High Energy Physics FY 2007 OMB Presentation

Office of Science

U.S. Department of Energy

High Energy Physics

FY 2007 OMB Presentation

Dr. Robin Staffin, Associate DirectorOffice of High Energy Physics

Office of Science

September 26, 2005

Office of Science


2

High Energy Physics

Answering the most basic questions of our quantum universe

What IS the universe? Standing at the door of the third revolution. First revolution: discovery of the atom on

Chemistry, electronics, biology, medicine, communications, and materials ...

Second revolution: understanding the nucleus on The stars, sun’s energy, nuclear energy, nuclear

weaponry, and medical diagnostics & treatment Third revolution: the fundamental basis for matter, energy,

space and time. (Trillions of electron volts) Provides answers to how the universe came to be and how it will

evolve. A telescope that views the very beginning of the universe and shows how it evolved to the present.

Office of Science


3

Particle Physics, Science and Society

Big science International visibility, prestige, Nobels, Huge international collaborations Workforce well-prepared for industry and technical careers

About 80% of HEP PhDs end up in industry or government (present company included)

Enabling science Accelerators: HEP accelerator and detector technology enables

many other scientific disciplines and medical applications High Speed Networking and the Grid

A field which is combined with practical usefulness and intellectual excitement

Office of Science


4

Outline (content?) of Briefing

Compelling Science Objectives Emabling Science and Technology for Society Training the Technological Workforce Budget Impact

Office of Science


5

A Critical Time for HEP

In the course of the next decade, we may discover a very different universe

The field of High Energy Physics is poised on the threshold of discovery.

HEP can address the important questions: What is the path to unification (“Einstein’s Dream”)? What is the origin of mass? Are there new dimensions of space & time? What can neutrinos tell us? Why more matter than antimatter? What is Dark Matter? What is Dark Energy (acceleration of the universe)?

Office of Science


6

Who will miss this science?

“To remain near the top, we must continue to look at new discoveries and new information.” – Speaker of the House, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL)

“We can continue down the current path, as other nations continue to narrow the gap, or we can take bold, dramatic steps to ensure U.S. economic leadership in the 21st century and a rising standard of living for all Americans.” – Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)

“…[the U.S. is] unilaterally disarming in high-energy physics at a time which may well be one of the most exciting periods of physics research in history.” – Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House

“It looks as though the innovation pipeline is slowly being squeezed dry.... [We] are losing the skills race…[and] are beginning to lose our preeminence in discovery as well.” – William Brody, President, Johns Hopkins

Office of Science


7

Top 5 HEP Results in FY2005

1. Excellent Tevatron Run II Performance

Factor of 2 increase in peak & integrated luminosity since FY04

Closing in on the SM Higgs

2. NuMI starts up: the era of precision neutrino physics begins

Smooth turn on and steady operation

3. Babar/Belle results show potential surprise

4. CDMS II data rules out light SUSY particles as dark matter candidates

5. QCD comes of age Nobel for Gross, Politzer and Wilczek Lattice QCD now a predictive science

Office of Science


8

HEP FY2005 news “below the fold”

SDSS observes acoustic vibrations of matter in the early universe

Initial results from (partially completed) Auger on ultra-high energy cosmic rays

Advances in future accelerator concepts

First photonic bandgap accelerator structure

Beam-driven plasma wakefield acceleration experiment achieves gradient of 45 GV/meter over 30 cm

Laser-driven plasma wakefield achieves similar gradients over few mm with excellent beam quality

Handheld 5 GeV accelerators for a variety of applications?

Multi-TeV accelerators in the future?

Office of Science


9

Accelerator R&D Program in OHEP

Purpose: Provide the scientific and technology base for the highly specialized accelerators which are essential to a forefront high energy physics research program Provide the key developments for advances in structural biology, materials

science, nuclear physics and medical applications Strategy: Support a broad program of accelerator technology R&D

addressing needs for short-term: improvements for existing specific facilities (Tevatron, B-

factory) mid-term: generic R&D for a class of possible facilities or applications

(superconducting magnet, superconducting rf, electron-position collider, hadron collider etc)

long-term (advanced accelerator R&D): advancing fundamental science and technology of accelerator concept and technology independent of application (plasma & laser acceleration, wakefield acceleration

which brings connections between present program and future applications.

Mid-term and Long-term R&D programs in OHEP are unique

Office of Science


10

Office of Science Funding for Accelerator R&D

Nuclear Physics

Fusion Energy Sciences

Basic Energy Sciences

High Energy Physics

High Energy Physics ~ $60 Million

Nuclear Physics ~ $12-15 Million

Fusion Energy Sciences ~ $10 Million

Basic Energy Sciences ~ $1-2 Million

(69%)

(17%)

(2%) (12%)

From a recent SC- Survey

Office of Science


11

New Medium Initiatives

A number of requests for approval of CD-0 “Statement of Mission Need” were prepared and submitted:

• A generic Reactor-based Neutrino Detector (RND) to measure 13

• A generic off-axis (EvA) accelerator-based neutrino experiment for 13

and to probe the neutrino mass hierarchy

• A generic neutrinoless Double-Beta Decay Experiment (DBDE) to probe the Majorana nature and an absolute mass scale of neutrinos

• A high intensity neutrino beam (Super Neutrino Beam: SNB) for neutrino CP-violation experiments

• A generic ground-based dark energy (DES or LSST) experiment

• A generic underground experiment to search for direct evidence of dark matter

In order to be ready to move forward expeditiously, this process has been moving in parallel with a Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) and P5 process.

