DMSAG Presentation to HEPAP Hank Sobel For the DMSAG Panel July 13, 2007.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
AUDIT AND FOLLOW-UP IN CLINICAL STUDIES 1 DECEMBER 2007, ISTANBUL In a general sense, an audit may involve PersonnelOrganizationSystemProcessProjectProduct.
Advertisements

NCHRP Task 254 Project Vehicle Size & Weight Management Technology Transfer/Best Practices.
Axions and DOE’s dark matter program: a few comments Vistas in Axion Physics Workshop University of Washington April 23, 2012 Michael Salamon DOE/Office.
Neutrinos in CHIPP Allan Clark Neuchâtel Meeting June 2004.
Campus Improvement Plans
TITLE OF PROJECT PROPOSAL NUMBER Principal Investigator PI’s Organization ESTCP Selection Meeting DATE.
Particle Astrophysics at Fermilab Craig Hogan, Director, FCPA Dan Bauer, Deputy Director, FCPA Presented to the FNAL PAC November, 2009 Overview and Strategic.
WRITING PROPOSALS Title Page Remember that at this stage, the title can only be a working title. Nevertheless, all words in the title should be chosen.
Department of Energy Office of Science Yet Another Report from DOE Office of High Energy Physics Presented to SLUO September 10, 2006 Dr. Robin.
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.
Senior Review Evaluations (1 of 5) Proposals due: 6 March 2015 Panel evaluations: Week of 22 April 2015 Performance factors to be evaluated will include.
Purpose of the Standards
Global Design Effort - CFS TILC09 and GDE AAP Review Meeting - Tsukuba, Japan 1 GDE ACCELERATOR ADVISORY PANEL REVIEW CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES.
LBNE R&D Briefing May 12, 2014 LBNE R&D Briefing May 12, 2014 LArIAT and LBNE Jim Stewart LArIAT EPAG Chair BNL LBNE LARIAT-EPAG J. Stewart BNL T. Junk.
International collaboration in high energy physics experiments  All large high energy physics experiments today are strongly international.  A necessary.
October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann1 US CMS Software and Computing Milestones and Funding Profiles Matthias Kasemann Fermilab.
Update on Chesapeake Bay Issues Presentation to the Chesapeake Bay and Water Resources Policy Committee July 17, 2009 Ted Graham & Steve Bieber COG Department.
First 5 Kings County Evaluation Services Request for Application Bidders Teleconference – February 22, 2012 Evaluation Services Request for Application.
Coordinated by: CARBOOCEAN Integrated ProjectContract No (GOCE) Global Change and Ecosystems Summary on consolidated report for year 1.
1 Framework Programme 7 Guide for Applicants
CHIPP Workshop on Detector R&D June - University of Geneva Common R&D for astroparticle physics: Activities of ApPEC and ASPERA Bernard Revaz and.
HEPAP and P5 Report DIET Federation Roundtable JSPS, Washington, DC; April 29, 2015 Andrew J. Lankford HEPAP Chair University of California, Irvine.
BENE Meeting April 28, 2006 A. Bross US Contribution to the IDS Aka WDS BENE IDS/FP7 at RAL April 28, 2006 A. Bross.
Northcentral University The Graduate School February 2014
Lyndonville Electric Department Feasibility Analysis Review December 2,
NSF Dark Matter Program P5 Meeting, Sept 24-25, Dark Matter Searches Summary of NSF Dark Matter Projects Direct Detection (including co-funds with.
Recommendations for Science at SNOLAB Andrew Hime On behalf of the Experiment Advisory Committee Aug. 17, 2005 SNOLAB Surface Building.
Astroparticle physics
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.
Rev.04/2015© 2015 PLEASE NOTE: The Application Review Module (ARM) is a system that is designed as a shared service and is maintained by the Grants Centers.
Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. September 16, 2015 How can we make sure the Chesapeake Bay Restoration really works?
24-Aug-11 ILCSC -Mumbai Global Design Effort 1 ILC: Future after 2012 preserving GDE assets post-TDR pre-construction program.
A Study of Background Particles for the Implementation of a Neutron Veto into SuperCDMS Johanna-Laina Fischer 1, Dr. Lauren Hsu 2 1 Physics and Space Sciences.
CesrTA Experimental Plan M. Palmer for the CesrTA Collaboration November 17, 2008.
Challenges & Issues for SBNE Nigel S. Lockyer 4/4/14.
11 DOE Office of Science High Energy Physics Program AAAC Meeting October 15, 2009 National Science Foundation Dennis Kovar Associate Director of the Office.
1 M. Barnett – October 2008 DOE Review 2006 Report Recommendations from the 2006 report. Many recommendations have been implemented, and are not listed.
Dan Bauer - CDMS Project ManagerAll experimenters meeting - April 23, 2007 Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS) Progress at Soudan since last summer Successful.
1 Report of PAC for Particle Physics T. Hallman Presented by P. Spillantini JINR Scientific Council Meeting June 3-4, 2004 Dubna, Russia.
Overview Remarks for US ITER-TBM Conference Call June 23, 2005 Mohamed Abdou.
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.
Plan to go forward Peter Wilson SBN Program Coordinator 27 September 2014.
John Womersley 1/13 Fermilab’s Future John Womersley Fermilab May 2004.
Preparation Plan. Objectives Describe the role and importance of a preparation plan. Describe the key contents of a preparation plan. Identify and discuss.
Budget Outlook Glen Crawford P5 Meeting Sep
P5 Report: The Particle Physics Roadmap 1 A. Seiden Fermilab May 14, 2007.
ILC 2007 Global Design Effort 1 Planning Damping Rings Activities in the Engineering Design Phase Andy Wolski Cockcroft Institute/University of Liverpool.
Office of Science January 28, 2008J.Blazey / SiD Workshop / SLAC1 The View from DOE Moving ForwardMoving Forward HEPAPHEPAP FY08 “in review”FY08 “in review”
Perspective on the Future of HEP By Jonathan Dorfan, SLAC Director Snowmass 2001 Sunday, July 1, 2001.
Grant Proposal Writing 101 Daniel S. Blumenthal, MD, MPH.
Philip Burrows HEP Forum, Coseners House, 6/05/06 Elementary Particle Physics in the 21 st Century Philip Burrows John Adams Institute Oxford University.
University Research Model Committee - Key points/issues - Other points/issues - New ideas - “University Model” issues in the report - Findings and Recommendations.
SBN Near Detector Building Conventional Facilities Update Steve Dixon LAr1-ND Collaboration Meeting 16 September 2014.
CPM 2012, Fermilab D. MacFarlane & N. Holtkamp The Snowmass process and SLAC plans for HEP.
K. Long, R. Roser, 23 July 2014 Report from the Neutrino Summit.
Stages of Research and Development
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Presentation to PPAP meeting
Foundations of Planning
MEmos.
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Charge for APS Neutrino Study
The DBD: Outline and Scope
Chair of Chemistry Graduate School
Yet Another Report from DOE Office of High Energy Physics
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Presentation transcript:

DMSAG Presentation to HEPAP Hank Sobel For the DMSAG Panel July 13, 2007

Changes to Document Comments from AAAC & HEPAP –Suggestions/corrections from individual members –Send report to outside reviewers for comments. –Distribute findings and recommendations throughout the report in appropriate locations. –More discussion of DUSEL –More detail in priorities.

Send report to outside reviewers for comments Request to review sent to eleven people selected from lists supplied by HEPAP, AAAC, DOE Eight accepted, seven returned remarks. Theoretical astrophysics, HEP theory, Particle astrophysics, Experimentalists.

Results Comments: – typos, wording, style, content –New executive summary stating charge questions and short answers. (Page 4) –New glossary with experimental acronyms, basic techniques, status and index to location in document. (Page 91)

Extracts From Executive Summary

What are the most promising experimental approaches for the direct detection of dark matter using particle detectors in underground laboratories? Cryogenic techniques based on solid state (phonons and ionization in Ge and Si) and noble liquids (in two-phase systems of both liquid Xe and liquid Ar) are presently leading the field and showing the greatest promise for coherent scattering of WIMPs. Methods with single phase liquid argon and warm liquids or gases are showing significant promise for the future.

What is the optimum strategy to operate at the sensitivity frontier in the short and immediate term while making the investments required to reach the ultimate sensitivity by scaling up to some realistic size in the long term (5-10 year horizon)? We suggest as an optimal strategy a near-term push to construct at least two experiments of differing target materials with a goal of improving sensitivity at least a factor 10 over present limits. The technologies to be chosen from those presently with the most promise to carry them out in a timely and cost effective manner. At the same time, aiming for the longer term and next level of sensitivity, R&D should be conducted on all techniques with potential for scalability to at least tonne-scale and/or background control (such as true directionality).

What is the present state of the worldwide program? Does the US program have the potential to make unique contributions in the future? In addition to the U.S.-led experiments, there are presently between 7-10 dark matter direct detection experiments principally in Europe, Canada and Japan. Those programs are also making significant progress and expect to field additional experiments. The U.S. experiments are presently leading the field in sensitivity in two or more of the major techniques (e.g., ADMX, CDMS, XENON10).

Changes to Findings and Recommendations

Recent XENON 10 Results Better than current CDMS limits, but although they are working to reduce or eliminate it, current version of experiment has background. CDMS expects to finish analysis of latest data set this summer. They expect to reach a sensitivity of ~4x cm 2 with no background.

Recommendation: CDMS (old version) The sub-panel recommends the completion and operation of CDMS-II and funding of two SuperCDMS supertowers, to be tested at the Soudan site. If the dark matter experimental funding is increased to the range of that suggested in Recommendation 1, then we support the design and construction of the necessary refrigeration system for SNOLAB. If not, and funding is not sufficient for the rest of the program we have outlined, then we recommend that the decision to go forward with Super-CDMS in SNOLAB be contingent upon a full evaluation of the field to be completed by mid-2009.

