1. P5 and the HEP Program A. Seiden Fermilab June 2, 2003

2. 2 The P5 Subpanel of HEPAP was formed based on the November 6, 2002 letter to HEPAP from the DOE and the National Science Foundation. The P5 committee membership was chosen soon after. Our first report will be in response to the January 21, 2003 letter to P5 and is due around the time of the next HEPAP meeting at the end of July, 2003.

3. 3 A major task of P5 is to translate the scientific vision of the field into a facilities roadmap, which will provide the agencies and the scientific community with a twenty year plan of potential world class science projects. The roadmap includes approximate time windows needed for the R&D, construction, and facility utilization in order to reap the scientific benefits of each project. The roadmap is maintained on a public web site at http://doe-hep.hep.net/P5/Roadmap.html

4. 4

5. 5 Along with members of HEPAP, our first task was to participate on a facilities committee, chaired by Fred Gilman. This resulted in the report: High-Energy Physics Facilities Recommended for the DOE Office of Science Twenty-Year Roadmap. This was part of a broad Office of Science planning exercise. I anticipate that we will find out more about the Office of Science plan later this year.

6. 6 HEP Facilities Summary Table

7. 7 To be considered absolutely central, we require that the intrinsic potential of the science be such as to change our view of the universe. This is an extremely high standard, at the level at which Nobel Prizes are awarded. Our standard for facilities that we judge to be important is that they be world class. Moreover, a set of experiments that are individually important can together change our view of the universe. This has happened repeatedly in the past and we expect that it will be the case with the future facilities we are considering. For example, a diverse set of quark physics experiments carried out over several decades have together led to a picture in which just a few fundamental parameters explain all the weak interactions of quarks and matter-antimatter asymmetries seen in the laboratory up to now. These experiments led to absolutely central science.

8. 8 The highest priority for the U.S. program has clearly been indicated by the Long-Range Planning Subpanel based on the expectation that the Linear Collider will be the next major step forward in exploring physics at the energy frontier. Along with the LHC it will provide a sweeping view and incredible precision, with the discoveries of each accelerator used to great advantage in extracting and extending the physics results of the other. The Long-Range Planning Subpanel therefore recommended, as its highest priority, that the U.S. participate in such a project, wherever it is located in the world, and that the U.S. prepare to bid to host the facility.

9. 9 Since this recommendation was made, several suggestions contained in the subpanel report have moved ahead. This includes the formation of a U.S. steering group and a process for a technology selection, which is expected in the coming year. A clear plan for the required remaining R&D is being fleshed out.

10. 10 In the intermediate term the roadmap includes projects either in construction or that could soon be in construction and that would provide an exciting physics program later in this decade. It is important that we develop a plan for this time period which will provide the best science within budget limitations. P5 will try to work with the agencies on defining such a program.

11. 11 As an example, such a program might include, by physics theme: 1)The LHC, which will be the energy frontier program, with potential impact on all major goals of the field. 2) BTeV, potentially the best quark flavor physics experiment into the next decade. 3) SNAP, which could map the dark energy content of the universe as it evolved. Along with GLAST, Ice- Cube, and dark matter searches it would provide new capabilities for studies of the cosmos. 4) The Numi-Minos program, the first high statistics accelerator based neutrino experiment able to carefully measure neutrino oscillations. There are also likely to be additional opportunities in the area of neutrino physics, based on the discoveries of the last few years.

12. 12 Such a program would be diverse, addresses the primary physics goals of the field, and has important connections to other fields. We need help from the community in defining such a program and broadly conveying the importance of the science.

13. 13 The roadmap includes projects that have already received endorsement from the appropriate peer-review advisory body and are ready to move into construction phase. Based on an explicit request for prioritization from the agencies for a number of such projects in the $50M to $600M range, P5 is charged with providing an evaluation of the relative merits among these projects. This includes a broad evaluation of costs, schedule, and scientific potential. The first P5 report will include an evaluation of three projects ready for construction at Fermilab: 1. The CDF and D0 detector upgrades for Run IIB of the Tevatron Collider, 2. The BTeV experiment that would carry out very high sensitivity studies of the decays of B hadrons, and 3. The CKM experiment, which has as its primary goal the study of the very rare decay K + →π + vv.

14. 14 P5 conducted its review of these projects at a two day meeting at Fermilab on March 26 and 27, 2003. The meeting included presentations from the projects and the laboratory as well as follow-up questions and committee discussion. The meeting was preceded by examination of a large number of documents that record the history of previous reviews of the projects. The proponents also were requested to answer a number of questions. We are now waiting for Fermilab to complete its review and plans for the Tevatron. P5 will finish its report at a meeting on July 17 and 18.