Note: JDEM, ILC are considered to be above “medium-scale.”

Office of Science


12

HEP Major Program Thrusts -- Target

Major Questions

Physics Program

2005 2010 2015 2020+

Are there undiscovered principles of Nature?

What is Dark Energy?

Are there extra dimensions?

Do all the forces become one?

What is Dark Matter?

Tevatron

LHC

ILC

Blue = In operation Orange = Approved Purple = Proposed

LHCDES

LHC

CDMS, AXION ILCFuture DME

LHC

Office of Science


13

HEP Major Program Thrusts -- Target

Major Question

Physics Program

2005 2010 2015 2020+

What are neutrinos telling us?

How did the universe come to be?

Why so many particles?

What happened to the antimatter? B-factory


LHC

MINOSMiniBooNE Super Beam

LHC

Tevatron/B-factory LHC

EvA

reactor

Super Beam

DBDE

LHC

Office of Science


14

ILC

HEP Major Program Thrusts -- Over Target

Major Questions

Physics Program

2005 2010 2015 2020+

Are there undiscovered principles of Nature?

What is Dark Energy?

Are there extra dimensions?

Do all the forces become one?

What is Dark Matter?

Tevatron

LHC

ILC


LHC

JDEM, LSST

LHC

CDMS, AXION

DES

ILCFuture DME

ILC

ILC

ILCILC

LHC ILC

ILC

ILC

ILC

Office of Science


15

HEP Major Program Thrusts-- Over Target

Major Question

Physics Program

2005 2010 2015 2020+

What are neutrinos telling us?

How did the universe come to be?

Why so many particles?

What happened to the antimatter? B-factory


LHC

MINOSMiniBooNE

LHC

Tevatron/B-factory LHC

EvA

reactorSuper Beam

Super Beam

DBDE

LHC

Office of Science


16

Advisory Process- working together with NSF

Many of the new initiatives involve other agencies: existing advisory panels are not always adequately 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

Office of Science


17

Advisory Committee Flow Chart

HEPAPHEPAP

P5P5

NuSAGNuSAG

NSACNSAC

DOE-NPDOE-NP DOE-HEPDOE-HEPNSFNSF

Other SAG’s Other SAG’s

Other agenciesOther agencies

Other panelsOther panels

future

T

actic

s

S

trat

egy

A

genc

ies

EPP 2010

EPP 2010

Office of Science


18

OHEP Funding History- As Spent $ (Then Year $)

High Energy Physics Budget History and 5 Year Projections

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

Fiscal Year

Mil

lion

s of

Th

en-Y

ear

Dol

lars

History Target Over Target

Office of Science


19

% Change in SC Fundingbetween FY 2000 and FY 2005

Office of Science


20

Planning for the Future- assumptions with recent budget trend

Current U.S. accelerator-based program is world-leading, but finite in lifetime Termination of B-factory followed by Tevatron MINOS will ramp down toward the end of the decade also

LHC participation will be a central piece of the program The Linear Collider is our highest priority for a future major facility,

but timescale is uncertain and cannot be done without either an increase in resources or a reduction in cost

Agreements on international partnerships also have to be arranged

Hence

We are planning for a portfolio of medium scale, medium term experiments to start construction in the period 2007-10

Scientific opportunities are compelling neutrino physics (APS study); dark matter, dark energy…

Resources will become available, through redirection

Office of Science


21

HEP Future Scenario at Target

Target Scenario: After ~2010, LHC is the only operating high-energy physics accelerator in the world + non-accelerator experiments (neutrinos, dark energy, dark matter)

Early termination of Run II and B-Factory A new Neutrino program (EvA) after completion of MINOS Slow construction of super neutrino beam facility LC still in R&D phase (resource limited) LHC addressing questions of unification, origin of mass, extra dimensions,

and dark matter. But marginal coverage of dark energy, matter-antimatter asymmetry

Discovery at LHC of new physics is almost guaranteed. Workforce issues:

Need to be reduced by ~25% Without major new or upgraded facilities on the horizon, US HEP program

activities would most likely move overseas or out of field, resulting in weakening of the domestic program

The U.S. will lose leadership in high-energy accelerator technology

Office of Science


22

The Big Issues in the Target

Future of HEP facilities B-Factory ops (total investment ~$0.8B) end after FY06

Loss ~ a factor of two in data (vs over target) Cede CP violation physics to Japan. Large number (~300) of RIFs, bumpy transition to LCLS

Tevatron ops (total investment ~$1.5B) end after FY08

Lose ~30-50% of data, possible indications of new physics before LHC

Large number (~300) of RIFs inevitable

No domestic HEP facilities from 2008 until (perhaps) super neutrino beam (2015). US as a user, not a leader.

