A Brief Summary of the HEPAP Subpanel Report Oct 2001 draft version Purpose of this summary Format...

A Brief Summary of the HEPAP Subpanel Report

Oct 2001 draft version

Purpose of this summary Format of the Report Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis Summary and Index

John KraneIowa State University

YPP Town MeetingNov 29, 2001

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 2

Purpose of this Summary

I want to maintain a neutral stance

Summarize for people that couldn’t read the full document

Provide a common reference for this meeting

Not here to generate discussion, nor to solicit opinionSave that for the rest of the meeting!

Correct me if I leave out important points from the report


Format of the Report

Exec. summary contains five “recommendations”, connected with extra verbiage

Each rec. is copied as the introduction to a corresponding chapter

I find the rec’s to be a bit verbose also I try to condense them without bias and import points from the chapter text.


Recommendation 1

We want the US to lead a broad and balanced field.

If you provide it, we give you in return - outreach - trained scientists - new technology

We recommend that the U.S. take steps to remain a world leader in the vital and exciting field of particle physics, through a broad program of research focused on the frontiers of matter, energy, space and time.

The U.S. has achieved its leadership position through the generous support of the American people. We renew and reaffirm our commitment to return full value for the considerable investment made by our fellow citizens. This includes, but is not limited to, sharing our intellectual insights through education and outreach, providing highly trained scientific and technical manpower to help drive the economy, and developing new technologies that foster the health, wealth and security of society at large.

1) enthusiasm


Recommendation 2

We made a roadmap for the field. Implicit is a 30% increase in funding for a LC in the US (10% if outside the US).

Instead of future subpanels to update/continue the roadmap, they propose a new mechanism: P5

We recommend a twenty-year roadmap for our field to chart our steps on the frontiers of matter, energy, space and time. The map will evolve with time to reflect new scientific opportunities, as well as developments within the international community. It will drive our choice of the next major facility and allow us to craft a balanced program to maximize scientific opportunity.We recommend a new mechanism to update the roadmap and set priorities across the program. We understand that this will require hard choices to select which projects to begin and which to phase out. Factors that must be considered include the potential scientific payoff, cost and technical feasibility, balance and diversity, and the way any proposed new initiative fits into the global structure of the field.

Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel = P5multinational, led by scientists

2) Roadmap


The Particle Physics “Terrain”

CDF & DØLHC

LHC UpgradesVLHC

Linear ColliderCLIC

Muon ColliderNuMI/MINOSNeutrino Superbeam

Neutrino FactoryBaBar/BELLE

BTeVSuper B Factory

CESR-cRSVPCKM

GLASTSNAPNUSL

Proton DecayIceCube

2000 20202005 20152010

2) Roadmap

Construct

R&D

Run


The Subpanel’s roadmap considered…

All other items are reserved for P5, whenever it is created.

“…BTeV…has been waiting for over a year for a funding decision. Our projections show that we cannot fund BTeV as a line item in the near future.”

CDF & DØLHC

Linear Collider

NuMI/MINOSBaBar/BELLE

BTeV

CESR-cRSVP

SNAPNUSL

IceCube

2000 20202005 20152010

x

2) Roadmap

Construct

R&D

Run


Budget Math

LC costs $5 - 7 Billion. The US gets this from:

1) Sacrifice - we redirect funds from other HEP projects $1-2B

2) Offshore - “up to 1/3 the cost could be contributed from non-US sources” $1.5-2.5B

3) Funding increase - no other way $1.5-3B?

2) Roadmap

This 1/3 limit reflects a model used by the subpanel.

For offshore LC,only point (1) really applies, witha little of (3).


If the LC is sited in the US …or offshore

US provides 2/3 cost of LC

Participate in LHC Neutrino physics offshore Team with cosmologists Flavor physics ending 2010 Continue with select

astrophysics efforts Accelerator R&D

Provide “a significant share” of the LC cost

Participate in LHC Neutrino physics in US Focused accelerator R&D

(VLHC or muon collider) Team with cosmologists Flavor physics thru 2020 Select astrophysics

Apologies if I have cruelly truncated your favorite physics…

2) Roadmap

1/3

Two Scenarios


Recommendation 3

We want a LC, first and foremost.

An international steering group should handle the details: what technology, what country.

The US should push for creation of this group - LCSC.

We recommend that the highest priority of the U.S. program be a high-energy, high-luminosity, electron-positron linear collider, wherever it is built in the world. This facility is the next major step in the field and should be designed, built and operated as a fully international effort.

We also recommend that the U.S. take a leadership position in forming the international collaboration needed to develop a final design, build and operate this machine. The U.S. participation should be undertaken as a partnership between DOE and NSF, with the full involvement of the entire particle physics community. We urge the immediate creation of a steering group to coordinate all U.S. efforts toward a linear collider.

3) Want the LC


Physics of the LC

Confirm “Higgs” has spin 0, even parity, the couplings to W, Z, self

Masses and couplings of superparticles

Number and sizes of extra dimensions

3) Want the LC

These goals require a TeV-scale machine. A 500 GeV machineis enough to detect light Higgs.

The machine must: - be scalable to 1 TeV - have lum > 1034 (100fb-1/yr) - polarized electron beam


The Technology Choice

Discussed TESLA, JLC, NLC designs– Estimated energy, lum– Technology used– Research status

Must make an early technology choice– Perform any necessary R&D that helps decide

with high priority– Form the international committee that will decide

3) Want the LC


Recommendation 4

US should “bid to host” the LC.

Facility should be international.

Shouldn’t cost much more than current program if we have help and use existing sites.

We recommend that the U.S. prepare to bid to host the linear collider, in a facility that is international from the inception, with a broad mandate in fundamental physics research and accelerator development. We believe that the intellectual, educational, and societal benefits make this a wise investment of our nation’s resources.

We envision financing the linear collider through a combination of international partnership, use of existing resources, and incremental project support. If it is built in the U.S., the linear collider should be sited to take full advantage of the resources and infrastructure available at SLAC and Fermilab.

4) Want it here


Benefits

Be a center of scientific and technical activity– Europe has LHC, Japan has JHF, US has …– Economic benefits– Attracts foreign talent

Spark public enthusiasm for science

Several reports recommend doubling the science budget -- we’re happy to help!

4) Want it here


Funding

This diagram was recreated by hand…

Some base funding is redefined as LC funding

Some existing projects finish and you don’t replace them

Non-LC funding (base and continuing projects)

4) Want it here By now, the document begins to repeat itself…

Short-termprojects

LC funding (and LC-related base)

~10 years

Some new stuff

$0.7B

$1B

HEP budget alloations v. time

$0.5B


Recommendation 5

More R&D for post-LC era.

University funding must be “restored”.

Review the proposal-driven nature of the advanced accelerator research program. (An other roadmap?)

Fund VLHC research as-is.Fund muon collider as-is.

We recommend that vigorous long-term R&D aimed toward future high-energy accelerators be carried out at high priority within our program. It is also important to continue our development of particle detectors and information technology. These investments are valuable for their broader benefits and crucial to the long-range future of our field.

5) More R&D


Summary

1) Enthusiasm 4

2) Roadmap 5• Bar graph, BTeV

7• budget math 8• 2 scenarios 9

3) Want the LC 101) the physics 11

2) the technology) 12

4) Want it here 134) the benefits 145) funding diagram 15

5) More R&D 16

A Brief Summary of the HEPAP Subpanel Report Oct 2001 draft version Purpose of this summary Format...

Documents

Transcript of A Brief Summary of the HEPAP Subpanel Report Oct 2001 draft version Purpose of this summary Format...