Long Range Plan

1. Long Range Plan P5 Presentation January 31st, 2008 Pier Oddone

2. Outline • The foundation: Fermilab today • Criteria for a realistic base plan for the accelerator based physics program in the US • The HEP world and Fermilab’s future: the energy, intensity and astrophysics frontiers • The physics case for improving the high intensity proton source at Fermilab • The corresponding funding profile for Fermilab • Variations on a $688M budget (omnibus level)

3. Foundation: Tevatron • Greatest window into new phenomena until LHC is on. • Strong collaborations, viable through 2009 and beyond. About 80 archival papers/year and 80 PhD thesis/year. • Record luminosities and sensitivity to new physics with 9 accelerators and 200,000 controllable elements. • Now dominant on the world stage at every conference.

4. Foundation: Tevatron • When does the program stop? • The “natural” life without the LHC would be several more years, roughly at the end of “doubling data in three years” • Very difficult to predict when it will be overtaken by LHC. Prudent to plan running in 2010 – depends on funding scenarios.

5. Foundation: Neutrino experiments MINOS: neutrino oscillations in the atmospheric region; coming electron appearance at CHOOZ limit or below Minos Far detector MiniBooNE: neutrino oscillations in the LSND region; exploration of low energy anomaly in neutrino interactions SciBooNE: neutrino cross sections MiniBooNE detector

6. Foundation: astrophysics • CDMS II – one week from best dark matter limits • SDSS – huge impact survey, baryon acoustic oscillation • Pierre Auger – GZK cutoff, association with active galactic nuclei • COUPP – competitive results for spin-dependent WIMPS, scalable

7. Foundation: capabilities • Powerful theory group, including leading role in phenomenology, lattice gauge • Computational science, large data sets • Detector instrumentation, silicon detectors • Accelerator design, control and operations • Mechanical (including cryogenic), electronic engineering, magnet design • World-wide collaborations

8. Criteria for a realistic plan • Work with and support the US HEP community. • Must do best-in-the-world physics in the chosen domain. • Must be a long range roadmap: positions us well for a couple of decades giving us many choices. • Base plan should avoid discontinuous jumps (>$100M) per year in funding: hard lift for HEP within national context. • Takes into account the complexity of the world we live in, in particular the “rules of the road”

9. Criteria: rules of the road • Operating facilities with essential programs get top priority. Example: Tevatron running • Next priority is construction projects with a budget and a schedule (except at the very beginning) • R&D programs are squeezable when confronted with the top priorities for both the Administration and Congress.

10. Criteria: US is badly positioned • We are shutting our major facilities (program done): Tevatron, B-factory, CESR • We are not building any large projects. NOvA is the exception and it is modest ($260M for both detector and accelerator) • Problem: no driver to maintain/increase the resources for the field. We need a realistic, robust plan!!

11. HEP world: profound mysteries • Mass of elementary particles • New symmetries • Unification of forces • Extra spatial dimensions • Neutrino masses • Dark matter • Dark energy • Inflation • Matter-antimatter asymmetry

12. HEP world: tools pp-bar pp e+e- m+m- Energy Frontier Intense n, m, K, .. beams; and B, C factories; Intensity Frontier Non-accelerator based Telescopes; Underground experiments;

13. HEP world: non-accelerator • The big questions for non –accelerator experiments: nature of neutrinos (neutrino-less double beta decay, reactors), dark energy (DES, SNAP, LSST), gravity (LIGO, LISA), direct dark matter detection (CDMS, Xenon, COUPP….), proton decay, origin of cosmic rays • US program has done well so far: discovery of dark energy, CMB fluctuations (COBE, WMAP), baryon acoustic oscillations (SDSS), dark matter search limits (CDMS, Xenon, COUPP….), cosmic rays (Pierre Auger), GLAST about to be launched

14. HEP world: non-accelerator • US program is well positioned: • Direct Dark Matter: CDMS-25kg, Noble Liquids, COUPP • Neutrino-less double beta decay: Majorana, EXO • Dark energy: DES, SNAP, LSST • DOE’s role is partial: many of these activities supported by other agencies (NSF, NASA) and lead to program anomalies: can we do dark energy and not gravity?, or CMB?, etc.