ILC on slow track: construction start 2015(?), producing physics data 15 years after LHC turn-on. May lose to Europe or to Japan, who will question if they need the US.

Office of Science


23

Meaning of FY07-12 Target Budget for HEP

International reaction will be swift and strong. Following BTeV, RSVP, and AMS Weakening our bargaining role at CERN Major impact on any international collaboration involving the US “Why should we believe the US when it says it wants to pursue the ILC?” Undercuts continuation of Run 2 and other near term programs

Eg. EvA and the UK

The end of an era US leadership role in the future of HEP -- one that it has led over the

last half-century -- will essentially come to an end. The outsourcing of US HEP (“Exit America”)

FY2007 will be a watershed year

Office of Science


24

HEP Dashboard 2007

subProgram FY06 Request

FY07 Target FY07 Over Target

Comment

Facility Ops B-factory restored in OT

LHC Flat as LHC ramps-up

ILC ~Flat

New Initiatives

Growth in dark energy + nu’s

Research + Accel. R&D

Decimated at Target

Green = Healthy, Light Green = Issues, Yellow = Serious Issues, Red = Terminated

Office of Science


25

HEP Dashboard 2011

subProgram FY11 Target FY11 Over Target

Comment

Facility Ops Only NuMI in US at Target

LHC Constant effort in OT

ILC No out-year growth in Tgt

New Initiatives

Growth in dark energy + nu’s

Research + Accel. R&D

Held flat in Target

Green = Healthy, Light Green = Issues, Yellow = Serious Issues, Red = Terminated

Office of Science


26

HEP Future Scenario at Over Target

Over Target Scenario: After ~2010, LHC is still the only operating high-energy physics accelerator in the world

Run II and B-Factory programs are complete as planned Super Neutrino Beam will provide a world leadership for US in neutrinos

Neutrino program evolving after MINOS by utilizing super neutrino beam facility which is based on LC technology

JDEM is poised to probe the secrets of Dark Energy Linear Collider will be ready to exploit LHC discoveries by later part of decade

LC in technically-limited R&D phase until 2009, then engineering design LHC addressing questions of unification, origin of mass, extra dimensions, and

dark matter. And LC will address this and more (see next slide). Research program strengthened to enhance U.S. impact on LHC Lattice QCD and SciDAC efforts exploit opportunities for U.S. to lead in

targeted areas of computation and simulation

This is an exciting and highly productive scientific program.

Office of Science


27

ILC & LHC Synergy

The high energy of the LHC will establish that new phenomena at the Terascale exist. The precision studies of the ILC will enable us to interpret these new discoveries.

In every scenario, the LHC discoveries require the ILC to illuminate their meaning.

The results from the LHC and ILC give a multiplicative (not additive) impact on understanding the new Terascale phenomena. Together, they provide a telescope that peers back to the time when the universe was formed.

Office of Science


28

World leading neutrino physics program

A variety of near and mid term initiatives in a different scales can put the US as the world leader of neutrino physics program

Electron Neutrino Appearance Experiment (EvA): MINOS follow-on experiment utilizing NuMI beam from Fermilab to Northern

Minnesota (maximum use of existing investment) Could obtain world best measurements on mixing angle and mass hierarchy

Reactor Neutrino Detector (RND) Independent measurement on mixing angle Options from $15M~$80M (off-shore vs on-shore)

Double Beta Decay Experiment (DBDE) Measure absolute mass scale of neutrinos Options from $10M~$200M (off-shore vs on-shore)

Super Neutrino Beam (SNB) Study CP violation in neutrino sector Synergetic relationship with ILC R&D technology

Many as Jointly Supported Program with NSF and DOE-NP

Office of Science


29

Exciting Dark Energy & Dark Matter

A variety of near and mid term initiatives in a different scales can put the US as the world leader of dark energy and dark matter physics program

Dark Energy Survey (DES): Ground based dark energy experiment Fabricate new camera for an existing telescope (~$20M)

Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) Ground based dark energy experiment as a next generation of DES New telescope, new camera (~$200M)

Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM) Space based joint mission with NASA for a dedicated dark energy survey DOE funds instrumentation ($300~500M)

Dark Matter Search Detector to search for direct evidence of dark matter

Many as Jointly Supported Program with NSF and NASA

Office of Science


30

Accelerator R&D with a promising future

Office of Science


31

Summary

International partnerships Premature end of B-factory, Tevatron programs will set off a crisis for

US standing (after cancellation of BTeV and RSVP) as a “good partner” for int’l HEP projects

Increases difficulty of getting foreign contributions for neutrino and dark energy initiatives, ILC R&D,…

Builds on existing uncertainty in the aftermath of US recent US terminations.

