J. Brau June 8, 2006

1. J. Brau June 8, 2006

2. Fermilab Users MeetingILC Related Talks Congressional Perspective Judy Biggert, US Congress News from the NSF       Jon Kotcher, NSF ILC/T2K Hiro Aihara, Tokyo Public Lecture: Rising Above the Gathering Storm Norman Augustine EPP 2010         Harold Shapiro, Princeton University News from the DOE       Robin Staffin, DOE Superconducting Module Test Facility for the ILC         Tim Koeth, Rutgers University Director's Report       Pier Oddone, FNAL

3. Judy Biggert, US Congress • Proud of ACI • States firmly “Basic Research” IS part of ACI • “Discovery Sells Itself” • “by answering how the universe came to be you make a great contribution” • Sometime in the next several years Congress will have to decide on ILC • Need to invest now in R&D to inform that decision • In answering question – unfamiliar with EPP2010 • Referred to LHC user fees

4. Hiro Aihara

5. Hiro Aihara

6. International Linear Collider • NSF support of ILC in FY05 ~ $0.75M in FY05 • University research in detector and accelerator development ($0.25M) • University support is partnership with DOE • Support of GDE personnel & activities ($0.5M) • Support for each was doubled in FY06, total $1.5M • Physics Division is in process of understanding the most effective means of utilizing NSF strengths to support ILC J. Kotcher Fermilab User’s Meeting, 31 May – 1 June 2006

7. HEP2006 Dr. Robin Staffin DOE/SC/HEP June 1, 2006 @FNAL

8. ILC

9. Fermilab’s New National Role

10. Informal Personal Observations (Not approved by the NAS or the NRC!) Harold T. Shapiro Princeton University May 2006

11. Particle Physics and the “ACI” • The current debate over the ACI initiative is a debate over who gets the money, although it is disguised as a debate over which activities most easily and quickly promote economic growth. • Competitiveness is not won in a day, but in a generation. Understanding this may be the key to additional support for the physical sciences

12. Nature of the Scientific Opportunities(For the ‘uninitiated’ does Particle Physics still matter?) • As a committee of skeptics, outsiders, and insiders, how exciting were the scientific opportunities in particle physics? • The committee concluded that particle physics continues to be a critical component of the physical sciences • Intellectual vitality and connectedness to many other fields • Inspiration to and attractor for young people • One of the drivers of technological frontiers • The committee also concluded that the scientific agenda is especially exciting at the present time • Indeed, we are perhaps entering the most exciting era of particle physics in at least a generation • In addition, particle physics is at a pivotal moment • Answers to long-standing questions are now within our technological reach • Convergence of separate lines of inquiries has special significance • New tools such as the LHC and proposed ILC are poised to address these mysteries and make profound discoveries

13. Status of the U.S. Program • Historical distinction • Stagnating level of support for past 10 years • Intellectual center of gravity moving abroad • Major experiments are coming to the end of their scientifically useful lives • There is no clear follow-on plan in place • Significant risk of losing substantial (intellectual and financial) resources • However, there is a “silver lining” • As facilities close or change focus, resources are becoming available within the program to support and launch new initiatives

14. International Linear Collider • Scientific role • LHC will map out the territory, but a precision tool will be necessary for a comprehensive understanding • Cost and schedule • Global scientific consensus has led to a world-wide planning activity (the Global Design Effort) • Key objective is determination of a credible design, cost, and schedule. However the committee proceeded under the assumption that the cost was ‘like’ the LHC and would require an international partnership. • Relative timing • ILC would only become tenable after cost and initial LHC results complete the grounds for decision-making. • Opportunity for the United States • Preliminary investment of risk capital is needed • A successful U.S. bid-to-host requires taking initiative now.

15. Ordered Priorities • Exploit the opportunities offered by the LHC • Plan and initiate a comprehensive program to participate in the global effort to complete the necessary R&D to design and plan an international linear collider • Do what is necessary to mount an internationally compelling bid to build the international linear collider on U.S. soil • Seize the opportunities at the intersection of particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology by coordinating and expanding domestic efforts • Pursue an internationally coordinated, staged program in the physics of neutrinos and proton decay • Pursue precision probes of physics beyond the Standard Model using available resources as a guide to overall level of effort while maintaining diversity

16. What the Report Means for the National Laboratories • Science program of the national laboratories is evolving • Fermilab will become the only laboratory primarily devoted to particle physics and this ‘fact’ will have implications for its scientific agenda • Can a competitive, globally relevant national program be sustained if the major new initiative is an accelerator-based neutrino program at Fermilab? • The committee thought very hard about this possibility but could not see a long-term leadership role for the U.S. in this scenario • Thus, the committee recommends that the U.S. lead an international effort to consider how best to coordinate a long-term global effort with long-baseline neutrino experiments • Fermilab will play a key role in mobilizing and working with the country’s best talent and resources in implementing a national vision that has strategic importance in the global context • Fermilab is a strong contender to have the ILC sited nearby

