Report from NSAC

1. Report from NSAC Donald Geesaman IUPAP WG-9 Meeting 17 August 2012

2. 2012 NSAC Committee Robert Atcher Peter Jacobs Jamie Nagle LANL LBNL Colorado Jeffrey Binder David Kaplan Kenneth Nash (ACS) ORNL Washington Washington State Jeffery Blackmon Joshua Klein AllenaOpper Louisiana State Pennsylvania George Washington Gail Dodge KarlheinzLanganke Jorge Piekarewicz Old Dominion GSI Florida State Alexandra GadeZheng-tian Lu Julia Velkovska Michigan State ANL Vanderbilt Susan Gardner Robert McKeownRajagopalVenugopalin Kentucky Jefferson Lab BNL Donald Geesaman (Chair) Curtis Meyer ANL Carnegie Mellon

3. US Outlook Raises the Spector of Considerable Possible Changes • 2007 Long Range Plan • Expectation of doubling of science budgets • Construction of JLab 12 GeV Upgrade • Facility for Rare Isotope Beams • Deep Underground Science Laboratory • RHIC Luminosity Upgrade • Future thinking of an electron-ion collider • 2009 Influx of one time funding from recovery act (ARRA) • 2009 FRIB “Other Project Costs” funding starts • 2011 FRIB TEC Project Funding starts • FY2012 President’s request contains 15.9% increase • HRIBF closed • Enacted budget had a 3.7% increase • FY13 request at FY11 level – possibility of flat budgets for some time to come.

4. 2012 Program • Running programs at RHIC, NSCL, ATLAS, LHC and university facilities. STAR Heavy Flavor Tracker being assembled. CARIBU getting 0.5 Ci source this summer. • JLAB 6 GeV running completed. 12 GeV construction ~60% complete • FRIB funding in 4th year. Ready for CD-2 • Majorana demonstrator in progress and neutron EDM R&D continuing. CUORE equipment funding complete in 2012.

5. The 2013 President’s Budget Request brings challenges

6. FY12 NP down 3.5% from FY11 and NSCL held flat FY13 expect about flat

7. From Dr. Brinkman’s and Dr. Hallman’s slides

8. 2012 Congressional Budget process • House E&W Committee markup added 21 M$ to Presidents request • Senate Committee added $13M to President’s request. • Likely there will only be a continuing resolution this year, not a budget bill so it is not clear what happens. “Agreement” on a CR til March. • Both markup’s contained language about NSAC review to inform priorities for the future. • If “Sequestration” (part of debt limit increase legislation) occurs, could be significant further cuts

13. Underground Lab – now in the hands of HEP at DOE Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment reconfiguration working group recently favored the option to build a new beamline to Homestake with an initial 10 ktonLAr-TPC detector on the surface.

17. Observationsprojecting based on previous charges • NSAC has repeatedly answered charges like this before including 1985, 1992 and 2005. In 2005 we named a facility to close in the event of declining budgets, but the tide of research budgets changed. By 2006-2007 there was the expectation of a doubling of R&D budgets. • We are not asked to do new Long Range Plan but we need to take into account progress, both in the U.S. and internationally. • 2013 budget followed by flat-flat budgets through 2018 represent an effective $86M/year cut from FY2012 budget (depending on estimates of inflation).

18. NSAC Subcommittee Robert Tribble (Chair) Texas A&M Adam Burrows Princeton George Crabtree ANL Joseph Carlson LANL Brad Filippone Caltech Stuart Freedman UC-Berkeley Haiyan Gao Duke Donald Geesaman ANLBarbara Jacek Stony Brook Peter Jacobs LBNL David Kaplan Washington Kirby Kemper Florida State Krishna Kumar Massachusetts Naomi Makins Illinois – UC Curtis Meyer Carnegie-Mellon James Nagle Colorado WitoldNazarewicz Tennessee/ORNL Krishna Rajagopol M.I.T. Michael Ramsey-Musolf Wisconsin Lee Sobotka Washington U. St. Louis Michael Wiescher Notre Dame John Wilkerson North Carolina State

19. Plans for the Subcommittee Discussion prior to charge at April APS meeting May15: Organizational meeting in Washington Area Sept 6-9: Meeting to gather input. Presentations summarizing major areas of science and plans for major facilities. Detailed budget scenarios from the agencies. November: Resolution Meeting January 7: Report due to NSAC Late January: NSAC meeting to consider report. Community input: Asked for input through DNP mailing. Most facilities are working through their users groups. Some may self organize town meetings Web Site: http://cyclotron.tamu.edu/nsac-subcommittee-2012/

20. Summary • If we do this well, we can communicate the value of our science and the wisdom in our planning decisions. • NSAC is widely viewed as being able to respond coherently to the issues at hand and that thus the agencies pay very close attention to our recommendations. • We must respond to the charge. • There is currently an element of uncertainty in the future U.S. program which has international ramifications . However, the U.S. will continue to invest heavily in nuclear physics research. There may be new opportunities for collaborations and joint ventures. • NP2010, the National Research Council Decadal Report on Nuclear Physicshas been released. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13438 Also two videos http://sites.nationalacademies.org/BPA/BPA_069589

21. National Research Council Decadal Survey of Nuclear Physics NP2010 • Chair: Stuart Freedman, Vice Chair: Ani Aprahamian • Pre-Publication version released June 2012 http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13438 Recommendations on the next four slides.