Office of Science


Tables & Charts

Office of Science


33

FY 2007 OMB Budget(B/A in Millions)

FY 2006 FY 2007 OverFY 2005 Pres Req Target Target

Proton Accelerator-based Physics Research 78.3$ 75.4$ 68.3$ 84.5$ Facilities 314.2 311.7 305.2 318.2$

Subtotal 392.5$ 387.1$ 373.5$ 402.7$ Electron Accelerator-based Physics

Research 26.3$ 24.8$ 21.6$ 26.4$ Facilities 104.2 108.0 70.4 101.9

Subtotal 130.5$ 132.8$ 92.0$ 128.3$ Non-Accelerator Physics/Research 55.6$ 38.6$ 42.1$ 100.3$ Theoretical Physics/Research 50.0$ 49.1$ 43.4$ 51.6$ Advanced Technology R&D/Research 89.1$ 106.3$ * 119.3$ * 158.1$ Construction/NuMI 0.7$ -$ -$ 10.0$ TOTAL HEP Budget 718.4$ 713.9$ 670.3$ 851.0$

*Includes $18.2M for SBIR/STTR in FY 2006 and $17.0M for SBIR/STTR in FY 2007 Target, $20.0M Over Target.

General Plant Projects 14.6 22.3 21.8 21.8

Accelerator Improvements Projects 6.1 2.4 0.0 0.0

Capital Equipment 63.7 39.8 40.7 106.7

Total, Capital Operating Expenses 84.4 74.5 62.5 128.5

Office of Science


34

FY 2007 BudgetMajor Items of Equipment (B/A in Millions)

Total Project Cost (TPC)

Total Estimated Cost (TEC)

Prior Year Appro-priations FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Over Target Increment Over Target Acceptance Date

LHC — Machine 111.5 91.9 87.8 4.1 0 0 0 0 FY 2005

LHC — ATLAS Detector 103.01 55.5 49.2 3.9 1.6 0.6 0 0 FY 2007

LHC — CMS Detector 147.02 71.8 64.1 3.5 2.9 0 0 0 FY 2008

GLAST/LAT 45.03 45.0 33.6 11.4 0 0 0 0 FY 2005

Run IIb D-Zero 10.74 10.7 8.8 1.9 0 0 0 0 FY 2006

VERITAS 7.45 4.8 1.6 2.1 1.1 0 0 0 FY 2006

BaBar (IFR) Upgrade 4.9 4.9 3.0 1.2 0.7 0 0 0 FY 2006

Electron Neutrino Appearance (EvA) Detector 150.0 150.0 0 0 0 10.3 +12.3 22.6 FY 2010

Reactor Neutrino Detector 15.06 15.0 0 0 0 3.0 +7.0 10.0 FY 2010

Ground-based Dark Energy Exp. (DES) 20.0 20.0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 FY 2009

Ground-based Dark Energy Exp. (LSST) 105.0 105.0 0 0 0 0 +10.0 10.0 FY 2012

Space-based Dark Energy Exp. 280.0 280.0 0 0 0 0 +15.3 15.3 FY 2016

Double Beta Decay Exp. 5.07 5.0 0 0 0 0 +10.0 10.0 FY 2011

Total, Major Items of Equipment 28.1 6.3 15.4 +62.6 78.0

1The total US contribution (TPC) for this project is $163,750,000, including $60,800,000 from NSF.2The total US contribution (TPC) for this project is $167,250,000, including $20,200,000 from NSF.3The total TEC/TPC includes DOE scope only and reflects a rebaselining approved March 2005.4The total TPC for this project is $18,143,000 including $3,068,000 from NSF and $4,356,000 from foreign partners.5The total TPC for this project is $17,534,000 including $7,333,000 from NSF, $2,000,000 from the Smithsonian Institution, and $802,000 from foreign partners.6The Over Target level supports a major role in a domestic experimental facility for a reactor based neutrino experiment, with a preliminary estimated TEC/TPC of $75,000,0007At the Target, HEP and NP jointly support an initiative in neutrino-less double beta decay physics starting in FY 2008 with a combined preliminary estimated TEC/TPC of $63,000,000; the HEP TEC contribution is $5,000,000. At the Over Target, HEP pursues an independent competitive alternative technology double beta decay project starting in FY 2007 with a preliminary estimated TEC/TPC of $75,000,000.

Office of Science


35

High Energy PhysicsOutyear Funding Profile (B/A in Millions)

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

TARGET 670.3 668.0 653.3 637.1 665.5 Facility Ops 303.3 293.4 226.9 206.4 202.9

ILC 35.2 30.0 40.0 45.0 25.0 New Initiatives 17.9 29.9 68.2 56.5 47.1

LHC 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 Research 199.9 198.8 198.6 198.0 198.7

Advanced Tech R&D 54.0 53.4 53.3 53.2 53.4 Construction - 2.6 6.3 18.0 78.5

OVER TARGET 851.0 984.2 1,054.1 1,185.8 1,283.4 Facility Ops 335.4 322.9 270.9 225.9 205.9

ILC 60.0 90.0 90.0 50.0 - New Initiatives 80.5 112.5 180.0 191.9 150.0

LHC 60.0 60.0 62.4 64.9 67.5 Research 242.6 254.1 255.3 295.1 284.6

Advanced Tech R&D 62.5 67.5 67.8 78.0 75.4 Construction 10.0 77.2 127.7 280.0 500.0

