houses both main linacs, a deep interaction point, and drive-beam power extraction, converting accelerator length into depth and making the local plumb line the natural alignment reference.

Load-bearing premise

That average accelerating gradients well above 100 MV per meter, with shunt impedance near 1 gigaohm per meter, can be sustained efficiently in cryogenic dielectric-assist or 300 GHz structures that have not yet been demonstrated.

What would settle it

A sustained high-power test showing that cryogenic X-band dielectric-assist (or 300 GHz metallic) structures reach and hold gradients of order 300 MV/m at the required shunt impedance and efficiency without multipacting or breakdown failure, or a geotechnical study proving a 3 km shaft at the proposed site is impractical.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Higgs-factory physics at 250–500 GeV becomes possible inside a compact surface footprint rather than a tens-of-kilometers horizontal tunnel.
  • A deep, cosmically quiet interaction point opens cleaner searches for long-lived particles and displaced vertices.
  • Gravity-parallel beam and spin orientations create a concrete setting in which spin-gravity and Lorentz-violation couplings can be tested.
  • Existing SuperKEKB tunnels, rings, and injector can be reused, lowering the civil and source cost of a new collider.
  • On-site pumped storage, geothermal heat, and gravity-assisted cryogenics become design options rather than afterthoughts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the gradient goal is met first in a short vertical test shaft, the same technology would also shrink any future horizontal compact collider, so the R&D has dual use.
  • A successful 3 km physics shaft would create a dual-purpose deep laboratory that particle physics and geophysics could share, similar to existing mine-based labs but purpose-built.
  • The social-industrial framing implies that funding cases for future colliders may need to treat civil works and energy assets as co-products, not pure science overhead.
  • Failure of multipacting mitigation in dielectric-assist structures would force the concept onto undeveloped 300 GHz power extraction, tightening the critical path.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes, at deliberately conceptual level, a vertical e+e− linear collider: the beam axis aligned with local gravity inside a single ~3 km shaft, positrons accelerated downward from the surface and electrons upward from the bottom, colliding at a deep IP near mid-depth. The machine targets a staged 250–500 GeV Higgs-factory program, which inside a 3-km shaft requires average gradients well above 100 MV/m (~300 MV/m is used as the illustration). Via Eq. (1), the author argues this requires ~1 GΩ/m shunt impedance per unit length at CLIC-like power densities, and identifies cryogenic X-band dielectric-assist (DAA) structures and 300 GHz cryogenic metallic structures as candidate technologies. The paper inventories vertical-specific advantages (azimuthal load symmetry, plumb-line alignment reference, deep vibration isolation, cosmically quiet IP, gravity-assisted pressure-staged cryogenics, natural dump locations, possible on-site energy storage, PR/industrial opportunity), lists disadvantages honestly (gradient, shaft construction, installation/maintenance, unproven luminosity, unproven BSM motivation), and sketches reuse of the SuperKEKB complex (LER as positron damping ring, HER as drive-beam combiner ring, injector linac in high-duty SC operation). Excavation feasibility of a ~3 km shaft is argued from public mining precedents (Witwatersrand, South Deep single-lift ~3 km shaft) and from the geology beneath the KEK Tsukuba Campus.

Significance. If the concept survives feasibility study, it addresses a real problem — the cost-and-scale impasse that has stalled e+e− Higgs factories — with a genuinely novel geometric proposal rather than an incremental one. Specific strengths worth naming: the author correctly frames the paper as concept-level and explicitly enumerates the critical disadvantages rather than hiding them; the gradient–shunt-impedance–power tradeoff is stated openly through Eq. (1) with CLIC reference values, making the key assumption falsifiable and externally anchored (no circular fitting); the shaft-depth assumption is benchmarked against concrete public precedents (South Deep, Mponeng, SNOLAB, CJPL, Fig. 2) rather than asserted; vertical-specific systematics that most concept papers would ignore (Coriolis deflection of counter-propagating beams, tidal tilt of the local vertical, anomalous skin effect limiting the cryogenic conductivity gain) are identified and estimated; and the cosmically-quiet deep IP is a real, non-speculative detector-environment point. The paper's honest hedging on the BSM spin-gravity motivation (Sec. II C, II D item v) is also to its credit. As a concept paper intended to stimulate R

