Department of Energy

Office of Science

High Energy Physics High Energy Physics Briefing to theBriefing to the

Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory CommitteeCommittee

Dr. Robin StaffinAssociate Director, Office of High Energy Physics

DOE Office of Science

October 11, 2005

Department of Energy

Office of Science

Quarum:

1. Accelerator based physics : the field’s primary tools Construction and operation of accelerators and detectors and

research activities in these facilities• Proton based accelerator: Tevatron, LHC (in construction),

K2K, NuMI, MiniBooNE• Electron based accelerator: B-Factories—BaBar and Belle

2. Non-accelerator physics: a growing and important sector to HEP Atmospheric & solar neutrinos: Super-K, KamLAND, SNO Particle astrophysics & cosmology: GLAST, Auger, VERITAS, SDSS,

CDMS-II, AMS, CMB3. Theory

Elementary particle theory Major computing efforts: simulation, data storage, distribution, &

analysis4. Technology R&D

R&D for accelerator and detector technologies

Omnis HEP divisa est in partes quatuor

Department of Energy

Office of ScienceHigh Energy Physics ProgramHigh Energy Physics Program

Goals: Ultimate Unification & Extra Dimensions

Operating:CDF and DZero Fermilab Tevatron Top quark, Higgs, SUSY, extra

dimensionsMiniBooNE Fermilab Main Injector Neutrino mixingBaBar SLAC B-factory (electrons) Matter-antimatter, b

quark, CP violation Super-K Japan (non-accelerator) Proton decay, neutrino mixingK2K Japan (accelerator neutrinos)Neutrino mixingKamLAND Japan (reactor neutrinos) Neutrino mixingNUMI/MINOS Fermilab MI (protons) Neutrino mixing (long

baseline)

Under Construction:

ATLAS & CMS CERN LHC (protons) Higgs, SUSY, extra dimensions

Proposed:

International Linear Collider Higgs, SUSY, extra dimensions

Electron Neutrino Appearance Experiment Neutrino mass, mixing, hierarchy

Reactor Neutrino Experiment Neutrino mixingHigh Intensity Neutrino Beam Neutrino mass, mixing,

hierarchy

Department of Energy

Office of ScienceHigh Energy Physics ProgramHigh Energy Physics Program

Goal: Cosmic Connections

Operating:Sloan Digital Sky Survey (w/NASA, NSF, foreign) 3D sky map,

dark energy Supernova Cosmology Project, Nearby Supernova Factory (w/NSF & NASA) dark energyCMB cosmologyCold Dark Matter Search (CDMS-II) (underground, w/NSF) dark matter in

cosmic rays

Approved & Under Construction:Large Area Telescope (LAT) – GLAST, 2007 (w/NASA, foreign) gamma rays,

dark matterPierre Auger – ground array in Argentina (w/NSF, foreign) high energy

cosmic raysAMS – Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer – ISS (w/NASA, foreign) cosmic

antimatterVERITAS – telescope in Arizona (w/NSF, SAO) high energy

gamma raysAXION search dark matter

search

Proposed (far from an exhaustive list, trust me):Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM) dark energyLarge-aperture Survey Telescope (LST) dark energy

Enriched Xenon Observatory (EXO) (Majorana) neutrino mass

Dark Energy Survey Telescope (DES) dark energy

Department of Energy

Office of Science

The DOE HEP program The DOE HEP program in FY 2006in FY 2006

• Overall HEP budget and priorities in FY 2006:

– Tevatron and B-factory will be fully supported– LHC preparations will be fully supported– Core research program at the universities and

laboratories will be maintained– Investment for near and long term new initiatives

(including ILC R&D and neutrinos) will be increased

• Any new initiatives will have to come from re-direction

Department of Energy

Office of ScienceOpportunitiesOpportunities

0

1000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ILC

Accelerator Ops

LHC

Core Research

opportunity

BTeV

Very

Appro

xim

ate

!

Department of Energy

Office of Science

International Linear Collider (ILC): International Linear Collider (ILC): UpdateUpdate

• Superconducting RF technology chosen for ILC. Governments accepted the choice at last year’s FALC meeting.

• A Global Design Effort (GDE) was established this year.

– Fully international -- the Americas, Europe, Asia

– To prepare a baseline design, cost estimate, site criteria

• Barry Barish named Director of the GDE

– Regional Directors manage regional R&D

– Cost engineers in each region to create a common cost framework

– Civil Engineers in each region cooperatively developing site criteria

– Communications person in each region

• About 25 FTEs (50 people) mostly resident at existing world labs.