Note: New Initiative category covers R&D’s specific for Neutrino and Dark Energy facilities

Office of Science


36

High Energy PhysicsOutyear Funding Profile

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

($M

)

Construction

Advanced TechR&DResearch

LHC

New Initiatives

ILC

Facility Ops

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

($M

)

Target Profile Over Target Profile

Office of Science


37

FY 2007 OMB Budget

Funding by Science(reference HEP budget: Funding Profile; pg1)

Theory

Adv. Tech

Proton PhysicsElectron

Physics

Non-Accel Physics

Funding by Site(re ference SC Overv iew funding by site )

Fermi

SLAC

Smaller Labs

Other*

Universities*HQ undesignated university and lab reserves as well as S BIR/S TTR

Funding by Type(reference HEP budget: HEP pie chart; pg14)

OtherInfrastructure

Facility Operations

Laboratory Research

Universities

Office of Science


BACKUP SLIDES

Office of Science


39

Questions to be Answered

Office of Science


40

Quantum Universe Questions and Tools for a Scientific Revolution

Question Tools

1. Are there undiscovered principles of nature: New symmetries, new physical laws? The quantum ideas that so successfully describe familiar matter fail when applied to

cosmic physics. Solving the problem requires the appearance of new forces and new particles signaling the discovery of new symmetries—undiscovered principles of nature’s behavior.

Tevatron, LHC, International Linear Collider

2. How can we solve the mystery of dark energy? The dark energy that permeates empty space and accelerates the expansion of the universe

must have a quantum explanation. Dark energy might be related to the Higgs field, a force that fills space and gives particles mass.

LHC, International Linear Collider, JDEM

3. Are there extra dimensions of space? String theory predicts seven undiscovered dimensions of space that give rise to much of

the apparent complexity of particle physics. The discovery of extra dimensions would be an epochal event in human history; it would change our understanding of the birth and evolution of the universe. String theory could reshape our concept of gravity.

LHC, International Linear Collider,

4. Do all the forces become one? At the most fundamental level all forces and particles in the universe may be related, and

all the forces might be manifestations of a single grand unified force, realizing Einstein’s dream.

International Linear Collider, and Proton Decay

5. Why are there so many kinds of particles? Why do three families of particles exist, and why do their masses differ so dramatically?

Patterns and variations in the families of elementary particles suggest undiscovered underlying principles that tie together the quarks and leptons of the Standard Model.

Tevatron, BaBar, and BTeV

Office of Science


41

Quantum Universe Questions and Tools for a Scientific Revolution

Question Tools

6. What is dark matter? How can we make it in the laboratory? Most of the matter in the universe is unknown dark matter, probably heavy particles

produced in the big bang. While most of these particles annihilated into pure energy, some remained. These remaining particles should have a small enough mass to be produced and studied at accelerators.

International Linear Collider and JDEM

7. What are the neutrinos telling us? Of all the known particles, neutrinos are the most mysterious. They played an

essential role in the evolution of the universe, and their tiny nonzero mass may signal new physics at very high energies.

NuMI/MINOS , Double Beta Decay Experiment and Neutrino Superbeams

8. How did the universe come to be? According to cosmic theory, the universe began with a singular explosion followed by

a burst of inflationary expansion. Following inflation, the universe cooled, passing through a series of phase transitions and allowing the formation of stars, galaxies and life on earth. Understanding inflation requires breakthroughs in quantum physics and quantum gravity.

LHC and RHIC

9. What happened to the antimatter? The big bang almost certainly produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, yet

the universe seems to contain no antimatter. How did the asymmetry arise?

BaBar, BTeV, and Super Neutrino Beams

Office of Science


Quantum Universe - Major U.S. Facilities

Office of Science


43

All had a solid justification in “bread-and-butter” physics – but history shows that unexpected discoveries are common and can open up entirely new directions

AGS at BNL N interactions 2 kinds of , CP violation, J/

SLAC nucleon form factors quarks in the proton

Fermilab fixed target neutrino physics b-quark collider W and Z top quark

CERN collider W and Z W and Z

PETRA at DESY top quark gluon jets

LEP/SLC electroweak physics electroweak physics

SuperK proton decay neutrino oscillation

SNO neutrino oscillation neutrino oscillation

Supernova decelerating universe accelerating universe surveys (dark energy)

LHC Higgs ?

Facility What it was Built to do What it is remembered forExample:Christopher Columbus route to India discovery of America

Office of Science


44

State of the field

The Standard Model is still standing – just Clear frontiers of research have appeared – we know surprises await

At the energy frontier (the TeV scale) In dark matter and dark energy In neutrino physics

Office of Science


45

APS neutrino study recommended

New Reactor experimentMeasure 13

New Accelerator experiment “off axis”Measure 13 and mass pattern

New Double beta decayexperimentProbe mass and Majorana nature

Decision pointhow big is 13?