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II B, shunt impedance targets (around Eq. (1)) and Sec. IV] The compactness claim stands or falls on sustained operation at ~300 MV/m with R_sh/L ~ 1 GΩ/m. The primary option (cryogenic DAA at 1.8 GΩ/m) rests on an extrapolation from a few-cell room-temperature measurement (Ref. [22]) plus a private communication (Ref. [23]), while the text itself states that DAA gradient is presently limited by multipacting and that 300 GHz power extraction is undemonstrated. Because Eq. (1) makes the tradeoff transparent, the paper should include one quantitative fallback scenario: at demonstrated-class cryogenic NC performance (~100-120 MV/m, e.g., Ref. [27]), a 500 GeV stage needs ~2.1-2.5 km of active length per beam plus BDS and extraction, so the machine no longer fits a 3 km shaft, while a 250 GeV stage (~1.1 km/beam) marginally does. Stating this scaling explicitly would convert the weakest assumption into a clearly staged R&D milestone (250 GeV stage vi
  2. [Secs. I, II D(ii), IV: cost claim] The stated motivation — breaking the cost-and-scale impasse — is the paper's title-level claim, yet no quantitative comparison of any kind is offered between a ~3 km deep large-diameter shaft (with staged access drifts, hoisting, ground support, refrigeration, and water control at 3-4 km rock temperatures) and a conventional 20-30 km horizontal tunnel, nor between reuse of SuperKEKB and greenfield construction. Sec. II D(ii) calls the shaft 'a major, multi-year, high-cost undertaking', which cuts directly against the framing motivation unless at least an order-of-magnitude unit-cost discussion (shaft sinking and equipping per meter vs. TBM tunneling per meter, with public mining/civil-engineering figures of the kind already used for Fig. 2) is included. A concept paper need not have a cost model, but a cost-motivated concept paper should show the cost triangle can plausibly close; this i
  3. [Sec. III B, spent-beam handling] There is an internal numerical inconsistency: the IP is placed 'near mid-depth' (~1.5 km) in Secs. II C and III B, but the stated ~10 m surface offset of the electron dump from a 14 mrad crossing angle implies an IP-to-surface drift of only ~0.7 km. With a mid-depth IP, 14 mrad gives ~21 m at the surface (before any BDS/extraction bending, which is presumably where the factor of 2 went). Please either correct the offset, state the assumed extraction optics, or move the IP. The number is small, but it is the only fully worked geometric number in the dump scheme and it currently does not check out.
  4. [Sec. II D(iv) and Sec. IV] No strawman luminosity or parameter set is given anywhere — not even a target luminosity, bunch charge, or repetition rate — although luminosity is listed as an open challenge and a start-to-end simulation is listed as a next step. For a Higgs-factory concept paper the absence of any luminosity anchor (e.g., 'the concept must deliver ~2x10^34 cm^-2s^-1 at 250 GeV to be competitive with FCC-ee/CEPC/ILC; here is what that implies for drive-beam power and wall-plug power at the assumed RF-to-beam efficiency') leaves the reader unable to judge whether the vertical geometry is even in the right ballpark. A short paragraph with such an anchor would substantially raise the paper's value to the community it aims to motivate.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II C, 'Cosmically quiet interaction point'] The claim of ~6 orders of magnitude muon-flux reduction at ~1.5 km rock (~4 km.w.e.) should carry a citation to a standard muon-flux-vs-depth compilation (e.g., the Mei & Hime parameterization or the SNOLAB/CJPL measurements already cited as [35, 36]), rather than resting on the facility citations alone.
  2. [Sec. II B] Ref. [23] is a private communication that carries the single most important number in the paper (1.8 GΩ/m at 77 K for the five-regular-cell magnesia/6N-copper DAA structure). If any preprint, proceedings, or public report of these data exists, it should be cited instead; at minimum the text should state explicitly that this value is unpublished and single-source.
  3. [Sec. II C, alignment] The Coriolis estimate ('sub-micrometer displacement and nrad-level angle') is a nice inclusion; please give the assumed latitude and beam rigidity in a parenthetical so the number is checkable. Similarly, the claim that Earth-tide tilt of the local vertical falls within beam-based feedback bandwidth should state the expected tilt amplitude (~tens of nrad diurnal) for comparison with the nrad tiltmeter sensitivity quoted two sentences earlier.
  4. [Fig. 2] The depth bars lack explicit labels for which value corresponds to which facility on the bar itself, and the South Deep entry should distinguish hoisting-shaft depth from working depth, since the paper's single-lift precedent argument depends on that distinction.
  5. [Sec. III C] The HER-to-isochronous-combiner-ring conversion mentions coherent synchrotron radiation for high-charge trains; a pointer to the CLIC combiner-ring design studies (CSR mitigation in the CDR) would help readers gauge how much of this is redesign versus extrapolation.
  6. [General] Notation: 'NC (SC) AC' in the Fig. 3 caption is non-standard (presumably 'accelerating cavity/structure'); E_acc and R_sh/L are defined cleanly but 'acceleration efficiency' is used loosely for shunt impedance in Sec. II B — consider 'power efficiency' to avoid confusion with RF-to-beam efficiency, which is a separate unaddressed quantity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: concept proposal with external engineering anchors, not a closed derivation or fitted prediction loop.

