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.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Results from the survey on The Future of HEP
Advertisements

11/29/01YPP Town Meeting The report indicates diversity may need to be sacrificed for the sake of Linear Collider construction/operation. How do you feel.
Gaining Senior Leadership Support for Continuity of Operations
NSF Experience with Management of Research Infrastructure
The US 5 Year Muon Acceleration R&D Program To Boldly Go… MICE Collaboration Meeting Harbin January, 2009.
Neutrinos in CHIPP Allan Clark Neuchâtel Meeting June 2004.
ILCSC Report KILC12 / Daegu Jonathan Bagger Chair, ILCSC Johns Hopkins University 4/23/12.
U.S. Department of Energy Brookhaven Science Associates BNL’s Role in High Energy Physics Thomas B.W. Kirk Associate Director for High Energy and Nuclear.
European Strategy for Particle Physics 2013 Preparatory group->Strategy group Individual town meetings Town meeting in Krakow: september 2012 Drafting.
Department of Energy Office of Science HEP FY08 Budget Status and Issues Robin Staffin preCRB Discussion April
Beyond the ALCPG David B. MacFarlane Associate Laboratory Director for PPA.
1 Personal Perspectives “Elementary Particle Physics in the 21st Century” Barry C. Barish Caltech EPP Nov-04 International Linear Collider.
Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy Board on Physics and Astronomy Committee on Setting Priorities for NSF’s Large Research Facility Projects.
HEPAP SUBPANEL Synopsis of the Long Range Plan for U.S. High Energy Physics Jon Bagger / Barry Barish Presentation to HEPAP October 29, 2001.
Industry and the ILC B Barish 16-Aug May-05ILC Consultations - Washington DC2 Why e + e - Collisions? elementary particles well-defined –energy,
Department of Energy Office of Science Yet Another Report from DOE Office of High Energy Physics Presented to SLUO September 10, 2006 Dr. Robin.
F Future of Neutrino Program at FNAL NuMI Off-Axis Meeting Hugh Montgomery January 12, 2004.
This is the last message in this gathering of North American PI’s with an interest in the INFN hosted SuperB project. I will try to deal with issues on.
A Long Range Plan for U.S. High Energy Physics Jon Bagger & Barry Barish HEPAP January 28, 2002 HEPAP Subpanel on Long Range Planning.
Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy SLAC Users Organization Meeting July 6, 2004 Dr. Robin Staffin, Associate Director Office of High Energy Physics.
A Possible Strategy Towards a Future Lepton Collider Tor Raubenheimer SLUO Annual Meeting September 17, 2009.
Interdisciplinary and Interagency Cooperation in High Energy Physics Barry Barish BPA 5-Nov-02.
Future Planning for SLAC Persis S. Drell. December 5, 2003SLAC Scenarios2 Scenarios Study 2003: Process  Started early in 2003  Inclusive of SLAC faculty,
The International Linear Collider Barry Barish iThemba Cape Town 21-Oct-05.
F Accelerator Physics Center: Status FNAL Steering Group V. Shiltsev.
International collaboration in high energy physics experiments  All large high energy physics experiments today are strongly international.  A necessary.
HEPAP and P5 Report DIET Federation Roundtable JSPS, Washington, DC; April 29, 2015 Andrew J. Lankford HEPAP Chair University of California, Irvine.
Results from the Survey on the Future of HEP John Krane Iowa State University The Young Physicists Panel presents August, 2001 survey design demographics.
Partnerships and Broadening Participation Dr. Nathaniel G. Pitts Director, Office of Integrative Activities May 18, 2004 Center.
ATTRACT is a proposal for an EU-funded R&D programme as part of H2020 for sensor, imaging and related computing (ICT) development Its purpose is to demonstrate.
Long Range Planning Pier Oddone September 24, 2007.
Report from the Young Physicists Ken Bloom (U. of Michigan) Veronique Boisvert (CERN) Joe Formaggio (U. of Washington) Ben Kilminster (U. of Rochester)
Planning for Discoveries in Particle Physics Michael Witherell EPP2010 May 16, 2005.
ILC Project status Philip Burrows John Adams Institute Oxford University 1.
Physics Priorities S. Dawson July 11, 2007 Fermilab Steering Committee Meeting.
F Fermilab: The Future Fermilab Users Meeting Hugh Montgomery June 3, 2003.
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science High Energy Physics Advisory Panel Meeting FY 2009 Budget Request.
P5 and the HEP Program A. Seiden Fermilab June 2, 2003.
The time line Autumn 2011CERN Council initiated an update exercise to the European Strategy for Particle Physics which was approved by a special Council.
US CMS/D0/CDF Jet/Met Workshop – Jan. 28, The CMS Physics Analysis Center - PAC Dan Green US CMS Program Manager Jan. 28, 2004.
Understanding Matter, Energy, Space and Time: The Case for the e  e  Linear Collider  Document produced at the instigation of the World Wide Study of.
24-Aug-11 ILCSC -Mumbai Global Design Effort 1 ILC: Future after 2012 preserving GDE assets post-TDR pre-construction program.
11 DOE Office of Science High Energy Physics Program AAAC Meeting October 15, 2009 National Science Foundation Dennis Kovar Associate Director of the Office.
P5 Meeting - Jan , US LHC The Role of the LHC in US HEP Dan Green US CMS Program Manager January 28, 2003.
Report from Fermilab Presentation to ICFA Symposium Daegu, Korea September 2005 Pier Oddone.
Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 1 International Linear Collider In August 2004 ICFA announced their technology selection for an ILC: 1.The.
CERN Report (II) Rolf-Dieter Heuer ECFA Meeting Frascati 1 July
1 Global Design Effort: Controls & LLRF Controls & LLRF Working Group: Tuesday Session (29 May 07) John Carwardine Kay Rehlich.
Status and plans for role of Japan in HL-LHC Katsuo Tokushuku Institute of Particle Nuclear Studies (IPNS) High Energy Accelerator Research Organization.
F. Richard LAL/Orsay 1 ELAN in 2006 Annual Meeting.
Department of Energy Office of Science  FY 2007 Request for Office of Science is 14% above FY 2006 Appropriation  FY 2007 Request for HEP is 8% above.
News Y2K June 25, Summary of June 12 Face-to-Face Meeting.
1 Future Circular Collider Study Preparatory Collaboration Board Meeting September 2014 R-D Heuer Global Future Circular Collider (FCC) Study Goals and.
Glion Colloquium / June Accelerating Science and Innovation R.-D. Heuer, CERN HL-LHC, Aix-les-Bains, 1 Oct ECFA HL-LHC Experiments Workshop.
John Womersley 1/13 Fermilab’s Future John Womersley Fermilab May 2004.
Budget Outlook Glen Crawford P5 Meeting Sep
P5 Report: The Particle Physics Roadmap 1 A. Seiden Fermilab May 14, 2007.
SLAC and ILC Jonathan Dorfan, Director LCFOA, SLAC May 1, 2006 Particle & Particle Astrophysics.
BNL Overview DOE Annual HEP Program Review Brookhaven National Laboratory April 17-19, 2006 Sam Aronson.
Perspective on the Future of HEP By Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC Director Snowmass 2001 Sunday, July 1, 2001.
Steering Group Meeting 10:30 – 12:30 am CDT Monday, July 23, 2007 Y2K.
John Womersley PPD Staff Meeting 12 October 2005.
1 Comments concerning DESY and TESLA Albrecht Wagner Comments for the 5th meeting of the ITRP at Caltech 28 June 2004 DESY and the LC What could DESY contribute.
Revealing the Hidden Nature of Space and Time Charting the Course for Elementary Particle Physics (in the U.S.) Committee on Elementary Particle Physics.
CPM 2012, Fermilab D. MacFarlane & N. Holtkamp The Snowmass process and SLAC plans for HEP.
ICFA Report to ICHEP 2016 August 2015 to August 2016 J. Mnich (DESY)
Process of the 2nd update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics FCC week, 29 May 2017, Berlin Sijbrand de Jong, President of the CERN Council (slides.
Charge for APS Neutrino Study
Yet Another Report from DOE Office of High Energy Physics
Snowmass on the Mississippi
Presentation transcript:

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

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 2 Purpose of this Summary I want to maintain a neutral stance Summarize for people that couldnt read the full document Provide a common reference for this meeting Not here to generate discussion, nor to solicit opinion Save that for the rest of the meeting! Correct me if I leave out important points from the report

11/29/01 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 recs to be a bit verbose also I try to condense them without bias and import points from the chapter text.

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 4 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. 1) enthusiasm

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 5 Recommendation 2 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 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. Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel = P5 multinational, led by scientists 2) Roadmap

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 6 The Particle Physics Terrain CDF & DØ LHC LHC Upgrades VLHC Linear Collider CLIC Muon Collider NuMI/MINOS Neutrino Superbeam Neutrino Factory BaBar/BELLE BTeV Super B Factory CESR-c RSVP CKM GLAST SNAP NUSL Proton Decay IceCube ) Roadmap Construct R&D Run

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 7 The Subpanels roadmap considered… 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. CDF & DØ LHC Linear Collider NuMI/MINOS BaBar/BELLE BTeV CESR-c RSVP SNAP NUSL IceCube x 2) Roadmap Construct R&D Run

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 8 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 $ B 3) Funding increase - no other way $1.5-3B? 2) Roadmap This 1/3 limit reflects a model used by the subpanel. For offshore LC, only point (1) really applies, with a little of (3).

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 9 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 ending 2010 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 thru 2020 Select astrophysics Apologies if I have cruelly truncated your favorite physics… 2) Roadmap 1/3 Two Scenarios

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 10 Recommendation 3 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. 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. 3) Want the LC

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 11 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 3) Want the LC These goals require a TeV-scale machine. A 500 GeV machine is enough to detect light Higgs. The machine must: - be scalable to 1 TeV - have lum > (100fb -1 /yr) - polarized electron beam

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 12 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 decide with high priority – Form the international committee that will decide 3) Want the LC

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 13 Recommendation 4 US should bid to host the LC. Facility should be international. Shouldnt cost much more than current program if we have help and use existing sites. 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 nations 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. 4) Want it here

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 14 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 -- were happy to help! 4) Want it here

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 15 Funding This diagram was recreated by hand… Some base funding is redefined as LC funding Some existing projects finish and you dont replace them Non-LC funding (base and continuing projects) 4) Want it here By now, the document begins to repeat itself… Short-term projects LC funding (and LC-related base) ~10 years Some new stuff $0.7B $1B HEP budget alloations v. time $0.5B

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 16 Recommendation 5 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. 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. 5) More R&D

11/29/01 YPP-FNAL Town Meeting 17 Summary 1) Enthusiasm 4 2) Roadmap 5 Bar graph, BTeV 7 budget math 8 2 scenarios 9 3) Want the LC 10 1) the physics 11 2) the technology)12 4) Want it here 13 4) the benefits 14 5) funding diagram 15 5) More R&D 16