Upgrade beamline

And/Or

New detector(s)

And/Or

Muon storage ring as neutrino factory

CP violation?

Next decadeNow

Office of Science


46

Neutrino surprises

Unlike quarks – there is a lot of mixing Masses tiny – not from Higgs? From GUT scale physics? Overall mass scale is unknown Hierarchy unknown (2+1 or 1+2) Are neutrinos their own antiparticles?

Or

Office of Science


47

HEP Results in FY05

Office of Science


48

Tevatron: key is luminosity

Top quark mass (GeV)

W b

oso

n m

ass

(GeV

)

L (

fb-1)

Standar

d

Model

Run IIprojections

Closing in on the the SM Higgs

Office of Science


49

Office of Science


50

Other Windows to New Physics

Discovery Potential over most of Bs mixing expected region

SUSY Chargino Sensitivity to 270 GeV!

Observation of Bs mixing

Office of Science


51

Present Neutrino Program

Minos Far detector

Minos near detector

MINOS program is just starting: • 2 GeV neutrinos• 5.4 Kiloton far detector at Soudan• 1 Kiloton near detector at FNAL• Most precise measurements for neutrino oscillation• disappearance

NEED TO ADD NUMI PROTON INTENSITY PLOT

Office of Science


52

B factory promise

Charmonium

s-Penguins

3.7 between CP violation in s-

penguin vs sin2 (cc)

0SK

0B

b

s

s

sd d

0SK

0B

b

s

s

sd d

SUSY contribution with new phases

New physics in loops?

Office of Science


53

Lattice QCD Results with TFlop computers

Lattice QCD calculations now consistent, accurate at ~1-2% level

Are making useful predictions

Office of Science


54

CDMSII – Direct Searches for WIMPS

Office of Science


55

Advisory Processes

Office of Science


56

Advisory Process - Scale of Program

One can 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

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

Office of Science


57

Advisory 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)

Office of Science


58

National Academies Panel EPP2010

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

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 a typical high energy physics advisory panel. It includes Leaders (non-physicists) in industry, government and academe

Strengthen connections with society Sharpen the physics questions

Non-particle physicists Engage other scientific communities

International participants Place US HEP in the international setting

Office of Science


59

The 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

Office of Science


60

NuSAG

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.

Office of Science


61

Review of Accelerator R&D Program

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?

Office of Science


62

Accelerator R&D Program

Office of Science


63

Accelerator R&D Program in OHEP

Purpose: Provide the scientific and technology base for the highly specialized accelerators which are essential to a forefront high energy physics research program

Strategy: Support a broad program of accelerator technology R&D addressing needs for short-term: improvements for existing specific facilities (Tevatron, B-factory) mid-term: generic R&D for a class of possible facilities or applications (super-

conducting magnet, super-conducting rf, electron-position collider, hadron collider etc)

long-term (advanced accelerator R&D): advancing fundamental science and technology of accelerator concept and technology independent of application (plasma & laser acceleration, wakefield acceleration

which brings connections between present program and future concepts.

In OHEP budget structure, these are roughly divided into

Short and Mid term = Accelerator Development

Long term = Accelerator Science

Office of Science


64

Accelerator R&D Program

Strong Integration of National Labs, Universities, and Industry

Supports Unique & Dedicated Research Facilities Advanced Wakefield Accelerator at ANL

Accelerator Test Facility at BNL

Photo-injector Laboratory (FNPL) at FNAL

L’OASIS at LBNL

NLCTA at SLAC

Neptune Laboratory at UCLA

Proposed SABER & ORION at SLAC

Support for Cultivation of Next Generation Accelerator Physicists HEP Accelerator R&D program supported production of over 230 Ph.D since 1982

US Particle Accelerator School: started in 1982, office located at FNAL: Two week intensive program being offered twice a year. Accepted as being equivalent to graduate schedule program credit (2~3 credit course)

Sponsoring major Conferences and Workshops

Office of Science


65

Current R&D Topics

New accelerator concepts : 13 institutions (16 groups) including 4 national labs (ANL, BNL, LBNL, SLAC) Laser acceleration: 6 groups Plasma acceleration: 9 groups Wakefield acceleration: 2 groups

Super Conducting Magnet Technology & Materials Development: 8 institutions including 3 national labs (BNL, FNAL, LBNL)

High Powered RF Sources & Accelerating Structures (ex: SC rf cavity): program at 9 institutions including 4 national labs (ANL, BNL, FNAL, SLAC)

Code Development: 5 institutions including 2 labs (LANL, LBNL)

Theory: 14 institutions including 1 national lab (LBNL)

Accelerator Experiments: 3 institutions including 1 national lab (SLAC)

Special Facilities: Unique and Dedicated Research Facilities (list in previous slide)

Office of Science


66

Over the last decade, funding for accelerator R&D has decreased by almost 30% if adjusted for cost-of-living factor (3.5~4% per year)

A number of visible impacts Termination of muon collider R&D program Termination of a number of university groups & grants Downsize of SC magnet groups at BNL, FNAL and LBNL ORION & SABER proposals put on hold for the last few years Delay upgrade and under utilization of existing Special Facilities (AWA,

