High Energy Physics Briefing to the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee

1. High Energy Physics Briefing to theAstronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee Dr. Robin Staffin Associate Director, Office of High Energy Physics DOE Office of Science October 11, 2005

2. Omnis HEP divisa est in partes quatuor Quarum: • Accelerator based physics : the field’s primary tools • Construction and operation of accelerators and detectors and research activities in these facilities • Proton based accelerator: Tevatron, LHC (in construction), K2K, NuMI, MiniBooNE • Electron based accelerator: B-Factories—BaBar and Belle • Non-accelerator physics: a growing and important sector to HEP • Atmospheric & solar neutrinos: Super-K, KamLAND, SNO • Particle astrophysics & cosmology: GLAST, Auger, VERITAS, SDSS, CDMS-II, AMS, CMB • Theory • Elementary particle theory • Major computing efforts: simulation, data storage, distribution, & analysis • Technology R&D • R&D for accelerator and detector technologies

3. High Energy Physics Program • Goals:Ultimate Unification & Extra Dimensions Operating: CDF and DZero Fermilab Tevatron Top quark, Higgs, SUSY, extra dimensions MiniBooNE Fermilab Main Injector Neutrino mixing BaBar SLAC B-factory (electrons) Matter-antimatter, b quark, CP violation Super-K Japan (non-accelerator) Proton decay, neutrino mixing K2K Japan (accelerator neutrinos)Neutrino mixing KamLAND Japan (reactor neutrinos) Neutrino mixing NUMI/MINOS Fermilab MI (protons) Neutrino mixing (long baseline) Under Construction: ATLAS & CMS CERN LHC (protons) Higgs, SUSY, extra dimensions Proposed: • International Linear Collider Higgs, SUSY, extra dimensions • Electron Neutrino Appearance Experiment Neutrino mass, mixing, hierarchy • Reactor Neutrino Experiment Neutrino mixing • High Intensity Neutrino Beam Neutrino mass, mixing, hierarchy

4. High Energy Physics Program • Goal: Cosmic Connections Operating: Sloan Digital Sky Survey (w/NASA, NSF, foreign) 3D sky map, dark energy Supernova Cosmology Project, Nearby Supernova Factory (w/NSF & NASA) dark energy CMB cosmology Cold Dark Matter Search (CDMS-II) (underground, w/NSF) dark matter in cosmic rays Approved & Under Construction: Large Area Telescope (LAT) – GLAST, 2007 (w/NASA, foreign) gamma rays, dark matter Pierre Auger – ground array in Argentina (w/NSF, foreign) high energy cosmic rays AMS – Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer – ISS (w/NASA, foreign) cosmic antimatter VERITAS – telescope in Arizona (w/NSF, SAO) high energy gamma rays AXION search dark matter search Proposed (far from an exhaustive list, trust me): Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM) dark energy Large-aperture Survey Telescope (LST) dark energy Enriched Xenon Observatory (EXO) (Majorana) neutrino mass Dark Energy Survey Telescope (DES) dark energy

5. The DOE HEP program in FY 2006 • Overall HEP budget and priorities in FY 2006: • Tevatron and B-factory will be fully supported • LHC preparations will be fully supported • Core research program at the universities and laboratories will be maintained • Investment for near and long term new initiatives (including ILC R&D and neutrinos) will be increased • Any new initiatives will have to come from re-direction

6. BTeV opportunity Very Approximate! Opportunities

7. International Linear Collider (ILC): Update • Superconducting RF technology chosen for ILC. Governments accepted the choice at last year’s FALC meeting. • A Global Design Effort (GDE) was established this year. • Fully international -- the Americas, Europe, Asia • To prepare a baseline design, cost estimate, site criteria • Barry Barish named Director of the GDE • Regional Directors manage regional R&D • Cost engineers in each region to create a common cost framework • Civil Engineers in each region cooperatively developing site criteria • Communications person in each region • About 25 FTEs (50 people) mostly resident at existing world labs.