full rationale

This paper is a deliberately concept-level accelerator proposal, not a first-principles derivation that claims to predict observables from fitted inputs. The only quantitative relation used as a design tradeoff is the standard RF identity E_acc = sqrt((R_sh/L)*(P_in/L)) (Eq. 1), populated with external CLIC-like reference values (R_sh/L ≈ 100 MΩ/m, P_in/L ≈ 100 MW/m) and then scaled to state a target R_sh/L ≈ 1 GΩ/m at ~300 MV/m. That scaling does not define the answer as the input; it is an ordinary engineering requirement statement. Supporting numbers for cryogenic DAA and 300 GHz structures are taken from external literature and a private communication, not from a fit inside this manuscript that is later re-labeled a prediction. Shaft-depth feasibility rests on publicly cited mining and underground-lab precedents (South Deep, SNOLAB, CJPL, etc.), and SuperKEKB reuse is an external institutional anchor. There are no self-citation uniqueness theorems, no ansatz smuggled from the author’s prior work as forced mathematics, and no renaming of a known empirical pattern as a new unification. Residual softness (undemonstrated sustained gradient, multipacting, 300 GHz power extraction) is a correctness/feasibility risk, not circularity. Score 0 with empty steps is the honest finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions from accelerator RF, mining civil engineering, and SuperKEKB reuse, plus hand-chosen working numbers (depth, gradient, impedance) rather than on new measured data or closed-form proofs. No new fundamental particles are required for the machine concept; the optional SME/spin-gravity BSM channel is speculative and not load-bearing for the collider proposal.