Department of Energy

Office of Science

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 …

Global Design Effort Project

Baseline configuration

Reference Design

ILC R&D Program

Technical Design

Expression of Interest to Host

International Mgmt

LHCPhysics

An ILC Roadmap

Department of Energy

Office of Science

There are many lessons from other large projects:

• ITER guidance for international scientific projects

• SNS experience on integrated engineering support within DOE national laboratories

• Learn from the failure of the SSC

• Design and management techniques from NASA & very large telescope projects

• Retain flexibility to allow use of technical advances

Learning from Other Large Projects

Department of Energy

Office of Science

GLASTGLAST(Gamma-ray Large Area Space (Gamma-ray Large Area Space

Telescope)Telescope)

Large Area Telescope (LAT) Primary instrument on the NASA GLAST Mission – managed by SLAC Partnership between DOE and NASA

Collaborators from France, Italy, Japan and Sweden Fabrication cost $155.8M; DOE share is $45M Schedule:

As of end of July 2005, fabrication is 95% complete On schedule to meet CD-4 in March 2006 Commissioning and spacecraft integration begins in 2006 GLAST launch in August 2007

Scientific Purpose - measures the energy (20 MeV to 300 GeV) and direction of celestial gamma-rays with good resolution over wide field of view to:

• study mechanism of particle acceleration in astrophysical sources • determine high energy behavior of gamma ray bursts and transient sources• search for dark matter candidates

Department of Energy

Office of Science

VERITASVERITAS(Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope (Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope

Array System)Array System)

Scientific Purpose: Study of celestial sources of very high energy gamma-ray sources in the energy range of 50 GeV- 50 TeV & search for dark matter candidates

– Using atmospheric Cherenkov 4- telescope array at Kitt Peak

Collaboration: NSF, DOE + contributions from Smithsonian & foreign institutions

Funding: DOE TPC = $4.7M

Schedule: Fabrication scheduled for completion at end of FY 2006.

Status: In April 2005, work at Kitt Peak was stopped so National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process could be redone according to specifications, in response to suit filed by Tohono O’odham Indian Nation.

– NSF is leading the NEPA process with DOE cooperating.

– It is possible that the fabrication will not be completed on the above schedule.

Artist’s conception

Telescope 1 fabrication

Department of Energy

Office of Science

Dark Energy – Current Dark Energy – Current ActivitiesActivities

Dark Energy Task Force - subpanel of AAAC/HEPAP formed – to report 12/05

Planning Joint Dark Energy Mission with NASA• High priority in DOE Strategic Plan• DOE/NASA Science Definition Team has formed

Investigating Future Dark Energy Measurements from the Ground → possibilities include Dark Energy Survey (~ $20M) camera and/or the Large Survey Telescope (~$100M)

Supernova Cosmology Project

• Operations continuing using ground and Hubble Space Telescope measurements to collect statistics and refine results

Nearby Supernova Factory – continues operations; measurements of nearby supernovae

Department of Energy

Office of Science

Advisory ProcessesAdvisory Processes

Department of Energy

Office of ScienceAdvisory Process - Scale of ProgramAdvisory Process - Scale of Program

• One must go through a straw-man exercise to see if a reasonable subset of these initiatives could be worked into a realistic portfolio

• Make reasonable assumptions about

– Tevatron and B-factory operations roll-off– ILC R&D ramp-up– US LHC– New mid-scale mid-term initiatives

• Bottom line is that O($50-100M) per year may be available to invest in new initiatives by the end of the decade

Complications:• Any $ envelope will depend strongly on facility operations and LC R&D funding in the

out-years• Not all projects are equal in science or scope, even within a given physics area

Are developing a set of criteria to evaluate projects

Department of Energy

Office of ScienceAdvisory Process - Suggested CriteriaAdvisory Process - Suggested Criteria

• Scientific Potential : to what extent does the project have the ability to change our fundamental view of the universe?

• Relevance: is the science important to DOE/HEP’s mission?

• Value: does the level of scientific potential match the level of investment?

• Alternatives: are there more cost-effective alternatives to get at the same (or most of the same) physics?

• Timeliness: will the results come at the right time to have sufficient impact?

• International: are similar efforts underway in other countries? Are there potential international partners for this effort?

• Infrastructure: Does the project exploit, or help to evolve, existing infrastucture (including human capital)

Department of Energy

Office of ScienceRecent HEP Advisory PanelsRecent HEP Advisory Panels

Panel Reports to Topic(s) Reports Due

P5 HEPAP B-factory + Tevatron Ops Nov 2005 New mid-scale initiatives mid 2006

NuSAG HEPAP & NSAC Double Beta Decay Exp’ts Sep 1, 2005

Reactor and off-axis expt’s Dec 2005Super nu beam options mid 2006

ARD HEPAP US Accel R&D program July 2006

Dark Energy HEPAP & AAAC Dark Energy techniques Dec 2005Task Force

CMB Task Force HEPAP & AAAC Future CMB initiatives July 11, 2005

ILC & LHC HEPAP ILC/LHC “synergy” July 27, 2005(short version sent to EPP2010)

HEP Resource HEPAP Are there enough physicists to Fall 2005Working Group rim the program?

