Atomic, Molecularand Optical Physics

Program  Directors

John  GillaspyAMO  Experiments

Ann  OrelAMO  Theory,  Quantum  Informa9on  Science  (QIS)

TAMOC    June  2,  2014

AMO  Experiments        $15.67M

Atomic  and  Molecular  Dynamics,  $6.95M,  54  awardsOp9cal  Physics,    $3.46  M,    32  awardsPrecision  Measurements,    $3.93M,  22  awardsAtomic  and  Molecular  Structure,  $1.33  M,  11  awards

AMO  theory        $4.1M

QIS      $4.1M

$4.1M,  37  awards          17  experiments,  18  theory,  2  Centers  (1  full,  1  par9al  support)

$4.1M,  57  awardsMinus  ITAMP,      $3.5M,  55  awards  (~$65k  average)

AMO  Physics  at  NSFFY13    ($23.87M)

Amou

nt  (M

illions)*

Fiscal  Year

*(Constant  2012$)

NSF  Funding  History

ARRA

Amou

nt  (M

illions)*

Fiscal  Year

*(Constant  2012$)

NSF  Funding  History

1999 2004

1985 1995

ARRA

General    Funding  Trends

hXp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2014/04/09/87506/ryan-­‐budget-­‐abandons-­‐innova9on-­‐future/

FY  2015  Budget  RequestNSF  Budget  by  Appropria9on

($  in  millions)

(*  Denotes  <  $  0.5  M)

Amou

nt  (M

illions)

FY12

AST CHE

$  1309  MFY  2012 –  4.5%

FY13

DMR DMS PHY

$  1250  MFY  2013

MPS  Budgets

Amou

nt  (M

illions)

FY12

AST CHE

$  1309  MFY  2012 –  4.5% +4.0%

FY13

FY14

DMR DMS PHY

$  1250  MFY  2013 $  1300  M

FY  2014

(esZmate)

MPS  Budgets

Amou

nt  (M

illions)

FY12

AST CHE

$  1309  MFY  2012 –  4.5% +4.0%

FY13

FY14

DMR DMS PHY

$  1250  MFY  2013 -­‐0.3%

$  1296  M(request)

FY  2015

FY15

$  1300  MFY  2014

(esZmate)

1.6% 3.6%2.4%

5.2%

2.8%

vs.  FY13

MPS  Budgets

Amount PercentAstronomical Sciences (AST) $232.17 $239.06 $236.24 -$2.82 -1.2%Chemistry (CHE) 229.39 235.79 237.23 1.44 0.6%Materials Research (DMR) 291.09 298.01 298.99 0.98 0.3%Mathematical Sciences (DMS) 219.02 225.64 224.40 -1.24 -0.5%Physics (PHY) 250.45 266.30 263.70 -2.60 -1.0%Office of Multidisciplinary Activities (OMA) 27.22 35.00 35.00 - -

Total, MPS $1,249.34 $1,299.80 $1,295.56 -$4.24 -0.3%Totals may not add due to rounding.

MPS Funding(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2013Actual

FY 2014 Estimate

FY 2015 Request

Change OverFY 2014 Estimate

FY  2015  MPS  Budget  Request  to  Congress

Physics  Division  Request  for  FY  2015  is  $263.7  M

Approximately  2%  for  Opera9ons  -­‐  Panels,  IPA  Appointments,  IPA  Travel,  M&S

Approximately  32%  for  M&O  for  Facili9es  –  ATLAS  and  CMS,  IceCube,  LIGO,  NSCL

Approximately  8%  for  Physics  Fron9ers  Centers  –  Compe99on  Underway

Approximately  3%  for  Educa9on  and  Broadening  Par9cipa9on  –REU  Sites,  LIGO  Educa9on  Center,  QuarkNet

Leaves  55%  ($145  M)  to  Cover  Five  Major  Areas  of  Physics  –Experimental  and  Theore9cal

Theory  Funding  vs  Time

AMO  Exp  Funding  vs  Time

Computa9onal  Physics  Program  (also  CDS&E  and  PIF)

Small  Program,  focus  on  disciplines  in  the  purview  of  the  Physics  Division

GOAL:  Support  development  of  computa9onal  methods  that  will  enablesignificant  scien9fic  progress

Inclusive,  not  prescrip9ve,  BUT  simply  large-­‐scale  simula9ons  do  not  belong  here!

Focus  on  SCIENCE

We  recognize  there  will  be  significant  effort  dedicated  to  code  development

However,  we  expect  SCIENCE  output  by  the  end  of  the  award,  report  results  for  renewal

High  expecta9on  of  publica9ons:  code  is  not  a  deliverable

Note:  Panel  is  mul9-­‐disciplinary:  it  is  important  to  ar9culate  the  physics  impact

Renewals  are  welcome,  but  we  want  PIs  to  make  a  decision  in  a  few  cycles:-­‐Return  to  Core  Program  to  pursue  the  science-­‐Pursue  community  building  ac9vi9es  through  the  CISE/ACI  SI2  program  

SI2  has  three  9ers:  SSE,  SSI,  Ins9tutes  (please  refer  to  Si2  webpage  for  details)

Solicita9on  for  a  Theory  Ins9tute  in  Atomic,  Molecular  and  Op9calPhysics

•Planned  deadline  December  8,  2014•Budget  Range– 500K-­‐1M/year  for  five  years,  possible  renewal  foranother  five

– $$  amount  depends  on  proposal  and  budget

•Possible  results  -­‐  none  of  the  above• Community  decides  on  need• $$’s  come  out  of  core  TAMOP/QIS• $$’s  remain  in  programs

Issues  for  Proposals

•Deadline  NOT  target  date  star9ng  this  year

•Compliance  checking

•Abstracts• Non-­‐technical• Technical

•Reviewer  sugges9ons

•ResubmiXals

Ques9ons  for  the  community•Should  centers  (not  PFCs,  but  small  centers)  be  funded  overmore  single  inves9gator  grants?

•What  is  PHY  vs  DMR?• AMO  vs  Condensed  maXer

•Diversity  vs  Concentra9on• Should  mul9ple  grant  submissions  be  allowed  ordiscouraged

• Should  well-­‐funded  groups  con9nue  to  get  more  NSFfunding,  which  tends  to  concentrate  grants  at  centers

•Size  vs  Number• As  budget  remain  flat  –  which  means  drop  in  terms  of  $$’s–  should  we  fund  at  a  lower  level  or  cut  the  number  ofgrants