17. Take-Home Message (2) • Particle physics in the U.S. is at a crossroads • Scientific discoveries are just within reach whose impact is likely to transform and even transcend particle physics • U.S. facilities are being closed or converted to other uses and federal investments have stagnated • Intellectual center of gravity is moving overseas with the construction of new facilities in Europe and Japan • Without clear, decisive action in the next few years, the U.S. program will deteriorate • The United States should continue to support a competitive program in this key scientific field • The committee outlined a strategy that has the best chance to put the United States at the forefront of the field with a program of distinction and importance

18. Take Home Message (3) • Our Vision: That particle physicists, both here and abroad, and their students will be able to pursue which ever aspect of the field that they find intellectually exciting. • To achieve this vision and be accountable for the responsible use of public resources requires that investments in new experimental facilities be “internationallyoptimized” and open to all scientists on an equitable basis. {Strategic Principle 2}

20. Fermilab and the EPP2010 Users Meeting 6/1/06 Pier Oddone

21. How do we line up? • At the energy Frontier • Tevatron: essential to show success now – it is how the field gets measured – not really addressed by EPP2010 • LHC: unprecedented opportunity and expected revolution! Will have to be successful before we can ask for the ILC • ILC: our main goal - the machine will be needed soon to explore the terascale • While ILC is the first priority for a new facility wherever it is built, we want to host the machine at FNAL

22. ILC Strategy • Deliver on the present program: more than $3B in the next four years (a must). • Make the LHC a success (a must). • Make early decision with the agency that ILC path will be supported (RDR). • Be ready by the end of the decade with site specific design/cost/international arrangements, completed component R&D, industrialization plans. Covered Above

23. Third element: Support for RDR • Secretary Bodman: How much …….? • The RDR is now key element: it determines whether DOE leadership states intent to bid-to-host and makes necessary investment.

24. What do we want with the RDR? • Cost will not be precise: no known time scale, no real engineering design, no detailed site design; R&D not finished; no industrialization; done outside DOE costing rules …… • So what good is it? • Hopefully it allows the DOE to decide we really want to do this and to make the large investment necessary in the next few years to do real design and industrialization. • We hope it will allow DOE to initiate international discussions on process for a bid-to-host

25. Fourth element: ready for decision by the end of the decade • After the RDR, will need site specific designs • Agreement on a site? How many? 0,1,2,3…. All regions will contribute to generic elements of the design but individual regions to their site-specific designs • Decision at the end of the decade will be based on success of R&D, full site specific design, credible cost estimate. • No engineering test facility (2-3% of ILC) will be possible outside the project – if we want an early start of the ILC

26. Getting ready for decision • Fermilab ILC R&D activities following GDE: • ILC Machine Design • Development of SCRF technology & infrastructure • Conventional Facility & Site Studies for a US ILC site • Industrialization & Cost Reduction • ILC Physics, Detector Design, and Detector R&D • Support activities of and build partnerships with laboratories and universities • Support GDE and transition to follow-on organization

27. How do we line up ? • Neutrino program: for us higher priority because we provide the accelerator facilities: • Present neutrino program: most powerful through 2010: MINOS, MiniBoone; SciBooNE; MINERVA • Near term program: proposed NOvA program, complementary to T2K; does this qualify as a “phased” approach and part of a coherent international effort as recommended by EPP2010? Can we get the support above the ILC R&D?

28. What next in neutrinos? • Understanding the Neutrino matrix: • What is sin22q13 • What is the Mass Hierarchy • What is the CP violation parameter d • Fermilab is in the best position to make vital contributions to answer these questions with complementary program to T2K facility in Japan

29. Neutrinos and EPP2010 • Carry out a “phased neutrino program…. internationally” NOvA as first step? • Nothing to negotiate now other than giving up on the domestic program. Loss to world’s program. • Decision largely up to the US since the Japanese will not consider coming here to do the neutrino program in the initial phases • The elephant in the room is the ILC – EPP2010’s clear hope is that we can help the Japanese in exchange for their help on the ILC. This is a fine approach, but is the timing right? • The key question is for P5: is the complementary reach of NOvA a compelling physics program.

30. P5 and neutrinos • P5 has two scenarios: • 1) out year scenarios given by DOE to Congress: FY07=+7%; FY08=+1.5%; FY09=+3.0% and 10% increases per year for the next administration • 2) 7% increases per year (approximately 3.5% real growth) • In the first scenario: no room to do anything except continue ILC R&D unless we shut down facilities almost immediately. • The second scenario is very tight but allows for initiatives to get started and supported to conclusion when we shut down facilities after FY08 and FY09.

31. Summary of Main Issues • Transition Tevatron  LHC program: how to complete the Tevatron program successfully • Neutrino program: solve tritium issue, cost of NOvA and how (and if) it fits in the US roadmap • ILC: need to ramp up the effort – not possible with present out-year budget plans (HEP part of ACI?) until closure of facilities. Situation might be much better.

32. Many reasons to be optimistic • Extraordinary level of support for the field • Extraordinary level of support for an ambitious next stage: the ILC • The laboratory is aligned with EPP2010.