Department of Energy

Office of ScienceThe Role of P5The Role of P5

Recently re-constituted for 2 years• To develop and maintain the roadmap of the field• To address relative priorities of (medium-sized) proposed projects within the

program context

(Ideally) P5 would be asked to compare the recommended options from the SAG process and prioritize relative to one another

(More realistically) P5 will be given a nominal (optimistic but not “blue sky”) envelope of available funding for new initiatives and asked to prioritize within that constraint

Department of Energy

Office of ScienceNuSAGNuSAG

• Part of a new advisory process – SAG’s to select “best in class”– P5 to balance/prioritize areas

• A Neutrino Scientific Advisory Group (NuSAG) initiated in March – Asked to address

• Choice of Reactor neutrino experiment• Choice of Off-axis neutrino experiment• Choice of neutrinoless double beta decay experiment

– Also will be asked for recommendation on high intensity neutrino beam(s).

• NuSAG is a joint subpanel of HEPAP and NSAC– Reports through HEPAP to DOE-HEP and NSF; – through NSAC to DOE-NP and NSF

We are considering how to set up an analogous SAG process for other scientific topics such as dark matter, dark energy and particle astrophysics.

Department of Energy

Office of Science

Review of Accelerator R&D Review of Accelerator R&D ProgramProgram

Initiated a comprehensive review of all aspect of the accelerator R&D programs supported by DOE-HEP and NSF-EPP

Specific Charge• National Goals: Describe the needs and goals required for a rich and productive future program in

accelerator based particle physics • Scope: Description of current program• Quality:

– Appraisal of scientific and technical quality of work being supported– How US effort rates relative to worldwide effort

• Relevance:– How well the work being supported matches the needs and goals of HEP program– Missing items? Over-emphasized or under supported areas?

• Resources:– Does the program have adequate resources to carry out the scope?– Does the program make most efficient use of available resources?

• Management:– How well program is managed both in the field and in the agencies– Setting goals, priorities, resource allocations, program balance & reporting

• Training: Is Training of future accelerator work force adequately addressed?

Department of Energy

Office of ScienceHEPAP Resource StudyHEPAP Resource Study

• HEPAP charged a task force in late 2004 to look at whether there is sufficient personnel (experimental physicists) in the U.S. HEP program to run the portfolio of current and planned experiments through ~2010.

• Worked with DOE and NSF to develop a survey of all funded groups on their future plans for research activities, assuming constant effort.

• Developed a similar survey for the significant experiments (“how many people do you need?”). Revised and scrubbed estimates of “needs.”

• Compared answers, benchmarked on actual 2004 FTE data. Essentially 100% response.

• Bottom line: OK through 2007, assuming constant effort.

• Collaborations, labs, agencies working on Tevatron-LHC transition in 2008-9; will depend strongly on Tevatron, LHC luminosities and whether Tevatron exp’ts have evidence of new physics.

Department of Energy

Office of Science

Advisory ProcessesAdvisory Processes- working together with NSF and - working together with NSF and

NASANASA

• Many of the new initiatives involve multiple agencies: existing advisory panels are not always optimally configured.

A hierarchy of questions to be addressed:

1. Overall shape of field – “grand strategy” – National Academies study (EPP2010), HEPAP…

2. What priority to give to medium scale area X vs. area Y? – “strategy” – Re-establish the P5 panel

3. What is the best project in area X? – “tactics”– Scientific Advisory Group (SAG)– Anticipate several of these with different reporting lines to cover the various

areas

Department of Energy

Office of Science

National Academies Panel National Academies Panel EPP2010EPP2010

• A new “decadal survey”– Lay out the grand questions that are driving our field– Describe the opportunities that are ripe for discovery– Identify the tools that are necessary to achieve the scientific goals– Articulate the connections to other sciences and to society– Foster emerging worldwide collaboration– Recommend a 15 year implementation plan with realistic, ordered

priorities• Not your typical high energy physics advisory panel. It includes

– Non-physicists• Strengthen connections with society• Sharpen the physics questions

– Non-particle physicists• Engage other scientific communities

– International participants• Place US HEP in the international setting

www.nationalacademies.org/bpa/epp2010.htmlwww.nationalacademies.org/bpa/epp2010.html

Department of Energy

Office of ScienceAdvisory Committee Flow ChartAdvisory Committee Flow Chart

HEPAPHEPAP

P5P5

NuSAGNuSAG

NSACNSAC

DOE-NPDOE-NP DOE-HEPDOE-HEPNSFNSF

Other SAG’s Other SAG’s

NASANASA

AAACAAAC

T

actic

s

S

trat

egy

A

genc

ies

EPP 2010

EPP 2010