ATF, FNPL, L’OASIS)

FY96-FY01 FY02-FY04 FY05

in FY04$ $62M~$67M $58M~$60M ~$56M

if adjusted for cost of living $67M~$76M $58M~$60M ~$54M

OHEP Accelerator R&D Funding History

Office of Science


67

Accelerator R&D in Other Parts of the World

Hard to account for the total size of the efforts and resources Europe: 16 major Advanced Accelerator Facilities Japan: 16 Advanced Accelerator Facilities Also advanced accelerator research labs at Taiwan, Korea, India,

China, Israel

Office of Science


68

International Collaboration

Office of Science


69

Partnering with others (Projects)

name TPC DOE Non-DOE com m ents

LHC-ATLAS 164.0 103.0 61.0 NSF

LHC-CMS 167.1 147.1 20.0 NSF

Run IIb CDF 13.5 10.4 3.1 foreign partners

Run IIb D-zero 19.9 12.5 7.4 NSF (3.1) and foreign partners

GLAST/LAT 136.6 42.0 93.4 NASA (93.4), Japan (1.2)

CDMS 18.4 4.9 13.5 NSF (9.3) and univers ities

Auger 8.7 4.7 4.0 NSF

VERITAS 14.7 4.8 9.9 NSF (6.6), Sm ithsonian (1.1) and others

AMS ~180 5.0 ~175 NASA and foreign partners

($M)

Office of Science


70

Partnering with others (experiments)

name Total US Non-US com m ents

BaBar 600 300 300

CDF 750 380 370

D-Zero 650 330 320

MINOS 200 150 50

AMS 450 30 420 ~95% funded by foreign partners

Auger 300 70 230

GLAST/LAT 130 50 80

Total number of collaborators

Office of Science


71

FY07 Target Details

Office of Science


72

Impacts of FY07 HEP Target: “What’s Out”

Operations of SLAC B-factory terminated at the beginning of FY 2007

Only costs are for linac maintenance, physics analysis support and PEP-II D&D. Assumes BES contribution of $40M for linac ops.

Detector and accelerator upgrades planned for installation in FY 2006 will be abandoned.

Cede to Japan all future B-factory discoveries and the scientific prestige that follows, after an ~$0.8B investment in construction and operations over a decade

Estimate ~300 FTE RIFs in FY07, some of which will be picked up by the BES program to support LCLS construction and operations.

Total PEP-II luminosity will be ~500 fb-1 (compare to ~900 fb-1 in Over Target)

Office of Science


73

Impacts of FY07 HEP Target: Significant Reductions

Research Program Significantly Reduced

Overall core research and technology R&D activities in the HEP program will be reduced by ~$19M in FY 2007 to meet overall budget constraints.

Reductions in these areas will be partially offset (at the ~30-40% level) by ramp-up of new initiatives

Rapid ramp-down of B-factory research and major program realignment will begin.

40 universities, 3 DOE labs (LBNL, LLNL and SLAC) and ~300 foreign researchers currently participate in this program

Estimate an elimination of ~100 university research FTEs and ~70 laboratory research FTEs in FY 2007, not including potential offsets from new initiatives

Office of Science


74

Impacts of FY07 HEP Target: “What’s In”

Facility Operations

Tevatron Collider and NuMI: Both the Tevatron Collider and the NuMI beam line will continue to run a technically-limited schedule in FY 2007.

Maintains U.S. leadership in energy frontier research and accelerator-based neutrino physics.

Overall effort reduced due to completion of Run II upgrades and operations-related R&D

Office of Science


75


Research

LHC: Support final installation, commissioning, and initial operations of the U.S.-supplied components of the LHC.

Facilitate remote participation by U.S. physicists in the start-up activities of the LHC

Support the software and computing infrastructure needed to provide U.S. scientists rapid and easy access to LHC data.

Note that the success of this program relies on ASCR providing an upgraded ESNet to access enormous LHC datasets. This upgrade is not funded in the ASCR Target.

ILC R&D: Pre-conceptual design of Linear Collider systems.

A reference design and preliminary cost is to be competed by the end of 2006, and this will identify key areas for aggressive R&D to reduce costs and/or improve operational reliability.

Office of Science


76


New Initiatives

SNAP R&D: Develop new space-based experimental tools to study the mysterious dark energy

The SNAP R&D effort will be terminated in FY2007 in the absence of additional resources in the outyears and an interagency agreement on how to proceed. (does this belong here???)

Neutrinos: The R&D effort begun in FY2006 to develop new accelerator and detector technologies to enhance future neutrino physics program will continue, including:

Dedicated electron neutrino appearance exp’t w/ NuMI beam

Reactor-based experiment to precisely measure nu mixing

Neutrinoless double-beta decay exp’t (joint with NP)

R&D for super neutrino beam facility ramps up

Office of Science


77

FY07 Over Target Details

Office of Science


78

Impacts of FY07 HEP Over Target: “What’s In”

Facility Operations

Full operations of SLAC B-factory will be restored. Assumes BES contribution of $40M for linac ops.