8. An ILC Roadmap 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 … Global Design Effort Project LHC Physics Baseline configuration Reference Design Technical Design ILC R&D Program Expression of Interest to Host International Mgmt

9. Learning from Other Large Projects • There are many lessons from other large projects: • ITER guidance for international scientific projects • SNS experience on integrated engineering support within DOE national laboratories • Learn from the failure of the SSC • Design and management techniques from NASA & very large telescope projects • Retain flexibility to allow use of technical advances

10. GLAST(Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope) Large Area Telescope (LAT) • Primary instrument on the NASA GLAST Mission – managed by SLAC • Partnership between DOE and NASA • Collaborators from France, Italy, Japan and Sweden • Fabrication cost $155.8M; DOE share is $45M • Schedule: • As of end of July 2005, fabrication is 95% complete • On schedule to meet CD-4 in March 2006 • Commissioning and spacecraft integration begins in 2006 • GLAST launch in August 2007 • Scientific Purpose - measures the energy (20 MeV to 300 GeV) and direction of celestial gamma-rays with good resolution over wide field of view to: • study mechanism of particle acceleration in astrophysical sources • determine high energy behavior of gamma ray bursts and transient sources • search for dark matter candidates

11. VERITAS(Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System) • Scientific Purpose: Study of celestial sources of very high energy gamma-ray sources in the energy range of 50 GeV- 50 TeV & search for dark matter candidates • Using atmospheric Cherenkov 4- telescope array at Kitt Peak • Collaboration: NSF, DOE + contributions from Smithsonian & foreign institutions • Funding: DOE TPC = $4.7M • Schedule: Fabrication scheduled for completion at end of FY 2006. • Status: In April 2005, work at Kitt Peak was stopped so National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process could be redone according to specifications, in response to suit filed by Tohono O’odham Indian Nation. • NSF is leading the NEPA process with DOE cooperating. • It is possible that the fabrication will not be completed on the above schedule. Telescope 1 fabrication Artist’s conception

12. Dark Energy – Current Activities • Dark Energy Task Force - subpanel of AAAC/HEPAP formed – to report 12/05 • Planning Joint Dark Energy Mission with NASA • High priority in DOE Strategic Plan • DOE/NASA Science Definition Team has formed • Investigating Future Dark Energy Measurements from the Ground → possibilities include Dark Energy Survey (~ $20M) camera and/or the Large Survey Telescope (~$100M) • Supernova Cosmology Project • Operations continuing using ground and Hubble Space Telescope measurements to collect statistics and refine results • Nearby Supernova Factory – continues operations; measurements of nearby supernovae

13. Advisory Processes

14. Advisory Process - Scale of Program • One must 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 • New mid-scale mid-term initiatives • 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

15. 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)

16. Recent HEP Advisory Panels Panel Reports to Topic(s) Reports Due P5 HEPAP B-factory + Tevatron Ops Nov 2005 New mid-scale initiatives mid 2006 NuSAG HEPAP & NSAC Double Beta Decay Exp’ts Sep 1, 2005 Reactor and off-axis expt’s Dec 2005 Super nu beam options mid 2006 ARD HEPAP US Accel R&D program July 2006 Dark Energy HEPAP & AAAC Dark Energy techniques Dec 2005 Task Force CMB Task Force HEPAP & AAAC Future CMB initiatives July 11, 2005 ILC & LHC HEPAP ILC/LHC “synergy” July 27, 2005 (short version sent to EPP2010) HEP Resource HEPAP Are there enough physicists to Fall 2005 Working Group rim the program?

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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?

20. HEPAP Resource Study • HEPAP charged a task force in late 2004 to look at whether there is sufficient personnel (experimental physicists) in the U.S. HEP program to run the portfolio of current and planned experiments through ~2010. • Worked with DOE and NSF to develop a survey of all funded groups on their future plans for research activities, assuming constant effort. • Developed a similar survey for the significant experiments (“how many people do you need?”). Revised and scrubbed estimates of “needs.” • Compared answers, benchmarked on actual 2004 FTE data. Essentially 100% response. • Bottom line: OK through 2007, assuming constant effort. • Collaborations, labs, agencies working on Tevatron-LHC transition in 2008-9; will depend strongly on Tevatron, LHC luminosities and whether Tevatron exp’ts have evidence of new physics.

21. Advisory Processes- working together with NSF and NASA • Many of the new initiatives involve multiple agencies: existing advisory panels are not always optimally configured. A hierarchy of questions to be addressed: • Overall shape of field – “grand strategy” • National Academies study (EPP2010), HEPAP… • What priority to give to medium scale area X vs. area Y? – “strategy” • Re-establish the P5 panel • 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

22. National Academies Panel EPP2010 • 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 your typical high energy physics advisory panel. It includes • Non-physicists • Strengthen connections with society • Sharpen the physics questions • Non-particle physicists • Engage other scientific communities • International participants • Place US HEP in the international setting www.nationalacademies.org/bpa/epp2010.html

23. Tactics  Strategy Agencies Advisory Committee Flow Chart DOE-NP NSF DOE-HEP NASA EPP 2010 HEPAP NSAC AAAC P5 NuSAG Other SAG’s