22. Finding: By capitalizing on strategic investments, including the ongoing upgrade of the continuous electron beam accelerator facility (CEBAF) at the Thomas Jefferson Accelerator Facility and the recently completed upgrade of the relativistic heavy ion collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory (RHIC), as well as other upgrades to the research infrastructure, nuclear physicists will confront new opportunities to make fundamental discoveries and lay the 16 groundwork for new applications. Conclusion: Exploiting strategic investments should be an essential component of the U.S. nuclear science program in the coming decade. After years of development and hard work involving a large segment of the U.S. nuclear physics community and the Department of Energy, a major, world leading new accelerator is being constructed in the United States. Finding: The Facility for Rare Isotope Beams is a major new strategic investment in nuclear science. It will have unique capabilities and offers opportunities to answer fundamental questions about the inner workings of the atomic nucleus, the formation of the elements in our universe, and the evolution of the cosmos. Recommendation: The DOE’s Office of Science in conjunction with the State of Michigan and Michigan State University, should work toward the timely completion of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams and the initiation of its physics program.

23. Recommendation: The Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and, where appropriate, other funding agencies should develop and implement a targeted program of underground science, including important experiments on whether neutrinos differ from antineutrinos, on the nature of dark matter, and on nuclear reactions of astrophysical importance. Such a program would be substantially enabled by the realization of a deep underground laboratory in the United States. Finding: The dual role of universities—education and research—is important in all aspects of nuclear physics, including the operation of small, medium, and large facilities, as well as the design and execution of large experiments at the national research laboratories. The vitality and sustainability of the U.S. nuclear physics program depend in an essential way on the intellectual environment and the workforce provided symbiotically by universities and the national laboratories. The fraction of the nuclear science budget reserved for facilities operations cannot continue to grow at the expense of the resources available to support research without serious damage to the overall nuclear science program. Conclusion: In order to ensure the long-term health of the field, it is critical to establish and maintain a balance between funding of operations at major facilities and the needs of university-based programs.

24. Recommendation: The Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation should create and fund two national competitions: one a fellowship program for graduate students that will help recruit the best among the next generation into nuclear science and the other a fellowship program for postdoctoral researchers to provide the best young nuclear scientists with support, independence, and visibility. Recommendation: A plan should be developed within the theoretical community and enabled by the appropriate sponsors that permits forefront computing resources to be deployed by nuclear science researchers and establishes the infrastructure and collaborations needed to take advantage of exascalecapabilities as they become available. Finding: The range of projects in nuclear physics is broad, and sophisticated new tools and protocols have been developed for successful management of the largest of them. At the smaller end of the scale, nimbleness is essential if the United States is to remain competitive and innovative in a rapidly expanding international nuclear physics area. Recommendation: The sponsoring agencies should develop streamlined and flexible procedures that are tailored for initiating and managing smaller-scale nuclear science projects.

25. Finding: An upgrade to an existing accelerator facility that enables the colliding of nuclei and electrons at forefront energies would be unique for studying new aspects of quantum chromodynamics. In particular, such an upgrade would yield new information on the role of gluons in protons and nuclei. An electron-ion collider is currently under scrutiny as a possible future facility. Recommendation: Investment in accelerator and detector research and development for an electron-ion collider should continue. The science opportunities and the requirements for such a facility should be carefully evaluated in the next Nuclear Science Long-Range Plan.

26. The 2007 Long Range Plan

27. Recommendations of the 2007 NSAC Long Range Plan Recommendation I • We recommend completion of the 12 GeV CEBAF Upgrade at Jefferson Lab. The Upgrade will enable new insights into the structure of the nucleon, the transition between the hadronic and quark/gluon descriptions of nuclei, and the nature of confinement. Recommendation II • We recommend construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB), a world-leading facility for the study of nuclear structure, reactions, and astrophysics. Experiments with the new isotopes produced at FRIB will lead to a comprehensive description of nuclei, elucidate the origin of the elements in the cosmos, provide an understanding of matter in the crust of neutron stars, and establish the scientific foundation for innovative applications of nuclear science to society.

28. Recommendation III • We recommend a targeted program of experiments to investigate neutrino properties and fundamental symmetries. These experiments aim to discover the nature of the neutrino, yet-unseen violations of time-reversal symmetry, and other key ingredients of the New Standard Model of fundamental interactions. Construction of a Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory is vital to U.S. leadership in core aspects of this initiative. Recommendation IV • The experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider have discovered a new state of matter at extreme temperature and density—a quark-gluon plasma that exhibits unexpected, almost perfect liquid dynamical behavior. We recommend implementation of the RHIC II luminosity upgrade, together with detector improvements, to determine the properties of this new state of matter. Recommendations for the further future Initiatives