Detector and accelerator upgrades planned for installation in FY 2006 to provide increased luminosity and cope with higher data rates will proceed as planned.

FY 2007 PEP-II luminosity will be ~150 fb-1.

Resolve whether current intriguing discrepancies in physics results between the SLAC B-factory and the Japanese B-factory are signs of new physics

Estimate ~80 FTE RIFs from SLAC HEP program in FY 2007 due to overall budget constraints, some of which will be picked up by BES to support LCLS construction.

Office of Science


79


Research

ILC R&D: Expanded R&D and engineering that can support a 2011 construction start (see details)

Accelerated schedule for ILC construction positions the U.S. to regain world-leadership in HEP research in the next decade.

Restore core research and technology R&D: Overall core research activities in the HEP program will be restored to FY 2005 level-of-effort.

No RIFs in research activities.

The physics output of the B-factory and Tevatron Collider research programs will be maintained.

Office of Science


80


Research

ESNet Upgrade:

This upgrade is funded in the ASCR Over Target budget but scientific impacts to the HEP program are described here.

This effort will implement a new architecture to serve the networking needs of all of the Office of Science, enabling programs to meet their future scientific goals which rely on data-intensive research.

SC networking requirements are driven by analysis of LHC data in FY07; other programs (nanotech, GTL) in later years.

Enable US researchers to fully analyze LHC data, maximize physics payoff and take a leading role in LHC discoveries

Office of Science


81


New Initiatives

Neutrino Experiments: Neutrino physics experiments begun in the FY 2007 Target will be expanded to provide:

Optimized utilization of the NuMI facility, via an accelerated schedule for the electron neutrino appearance experiment (EvA) that allows completion of the detector one year earlier.

Domestic experimental facilities (reactor-based neutrino experiment)

New MIE project for neutrino physics experiment complementary to and independent of the double beta decay experiment funded by NP.

Super Neutrino Beam Facility: Engineering design on this next-generation neutrino facility would begin in FY 2007, with a construction start in FY 2009.

This facility will allow comprehensive studies of neutrino properties by providing a neutrino beam 10 times more intense than those available with current accelerators.

Office of Science


82


New Initiatives

Dark Energy: Proceed with new experimental tools to study the mysterious dark energy

JDEM mission concept will be completed in FY 2007; start eng. design in 2009 and fabrication in 2011.

Ground-based dark energy camera (DES) begins fabrication in 2007

A new ground-based dark energy telescope (LSST) begins advanced engineering design in 2007, with a fabrication start in 2009.

This is a multipurpose telescope with unique capabilities for studying dark energy and other phenomena, and would likely be a joint effort with the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Office of Science


83

ILC – LHC Synergy

Office of Science


84

The LHC can observe that new massive particles exist; the ILC will pinpoint which new force created them.

The Higgs boson is responsible for giving mass to particles. If it exists, the LHC will observe it. The ILC will tell us if it is the standard model Higgs, or is more complex.

The LHC can measure a combination of the number of extra spatial dimensions and their size; the ILC allows disentanglement of the number and size separately.

Examples of ILC – LHC Synergy

Office of Science


85

Supersymmetry provides the leading candidate for dark matter in the universe. The ILC can isolate it and measure its mass, in turn allowing the LHC to refine its measurements. Combining with cosmic background radiation probes in space, we can tell if this particle is the only dark matter particle.

The LHC and ILC are both needed to determine if the fundamental forces are unified – Einstein’s dream.

Examples of ILC – LHC Synergy

Office of Science


86

ILC as a telescope looking at the universe

in the first moments after the big bang.

era of force unification

era of quarks and gluons

era of protons and neutrons

era of nuclei

era of atoms

era of stars and galaxies

era of OMB and DOE

Office of Science


87

The Higgs boson is somewhat like the Bunraku puppeteers, dressed in black to be ‘invisible’, manipulating the players in the drama.

ILC & Higgs

Office of Science


88

collision energy

inte

ract

ion r

ate

Curves denote different Higgs boson spins; ILC data cleanly discriminate.

supersymmetry

The ILC measures the properties of the Higgs boson – for example, its spin

and its decay fractions into different particles. If these differ from the standard model expectations, the pattern will tell us the nature of the more complex Higgs boson.

ILC, Higgs & SUSY

Office of Science


89

The precise ILC neutralino mass measurement allows the LHC to pin down other particle masses much more accurately.

20

mass

neutralino mass

20 mass

error with ILC help

20 mass

error with no ILC help

ILC & SUSY

Office of Science


90

Maybe ILC agrees with Planck; then the neutralino is likely the only dark matter particle.

Maybe ILC disagrees with Planck; this would tell us that there are different forms of dark matter.

ILC & Dark Matter

Office of Science


91

go here sense whats happening here

forc

e s

trength

energy

ILC, Terascale & Grand Unification

High Energy Physics FY 2007 OMB Presentation

Documents

Transcript of High Energy Physics FY 2007 OMB Presentation