15. Fermilab non-accelerator program • Very strong theory group; foundations of the particle physics - astrophysics connection, modeling • Large data set expertise (SDSS, CDF, D0, CMS) • Strong instrumentalists and engineering: silicon, focal planes, electronics, DAQ

16. Fermilab non-accelerator program • Future program centered in the Particle Astrophysics Center (new director soon) is broadly collaborative: • DES construction (CD-2 going in parallel to this meeting) • JDEM (SNAP), participation in LSST?? • CDMS-25 kg, COUPP-60kg, ton scale detector ?? • Computational modeling initiative • Other ideas under development

17. HEP world: the LHC dominates LHC

18. HEP world: LHC and Fermilab Compact Muon Spectrometer CMS Remote Operations Center at Fermilab

19. HEP world: LHC and Fermilab • The LHC is the single most important physics component of the US program • Fermilab supports the US CMS effort. Built major components of CMS supporting the universities. • Now have Tier 1 computing center, LHC Physics Center, Remote Operations Center (ROC), CERN/Fermilab summer schools

20. HEP world: LHC and Fermilab • Major contribution to the accelerator. We are now helping to commission LHC. • To continue to be welcome, US and Fermilab must contribute to detector and accelerator improvements. • Aim: critical mass at Fermilab, as good as going to CERN (once detectors completed).

21. HEP world: need TeV lepton collider International Linear Collider (ILC) ILC e- e+ LHC pp

22. HEP World: ILC technoogy Horizontal Test Stand First cryomodule Vertical Test Stand

23. HEP world: the ILC • Strong world-wide collaboration on ILC: by far the easiest machine beyond the LHC – CLIC and muon colliders are more difficult. • ILC will be it – provided LHC tells us the richness is there. • Technology is broadly applicable – R&D on the technology is important: electron cloud effects, reliable high gradient cavities, final focus….

24. HEP world: the ILC in the US • Fermilab and US community will continue with ILC and SCRF R&D – probably on stretched timescale. • Reality: the likelihood of building ILC in the US is much reduced after the latest round of Congressional actions on ILC, ITER. • We won’t stop working on this. We need a solid foundation before we can dream.

25. HEP world: intensity frontier • LHC and non-accelerator experiments tell us nothing about the neutrino mass hierarchy and CP violation, little about couplings of any new particles discovered at LHC or charged lepton flavor violation • These issues can be studied at the intensity frontier through a large and rich variety of experiments: essential for a unified view

26. HEP world: intensity frontier • The general rule: • If the LHC discovers new particles – precision experiments tell about the physics behind through rates/couplings to standard particles • If the LHC does not see new particles – precision experiments with negligible rates in the SM are the only avenue to probe higher energies • Additionally, neutrino oscillations coupled with charged lepton number violating processes constrain GUT model building

27. Fermilab and the intensity frontier • We have designed a program based on a new injector for the complex. • Can exploits the large infrastructure of accelerators: Main Injector (120 GeV), Recycler (8GeV), Debuncher (8 GeV), Accumulator (8 GeV) – would be very expensive to reproduce today • New source uses ILC technology and helps development of the technology in the US • Provides the best program in neutrinos, and rare decays in the world • Positions the US program for an evolutionary path leading to neutrino factories and muon colliders

28. Fermilab and the intensity frontier

29. Project X: Beam power / flexibility Recycler 8 GeV protons with 120 GeV MI protons Main Injector Protons 200 kW (Project X) 0* (SNuMI) 16 kW (NuMI-NOvA) 17 kW (NuMI-MINOS) 35-year-old injection (technical risk) SNuMI NuMI (NOvA) NuMI (MINOS) * Protons could be made available at the expense of 120 GeV power.