free parameters (5)
  • Working shaft depth = ~3 km
    Chosen as ~3 km to match Higgs-factory length at the assumed gradients and to sit near demonstrated mine depths; not derived from a cost or luminosity optimum.
  • Target average accelerating gradient = ~300 MV/m (illustrative)
    Illustrated at ~300 MV/m for 500 GeV in a few-km machine; required to be ‘much higher than 100 MV/m’ but not demonstrated.
  • Target shunt impedance per unit length = ≈1 GΩ/m
    Set to ~1 GΩ/m so that Pin/L stays near CLIC-like 100 MW/m at the higher gradient via Eq. (1); a design target, not a measurement.
  • IP depth / overburden for cosmic quietness = ~1.5 km IP depth
    Mid-shaft ~1.5 km (~4 km water equivalent) used to claim ~six orders of magnitude muon suppression by analogy to deep labs.
  • Illustrative crossing angle for surface dump offset = 14 mrad
    14 mrad used to place spent-electron dump ~10 m from shaft head; example geometry only.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Normal-conducting cryogenic structures (DAA at X-band or metallic at ~300 GHz) can eventually deliver sustained gradients ≫100 MV/m at high efficiency without show-stopping multipacting or breakdown.
    Sec. II B treats this as within reach based on partial data and private communication; Sec. II D admits it is undemonstrated.
  • domain assumption A ~3 km large-diameter vertical shaft is feasible at acceptable cost and risk for a precision collider at a geologically favorable site (e.g., granite basement under KEK Tsukuba).
    Sec. II B and III A argue from South African ultra-deep mines and SNOLAB/CJPL depths using only public information; no site-specific design.
  • domain assumption Ultra-low-emittance cryogenic RF photoinjectors can replace an electron damping ring while preserving luminosity-relevant brightness at the IP.
    Sec. II B cites cryogenic gun brightness progress; no start-to-end emittance preservation shown.
  • domain assumption CLIC-like two-beam power delivery can be implemented with SuperKEKB HER reused as combiner ring (isochronous optics, sub-harmonic deflectors) and drive beams sent down the shaft.
    Sec. III C; author notes substantial optics redesign is future work.
  • standard math RF power per unit length scales as Pin/L = E_acc² / (Rsh/L) (Eq. 1), so impedance targets follow from chosen gradient and reference Pin/L.
    Standard shunt-impedance relation used in Sec. II B.
  • ad hoc to paper Extensive reuse of SuperKEKB tunnels, magnets, injector, LER as positron DR, and HER as drive-beam complex is central to the cost argument.
    Sec. III; site- and lab-specific premise of the concrete illustration.
  • ad hoc to paper Vertical geometry yields net practical advantages (alignment, vibration, cryogen thermosiphon cells, dumps, PR/funding) that help break the cost-and-scale impasse.
    Sec. II C qualitative list; no quantified cost delta versus ILC/CLIC.
invented entities (2)
  • Gravity-aligned vertical e+e− linear collider (single-shaft architecture) no independent evidence
    purpose: Fold Higgs-factory linac length into depth to cut surface footprint and seek cost/scale relief plus gravity-specific operational benefits.
    Core proposed machine class; not previously built or fully designed in cited literature.
  • Optional BSM sensitivity from gravity-parallel polarized e+ vs e− collisions (SME / spin-gravity / axion monopole-dipole) no independent evidence
    purpose: Suggest unique physics channels from vertical polarized collisions.
    Sec. II C explicitly calls this an open theoretical question, not an established case; existing low-energy bounds noted.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 17058 in / 4392 out tokens · 95487 ms · 2026-07-31T21:42:45.468768+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A gravity-aligned vertical electron-positron linear collider is proposed as a concept to break the cost-and-scale impasse that confronts conventional horizontal Higgs factories. The accelerating axis is oriented along the local gravitational field inside a single deep vertical shaft. Positrons are injected downward from the surface while electrons are accelerated upward from the bottom, the two beams meeting at an interaction point located deep underground. Targeting a staged center-of-mass energy in the Higgs factory range (250-500 GeV), this concept assumes high-gradient, high-efficiency, normal-conducting accelerating structures operated at cryogenic temperature together with a two-beam power-delivery scheme. It can be designed to reuse the existing KEK/SuperKEKB accelerator complex at the KEK Tsukuba Campus. We discuss the advantages of the vertical orientation, namely a small surface footprint, intrinsic azimuthal symmetry of the gravity load, deep vibration isolation of the collision point, gravity-assisted cryogenics, a natural vertical alignment reference, a cosmically quiet deep interaction point, an opportunity for on-site electricity self-sufficiency, and a unique opportunity in social/industrial evaluation, as well as the principal disadvantages and challenges, including the required accelerating gradient and the construction of a kilometers-deep shaft. Using only publicly available information, we argue that excavating a shaft with a depth of ~3 km is feasible at a geologically favorable site. This paper is deliberately concept-level and is intended to motivate technological innovation, feasibility studies, and the exploration of possible new channels for Beyond-Standard-Model searches through vertical collisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24179 by Tetsuo Abe.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic diagram of gravity-aligned vertical e +e − linear collider. The beam axis is parallel to gravity ⃗g; positrons are accelerated downward and electrons upward, colliding at a deep IP. ating structure; (ii) ultra-low-emittance high-current electron gun; and (iii) deep excavation engineering. Items (i) and (ii) are shared with all compact linear collider efforts, whereas (iii) is specific to the vert… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Approximate depths of representative deep human-made underground excavations, namely ultra-deep South African gold mines (Mponeng, TauTona, South Deep) [31, 33, 34], China Jinping Underground Laboratory (CJPL) [35], and SNOLAB [36], compared with the ∼3-km vertical shaft assumed in this work (red). Values are ap￾proximate and compiled from public sources. nology, and that adopting a 3-km depth is a reasona… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example of accelerator complex at KEK Tsukuba Campus. (a) Colliding e +e − beams with sources and spent￾beam dumps. The spent electron beam is extracted to a dump at the surface, and the spent positron beam is extracted to a sealed dump at the shaft bottom. (b) Drive beams with combiner ring. The drive beams are transported downward from the surface for both the main linacs, where only two sectors are draw… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    Abramowiczet al.,The International Lin- ear Collider Technical Design Report — Volume 4: Detectors(2013), arXiv:1306.6329 [physics.ins- det]