Problems with this In this version the panel did not support going forward with the full 7 ST even if the full funding we suggested was available. Main reason was that panel felt strongly that it was necessary to demonstrate background reduction in the first two ST before recommending ST 3-7…factor of ~ 20 required over CDMS II. In addition…funding procedure implies >2009 before initial funding. 2ST is fastest way to proceed. However, this uncertainty could lead to unfortunate delays.

Recommendation 3: CDMS (revised) The sub-panel recommends that the CDMS Collaboration be supported to continue its outstanding direct-detection program. In order to accomplish this, we recommend the completion and operation of CDMS-II and the funding of two SuperCDMS supertowers at the Soudan site. Additionally, if dark matter funding is sufficient to permit the significant starts on the other portions of the U.S. program that we describe, and if the collaboration demonstrates the necessary control of the backgrounds, we support the completion and operation of the SuperCDMS detector with 7 supertowers at SNOLAB. If funding is not sufficient for the rest of the program we have outlined, we recommend that the decision to go forward with supertowers 3-7 and installation of SuperCDMS in SNOLAB be considered in the broad context of a full evaluation of the field to be completed by mid-2009.

Reasoning… If required background reduction is demonstrated, then the panel recommends that SuperCDMS goes forward…if funding allows…see priorities. Positive statement allows review process to start at the agencies immediately. Estimated 1 ½ year total timescale for DOE review. If review is positive, and funding available (MIE in DOE), funding could start immediately after 2009 review.

Expanded Section on DUSEL While other countries have developed a number of underground sites, the total amount of deep experimental space is still far below that which will be required. Presently, there is no U.S. site or collection of sites suitable or capable of accommodating the evolving dark matter program alone. An underground facility such as DUSEL is essential for these large detectors and could also serve as a cooperative center and shared infrastructure for the entire U.S. direct detection program. Money for initial suite of experiments will be important new source of experimental funding.

Recommendation 8: Priorities (old version) Following on the above recommendations, we recommend that the funding priorities during this window of opportunity be aimed equally towards continuing the on-going CDMS and ADMX experiments, at the levels indicated above, and funding the expansion of the noble liquid experimental efforts to their next level. The development of superheated liquid detectors and detectors capable of determining WIMP direction should be supported with a lower priority since, although they have great promise, they still have significant R&D questions remaining to be answered. We believe that many of the uncertainties associated with the longer-term direction of the experimental efforts will be resolved during the next few years and that a program review in or around 2009 will be necessary.

Asked to Expand This… Here, we tried to carefully word it so that we didn’t do any damage…

Recommendation 8: Priorities (revised) Following on the above recommendations, if the comprehensive program we have described above is not able to be fully funded, then we recommend that the funding priorities during the next few years be allocated as follows. In establishing these priorities, we have considered both the experimental evidence of promise in a particular technique and our estimation of its readiness for producing significant experimental results. In addition, all else being equal, predominantly US efforts are given somewhat higher priority. 1. Equal priorities between (A) and (B): A) Continuing the on-going CDMS and ADMX experiments and the initial construction of SuperCDMS in Soudan with two super-towers. B) Funding the expansion of the noble liquids with priorities i), ii) and iii): i) The expansion of the liquid Xenon experimental efforts to their next level. ii) The U.S. participation in the WARP detector development. iii) The next stage of the CLEAN Argon/Neon detector development. (Note on funding guidance: As we have noted elsewhere, we do not yet know which technique is the best route to the ton and larger scale. Consequently, there is a need to keep the three noble liquid techniques moving in parallel to that goal. As progress is achieved in each project, the levels of relative funding may need to change, independent of present priorities, in order to make fair evaluation of potential.)

Priorities Continued… 2. The development of superheated liquid detectors and detectors capable of determining WIMP direction. Although these ideas have great promise, they still have significant R&D questions remaining to be answered. We believe that many of the questions associated with the longer-term direction of the experimental efforts will be resolved during the next few years and that a program review in or around 2009 will be necessary.

Recommendation 1: Program and Funding To realize this program on an optimal time scale, the committee recommends that DOE and NSF increase funding for the direct detection of dark matter from the present ~$2-3M to ~$10M annually as soon as possible. The prospect of detecting dark matter while the LHC is operating amply justifies this increase. Such a figure is also consistent with the recommendations of P5 and EPP2010.

Outside Reviewers Marcela Carena - Fermilab (HEP theory, P5)- Bob McKeown - Caltech (Daya Bay, Kamland)- Ted Baltz - SLAC (Particle astrophysics)- Gina Rameika - Fermilab (LAr, Minos)- Ira Wasserman - Cornell (Theoretical Astrophysics)- John Swain - Northeastern (Astroparticle experiment, Auger)- Paolo Gondolo – Utah (Cosmology, Astrophysics) Frank Avignone - (Double beta decay) -