30. Project X: expandability • Initial configuration exploits alignment with ILC • But it is expandable (we will make sure the hooks are there) • Three times the rep rate • Three times the pulse length • Three times the number of klystrons • Would position the program for a multi-megawatt source for intense muon beams at low <8 GeV energies – very difficult with a synchrotron.

31. Project X: it is the best source • Neutrino program at 120 GeV (2.3 MW); 55% recycler available at 8 GeV (200kW) • We can develop existing 8 GeV rings to deliver and tailor beams, allowing full duty cycle for experiments with the correct time structure: K decays, m e conversion, g-2. • High rate experiments do not decrease protons-on target for the neutrino program at 120 GeV.

32. Example: neutrino strategy • Build NOvA. Together with T2K and reactor: best shot at neutrino oscillation parameters, first glimpse of mass hierarchy if sin22q13 is large enough • Replace MINOS by 5 kton LAr detector on axis. Together with NOvA, by far best reach into angle CP and mass hierarchy for full decade • Develop caverns/detectors for DUSEL – with new beam-line from Project X it is the ultimate super-beam experiment (water or LAr) • If neutrino factory is needed – Project X is the ideal source.

33. Example: neutrino strategy

34. Example: m to e conversion • Could start with Booster beam: already better than MECO experiment • If signal found at 10 -16 level: study A dependence, with higher beam levels • If signal not found, extend search with higher beam levels – full Project X 200 kW • Further power levels with Project X if 8 GeV power is increased.

35. Muon – electron conversion New Physics Scale (TeV) (Courtesy of Andre de Gouvea) Potential FNAL m e conv. expt.10-17~ 10-18 (Project X) - 10,000 1,000 •  e conversion detector MEG experiment ~ 10-13 - Model Parameter Compositeness SUSY

36. Example: evolutionary path to ILC • Project X linac develops US capabilities towards an ILC • Positions Fermilab as potential host • Positions US to contribute on major part of the ILC • Allows concrete collaboration with potential partners

37. NEUTRINO FACTORY Muon ColliderR&D Hall Rebunch (Upgradable to 2MW) Pre-Accel Cool Decay Phase Rot.& Bunch 0.2–0.8 GeV Target PROJECT X 4 GeVRing MUON COLLIDERTEST FACILITY RLA (1–4 GeV) Illustrative Vision Three projects of comparable scope:  Project X (upgraded to 2MW)  Muon Collider Test Facility  4 GeV Neutrino Factory Far Detectorat Homestake n Example: evolutionary path muons

38. 1.5-4 TeV Muon Collider at Fermilab RLA Linac 2 detector  Muon Collider RLA Linac 1 Project X -factory beam MCTF Final Cooling

39. Funding requirements: Project X • We will provide the financial data that P5 requires. Probably should start with the February 4th FY09 President’s budget request. A quick approximate preview: • Pre-omnibus, for FY08, we had planned on a funding level of $372 and $10M of carry over for a total of $383M. NOvA was at $36M and ILC R&D at $24M. • For FY09, assuming ILC goes to half and that NOvA builds up as was intended to $65M, after inflation we would need a budget of $400M in FY09.

40. Funding requirements: Project X • When the Tevatron shuts down, $60M becomes available (ramp down is not instantaneous). When NOvA ramps down, $65M becomes available. Assume also $25M squeeze out of ongoing program during construction. • The above add to $150M/year out of $400M FY09 dollars equivalent budget level. • Peak expenditures on Project X will be about $250M requiring a total lab budget of $500M FY09$ during construction ($250M of Project X goes also to national labs and universities). Assumed project cost $1B FY09$.