    H. Abramowiczet al.,The International Lin- ear Collider Technical Design Report — Volume 4: Detectors(2013), arXiv:1306.6329 [physics.ins- det]. [6]https://linearcollider.org/

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  2. [7]

    Aicheleret al.,A Multi-TeV Linear Col- lider Based on CLIC Technology, CERN-2012- 007, SLAC-R-985, KEK-Report-2012-1, PSI-12- 01, JAI-2012-001 (2012)

    M. Aicheleret al.,A Multi-TeV Linear Col- lider Based on CLIC Technology, CERN-2012- 007, SLAC-R-985, KEK-Report-2012-1, PSI-12- 01, JAI-2012-001 (2012)

    2012

  3. [8]

    Physics Potential of CLIC Operation at 380 GeV,

    A. Winter [CLICdp], “Physics Potential of CLIC Operation at 380 GeV,” CLICdp-Conf-2017-009 (2017)

    2017

  4. [9]

    Huang, A

    X. Huang, A. Grudiev, Z. Zhao, and W. Fang, CLIC380: RF design and parameters of the 2017 re-baselined 380 GeV CLIC linac accelerat- ing structure, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A916, 230 (2019). [10]https://clic.cern/

    2017

  5. [11]

    Vernieriet al.,Strategy for Understanding the Higgs Physics: The Cool Copper Collider, JINST 18(07), P07053 (2023), arXiv:2203.07646 [hep- ex]

    C. Vernieriet al.,Strategy for Understanding the Higgs Physics: The Cool Copper Collider, JINST 18(07), P07053 (2023), arXiv:2203.07646 [hep- ex]. [12]https://web.slac.stanford.edu/c3/

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [13]

    Benediktet al.(FCC),Future Circular Col- lider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 1, Physics, Experiments, Detectors, Eur

    M. Benediktet al.(FCC),Future Circular Col- lider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 1, Physics, Experiments, Detectors, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1468 (2025), arXiv:2505.00272 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [14]

    Benediktet al.(FCC),Future Circular Col- lider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 2, Accel- erators, Technical Infrastructure and Safety, Eur

    M. Benediktet al.(FCC),Future Circular Col- lider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 2, Accel- erators, Technical Infrastructure and Safety, Eur. Phys. J. ST234, 5713 (2025), arXiv:2505.00274 [physics.acc-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [15]

    Benediktet al.(FCC),Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 3, Civil Engi- neering, Implementation and Sustainability, Eur

    M. Benediktet al.(FCC),Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report: Volume 3, Civil Engi- neering, Implementation and Sustainability, Eur. Phys. J. ST234, 5113 (2025), arXiv:2505.00273 [physics.acc-ph]. [16]https://fcc.web.cern.ch/

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [17]

