1 / 17

A Brief Summary of the HEPAP Subpanel Report Oct 2001 draft version

A Brief Summary of the HEPAP Subpanel Report Oct 2001 draft version. Purpose of this summary Format of the Report Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis Summary and Index. John Krane Iowa State University. YPP Town Meeting Nov 29, 2001. Purpose of this Summary.

marlon
Download Presentation

A Brief Summary of the HEPAP Subpanel Report Oct 2001 draft version

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Brief Summary of the HEPAP Subpanel ReportOct 2001 draft version Purpose of this summary Format of the Report Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis Summary and Index John Krane Iowa State University YPP Town Meeting Nov 29, 2001

  2. Purpose of this Summary • I want to maintain a neutral stance • Summarize for people that couldn’t read the full document • Provide a common reference for this meeting • Not here to generate discussion, nor to solicit opinionSave that for the rest of the meeting! • Correct me if I leave out important points from the report YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

  3. Format of the Report • Exec. summary contains five “recommendations”, connected with extra verbiage • Each rec. is copied as the introduction to a corresponding chapter • I find the rec’s to be a bit verbose also I try to condense them without bias and import points from the chapter text. YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

  4. 1) enthusiasm Recommendation 1 We want the US to lead a broad and balanced field. If you provide it, we give you in return - outreach - trained scientists - new technology We recommend that the U.S. take steps to remain a world leader in the vital and exciting field of particle physics, through a broad program of research focused on the frontiers of matter, energy, space and time. The U.S. has achieved its leadership position through the generous support of the American people. We renew and reaffirm our commitment to return full value for the considerable investment made by our fellow citizens. This includes, but is not limited to, sharing our intellectual insights through education and outreach, providing highly trained scientific and technical manpower to help drive the economy, and developing new technologies that foster the health, wealth and security of society at large. YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

  5. Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel = P5multinational, led by scientists 2) Roadmap Recommendation 2 We recommend a twenty-year roadmap for our field to chart our steps on the frontiers of matter, energy, space and time. The map will evolve with time to reflect new scientific opportunities, as well as developments within the international community. It will drive our choice of the next major facility and allow us to craft a balanced program to maximize scientific opportunity. We recommend a new mechanism to update the roadmap and set priorities across the program. We understand that this will require hard choices to select which projects to begin and which to phase out. Factors that must be considered include the potential scientific payoff, cost and technical feasibility, balance and diversity, and the way any proposed new initiative fits into the global structure of the field. We made a roadmap for the field. Implicit is a 30% increase in funding for a LC in the US (10% if outside the US). Instead of future subpanels to update/continue the roadmap, they propose a new mechanism: P5 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

  6. 2) Roadmap The Particle Physics “Terrain” 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 CDF & DØ LHC LHC Upgrades VLHC Linear Collider CLIC R&D Muon Collider NuMI/MINOS Construct Neutrino Superbeam Neutrino Factory Run BaBar/BELLE BTeV Super B Factory CESR-c RSVP CKM GLAST SNAP NUSL Proton Decay IceCube YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

  7. 2) Roadmap The Subpanel’s roadmap considered… 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 All other items are reserved for P5, whenever it is created. “…BTeV…has been waiting for over a year for a funding decision. Our projections show that we cannot fund BTeV as a line item in the near future.” Ö Linear Collider Ö CDF & DØ Ö LHC Ö NuMI/MINOS Ö R&D BaBar/BELLE x BTeV Ö Construct CESR-c Ö RSVP Run Ö NUSL Ö SNAP Ö IceCube YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

  8. 2) Roadmap Budget Math LC costs $5 - 7 Billion. The US gets this from: 1) Sacrifice - we redirect funds from other HEP projects $1-2B 2) Offshore - “up to 1/3 the cost could be contributed from non-US sources” $1.5-2.5B 3) Funding increase - no other way $1.5-3B? For offshore LC,only point (1) really applies, witha little of (3). This 1/3 limit reflects a model used by the subpanel. YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