41. Funding scenarios: the big ones LHC Upgrades, R&D on future colliders Energy Frontier Project X, neutrino and rare process experiments Intensity Frontier Non-accelerator based JDEM, LSST, Underground experiments;

42. Funding scenarios • Not everything fits in the low budget scenarios: you have difficult choices to make; balance vs. strength of contributions • Problem is immediate in the FY09 lowest budget scenario: there are no capital funds. They have to be made up by shutting facilities or shrinking the field.

43. Variations on a $688M budget • In this budget no ILC would fit. Probably cannot fit major projects in all three areas without shrinking drastically. • Key decision: do we continue to run any accelerator complex? A physics question now and in the long term. • BIG ASSUMPTION: What can be done with $320M to Fermilab and $370M to the rest of the HEP community as in FY08. What can we do with this at Fermilab? You have a more global question to answer. • Immediate choice in FY09: run the Tevatron or build NOvA (there is no money in the omnibus now for NOvA)

44. Variations: scenario 1 • Stop the Tevatron. Build NOvA ($30M in FY09, $60M/year until built) • When finished, build experiments at $60M/year: MINOS II (LAr), m e conversion, K experiments. • Pros: world class competitive experiments until the end of next decade when other facilities overtake us; high energy test beams, front end same as with Project X • Cons: miss Tevatron physics opportunity, international damage, limited platform (injectors are old), minimal R&D on ILC and SCRF, limited participation in JDEM, LHC upgrades

45. Variations: scenario 2 • Run the Tevatron through 2010, stop NOvA construction. • By 2011, stop all accelerators for 5 years. $60M becomes available from the Tevatron, $50M from the rest of the complex for a total of $110M/year. Build SNuMI and new beam line (combined $300M) for a 1.2 MW 120 GeV proton beam program to DUSEL. $250M goes towards detector (it is really cheating since not enough….) • Additional experiments become possible, but would need additional funding

46. Variations: scenario 2 • Pros: leads to a world competitive program at the end of next decade. Reuses infrastructure. Does not quite fit since DUSEL is expensive. • Cons: Eventually overtaken by upgraded facilities elsewhere: JPARC upgrades, SPL in Europe capable of driving neutrino factories and/or muon colliders. No test beams for several years. Extremely exposed position when not running facilities, minimal ILC and SCRF R&D, JDEM or LHC upgrades.

47. Variations: scenario 3 • Run the Tevatron for 2009 and 2010. Give up on neutrinos altogether. Run an 8 GeV program out of the Booster for rare decays, m e conversion, using $60M freed by the Tevatron shut down to build the experiments. • Pros: keeps a world competitive program in rare decays and m e conversion through the decade. • Cons: gives up on neutrino program, no DUSEL program, no high energy test beams, overtaken by other programs with better long range plans

48. Variations: scenario 4 • Run the Tevatron for 2009 and 2010. Stop the US accelerator program and commit to do experiments in Europe (high energy frontier) and in Japan (intensity frontier). To earn our keep, build accelerators/detectors supporting the US community abroad. • Pros: fewer headaches. Strong participation in LHC upgrades, JDEM. • Cons: no domestic facilities, probably no long term recovery possible, off-shore program might compete poorly with domestic facilities in other sciences.

49. Variations: scenario 5 • Run the Tevatron for 2009 and 2010. Stop NOvA. Stop the US accelerator program, reduce the size of Fermilab and join CERN as member state (if they will have us…) • Pros: stable platform, increased CERN budget, can tackle future facilities, one world lab, fewer headaches • Cons: likely that the labs and university programs will shrink from the sense that we “give $$ to CERN for HEP”; one of twenty countries implies not much control/direction for the DOE, will US sign and stick by treaty?

50. Variations on a $688M budget • It is possible to optimize the program at any budget level. However, accelerator facilities have a scale set elsewhere in the world and need certain scale to compete. • At the omnibus level – lots of variations (different nightmares) – none very attractive. Variation 1 has the best chance of maintaining a vital accelerator based program in the US. But predictably it will be overtaken by other facilities built on stronger platforms if the budget level is maintained.