    Abdallahet al.[CEPC Study Group], Ra- diat

    W. Abdallahet al.[CEPC Study Group], Ra- diat. Detect. Technol. Methods8, no.1, 1-1105 (2024) [erratum: Radiat. Detect. Technol. Meth- ods9, no.1, 184-192 (2025)] doi:10.1007/s41605- 024-00463-y [arXiv:2312.14363 [physics.acc-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  10. [18]

    S. P. Adhyaet al.[CEPC Study Group], [arXiv:2510.05260 [hep-ex]]. [19]http://cepc.ihep.ac.cn/ [20]https://www.kek.jp/en/topics/202202251335

    arXiv

  11. [21]

    D. Satoh,High Power Experimental Stud- ies of X-band Dielectric Assist Accelerating Structure at Nextef2, presented at the 16th Workshop on Breakdown Science and High Gradient Accelerator Technology (HG2025) (2025).https://indico.fnal.gov/event/ 65159/contributions/311809/

    2025

  12. [22]

    Satoh, T

    D. Satoh, T. Shibuya, H. Ogawa, M. Tanaka, R. Kuroda, S. Mori, M. Yoshida, H. Toyokawa, Power Efficiency Enhancement of Dielectric Assist Accelerating Structure, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B459, pp. 148- 152 (2019).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb. 2019.09.006

    doi:10.1016/j.nimb 2019

  13. [23]

    Satoh (AIST), private communication

    D. Satoh (AIST), private communication

  14. [24]

    E. A. Nanni,THz Accelerators and Their Appli- cation to Ultrafast Electron Diffraction, presented at the UK Accelerator Institutes Seminar (2022). https://indico.cern.ch/event/1108852/ contributions/4664388/attachments/ 2393560/4092141/THzUK_FINAL.pdf

    arXiv 2022

  15. [25]

    Minamide and Y

    H. Minamide and Y. Takida,Intense Multicycle Terahertz-Wave Generation for Electron Acceler- ation, presented at the 11th International Work- shop on Infrared Microscopy and Spectroscopy with Accelerator Based Sources (WIRMS2022) (2022). 7

    2022

  16. [26]

    Takida, K

    Y. Takida, K. Nawata, and H. Minamide, Palm-sized All-in-One Backward Terahertz-wave Parametric Oscillator, IEEE Trans. Terahertz Sci. Technol.16, Issue 7, pp. 786-792 (2026). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/ document/11457781

    arXiv 2026

  17. [27]

    A. D. Cahillet al.,High Gradient Exper- iments with X-band Cryogenic Copper Accel- erating Cavities, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 21, 102002 (2018).https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevAccelBeams.21.102002

    2018

  18. [28]

    Jacewiczet al.,Temperature Dependent Field Emission and Breakdown Measurements using a Pulsed High-Voltage CryoSystem, Phys

    M. Jacewiczet al.,Temperature Dependent Field Emission and Breakdown Measurements using a Pulsed High-Voltage CryoSystem, Phys. Rev. Ap- plied14, 061002 (2020).https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevApplied.14.061002

    2020

  19. [29]

    J. B. Rosenzweiget al.,Next Generation High Brightness Electron Beams from Ultrahigh Field Cryogenic RF Photocathode Sources, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams22, 023403 (2019).https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.22.023403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevaccelbeams.22.023403 2019

  20. [30]

    Robleset al.,Versatile, high brightness, cryo- genic photoinjector electron source, Phys

    R. Robleset al.,Versatile, high brightness, cryo- genic photoinjector electron source, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams24, 063401 (2021).https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.24.063401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevaccelbeams.24.063401 2021

  21. [31]

    R. J. Durrheimet al.,Factors influencing the severity of rockburst damage in South African gold mines, J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall.98, 53 (1998).https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/ 10.10520/AJA0038223X_2507

    work page doi:10.10520/aja0038223x_2507 1998

  22. [32]

    R. J. Durrheim,Mitigating the risk of rockbursts in the deep hard-rock mines of South Africa: 100 years of research,In Extracting the Science: a cen- tury of mining research, J. Brune (editor), Soci- ety for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., ISBN 978-0-87335-322-9, pp. 156-171(2010)