  9. 2) Roadmap Two Scenarios If the LC is sited in the US …or offshore • US provides 2/3 cost of LC • Participate in LHC • Neutrino physics offshore • Team with cosmologists • Flavor physics ending2010 • Continue with select astrophysics efforts • Accelerator R&D • Provide “a significant share” of the LC cost • Participate in LHC • Neutrino physics in US • Focused accelerator R&D (VLHC or muon collider) • Team with cosmologists • Flavor physics thru2020 • Select astrophysics 1/3 Apologies if I have cruelly truncated your favorite physics… YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

  10. 3) Want the LC Recommendation 3 We recommend that the highest priority of the U.S. program be a high-energy, high-luminosity, electron-positron linear collider, wherever it is built in the world. This facility is the next major step in the field and should be designed, built and operated as a fully international effort. We also recommend that the U.S. take a leadership position in forming the international collaboration needed to develop a final design, build and operate this machine. The U.S. participation should be undertaken as a partnership between DOE and NSF, with the full involvement of the entire particle physics community. We urge the immediate creation of a steering group to coordinate all U.S. efforts toward a linear collider. We want a LC, first and foremost. An international steering group should handle the details: what technology, what country. The US should push for creation of this group - LCSC. YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

  11. 3) Want the LC Physics of the LC • Confirm “Higgs” has spin 0, even parity, the couplings to W, Z, self • Masses and couplings of superparticles • Number and sizes of extra dimensions The machine must: - be scalable to 1 TeV - have lum > 1034 (100fb-1/yr) - polarized electron beam These goals require a TeV-scale machine. A 500 GeV machineis enough to detect light Higgs. YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

  12. 3) Want the LC The Technology Choice • Discussed TESLA, JLC, NLC designs • Estimated energy, lum • Technology used • Research status • Must make an early technology choice • Perform any necessary R&D that helps decidewith high priority • Form the international committee that will decide YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

  13. 4) Want it here Recommendation 4 We recommend that the U.S. prepare to bid to host the linear collider, in a facility that is international from the inception, with a broad mandate in fundamental physics research and accelerator development. We believe that the intellectual, educational, and societal benefits make this a wise investment of our nation’s resources. We envision financing the linear collider through a combination of international partnership, use of existing resources, and incremental project support. If it is built in the U.S., the linear collider should be sited to take full advantage of the resources and infrastructure available at SLAC and Fermilab. US should “bid to host” the LC. Facility should be international. Shouldn’t cost much more than current program if we have help and use existing sites. YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

  14. 4) Want it here Benefits • Be a center of scientific and technical activity • Europe has LHC, Japan has JHF, US has … • Economic benefits • Attracts foreign talent • Spark public enthusiasm for science • Several reports recommend doubling the science budget -- we’re happy to help! YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

  15. By now, the document begins to repeat itself… 4) Want it here Funding • This diagram was recreated by hand… • Some base funding is redefined as LC funding • Some existing projects finish and you don’t replace them Short-termprojects $1B LC funding (and LC-related base) $0.7B Some new stuff $0.5B Non-LC funding (base and continuing projects) ~10 years HEP budget alloations v. time YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

  16. 5) More R&D Recommendation 5 We recommend that vigorous long-term R&D aimed toward future high-energy accelerators be carried out at high priority within our program. It is also important to continue our development of particle detectors and information technology. These investments are valuable for their broader benefits and crucial to the long-range future of our field. More R&D for post-LC era. University funding must be “restored”. Review the proposal-driven nature of the advanced accelerator research program. (An other roadmap?) Fund VLHC research as-is. Fund muon collider as-is. YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

  17. Summary • Want it here 13 • the benefits 14 • funding diagram 15 • More R&D 16 • Enthusiasm 4 • Roadmap 5 • Bar graph, BTeV 7 • budget math 8 • 2 scenarios 9 • Want the LC 10 • the physics 11 • the technology) 12 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting

More Related