    2010

  23. [33]

    Mining Technology,The top ten deep- est mines in the world(2019).https: //www.mining-technology.com/marketdata/ feature-top-ten-deepest-mines-world-south-africa/ [34]https://www.goldfields-southdeep.co.za/ about-us/about-south-deep/our-mine

    2019

  24. [35]

    J. P. Cheng, K. J. Kang, J. M. Li, J. Li, Y. J. Li, Q. Yue, Z. Zeng, Y. H. Chen, S. Y. Wu and X. D. Jiet al.,The China Jinping Underground Laboratory and its Early Science, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.67, pp. 231-251 (2017).https: //www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/ 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102115-044842

    doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102115-044842 2017

  25. [36]

    N. J. T. Smith,The SNOLAB deep under- ground facility, Eur. Phys. J. Plus127, 108 (2012).https://link.springer.com/article/ 10.1140/epjp/i2012-12108-9

    work page doi:10.1140/epjp/i2012-12108-9 2012

  26. [37]

    K. Akai, K. Furukawa, and H. Koiso (Su- perKEKB),SuperKEKB Collider, Nucl. In- strum. Meth. A907, pp.188-199 (2018), arXiv:1809.01958 [physics.acc-ph].https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ abs/pii/S0168900218309616?via%3Dihub [38]https://www-superkekb.kek.jp/

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [39]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kosteleck´ y,CPT vio- lation and the standard model, Phys. Rev. D 55, pp.6760-6774 (1997).https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.55.6760

    1997

  28. [40]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kosteleck´ y,Lorentz- violating extension of the standard model, Phys. Rev. D58, 116002 (1998).https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.58.116002

    1998

  29. [41]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and J. D. Tasson,Matter-gravity couplings and Lorentz violation, Phys. Rev. D 83, 016013 (2011).https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.83.016013

    2011

  30. [42]

    J. E. Moody and F. Wilczek,New macroscopic forces?, Phys. Rev. D30, 130 (1984).https:// doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.30.130

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.30.130 1984

  31. [43]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and N. Russell,Data tables for Lorentz and CPT violation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 11 (2011).https://journals.aps.org/rmp/ abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.83.11(updated annually in arXiv:0801.0287)

    arXiv 2011

  32. [44]

    Hayashi, K

    H. Hayashi, K. Kasahara, and H. Kimura,Pre- Neogene basement rocks beneath the Kanto Plain, central Japan, Jour. Geol. Soc. Japan112, No.1, pp. 2-13 (2006).https://doi.org/10. 5575/geosoc.112.2

    2006

  33. [45]

    Hayashi, K

    H. Hayashi, K. Kasahara, H. Kimura,Erratum : Pre-Neogene basement rocks beneath the Kanto Plain, central Japan, Jour. Geol. Soc. Japan 112, No.3, pp. 241 (2006).https://doi.org/10. 5575/geosoc.erratum_2006.02

    2006

  34. [46]

    K. Kasaharaet al.,3.2.2 Deep Borehole Drilling, Well Logging, and Downhole Velocity Structure Survey, in Final Report of the Special Project for Earthquake Disaster Mitigation in Urban Areas I: Prediction of Strong Ground Motion Study on Crustal Structure in Metropolitan Areas (FY2006), pp. 304-335 (2007), published by National Research Institute for Eart...

    2007

  35. [47]

    National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (NIED), Strong-Motion Seis- mograph Networks K-NET & KiK-net.https: //www.kyoshin.bosai.go.jp/

  36. [48]

    Yoshidaet al.,Generation and Acceleration of Low-Emittance, High-Current Electron Beams for SuperKEKB, in Proceedings of LINAC2014, MOIOB03 (2014).https://proceedings

    M. Yoshidaet al.,Generation and Acceleration of Low-Emittance, High-Current Electron Beams for SuperKEKB, in Proceedings of LINAC2014, MOIOB03 (2014).https://proceedings. jacow.org/LINAC2014/papers/moiob03.pdf 8

    2014