1. Fermilab and the EPP2010 Fermilab and the EPP2010 Users Meeting 6/1/06 Pier Oddone

2. 2 The report Above all: enormously supportive of the science of particle physics Clearly enunciated principles, with the central role of Fermilab elevated to a principle! Clearly stated set of scientific priorities: The energy frontier: LHC and ILC The connection between particle physics and astrophysics The understanding of the neutrino sector The understanding of the quark flavor sector Overwhelming support to host the ILC in the US

3. 3 How do we line up? At the energy Frontier Tevatron: essential to show success now – it is how the field gets measured – not really addressed by EPP2010 LHC: unprecedented opportunity and expected revolution! Will have to be successful before we can ask for the ILC ILC: our main goal - the machine will be needed soon to explore the terascale While ILC is the first priority for a new facility wherever it is built, we want to host the machine at FNAL

4. 4 Tevatron Performance

5. 5 B s Flavor Oscillation World average  m s > 14.4 ps -1 (Summer 2005) CDF (1 fb -1 ) April 2006  m s = 17.33 +0.42 -0.21 ± 0.07 ps -1 DØ (1 fb -1 ) March 2006 17 <  m s < 21 ps -1 at 90% CL hep-ex/0603029

6. 6 Other Results since September 2005 DØ Preliminary: 1 fb -1 Many of these are world’s best or first measurements!

7. 7 Making LHC successful

8. 8 LHC: delivering on the promise Huge increase in physics reach: 7 times the energy, 100 times the luminosity of the Tevatron With increase in energy and luminosity come special challenges (e.g., 300 Megajoules of stored energy in the beam!) Fermilab: principal US support for the commissioning – have operated the only hadron collider in the last decade

9. 9 CMS: Compact Muon Detector Coming together: aimed at completion by end of 2007 Muon detectors Magnet cold mass

10. 10 US CMS: and Fermilab’s role Only major US lab associated with CMS: a central support role for the US community in construction, commissioning and physics Attention now to huge data and physics discovery challenge: the LHC Physics Center (LPC)

11. 11 Remote operation center In support of accelerator operations and CMS operations, we are creating remote operation center. Shared for CMS and accelerator Aim: as good as being there for US institutions!

12. 12 ILC Strategy Deliver on the present program: more than $3B in the next four years (a must). Make the LHC a success (a must). Make early decision with the agency that ILC path will be supported (RDR). Be ready by the end of the decade with site specific design/cost/international arrangements, completed component R&D, industrialization plans. Covered Above

13. 13 Third element: Support for RDR Secretary Bodman: How much …….? The RDR is now key element: it determines whether DOE leadership states intent to bid-to-host and makes necessary investment.

14. 14 Fermilab’s Role in the RDR Fermilab’s Role in the RDR GDE goal = complete the Reference Design Report (RDR) and a cost estimate by the end 2006  established RDR organization Design & Cost Board (coordinates machine design) Responsible for producing the RDR and the cost estimate 9 members ( 3/region) + Chairman P Garbincius ( FNAL) = chair, R. Kephart (FNAL) member Change Control Board (ILC baseline configuration control) 9 member board (3/region), N Toge = Chairman S. Mishra (FNAL) is one of 3 U.S. Members

15. 15 Fermilab’s Role in the RDR ILC Machine “Area Leaders” (typically 3 Ldrs 1/region) Civil and Site: Vic Kuchler (FNAL) = Americas Ldr Main Linac Design: N. Solyak (FNAL) = 1 of 2 Americas Ldrs Cryomodule: H. Carter (FNAL) = Americas Ldr Cryogenics system: T. Peterson (FNAL) = Americas Ldr Magnet systems: J. Tompkins (FNAL) = Americas Ldr Communications: E. Clements (FNAL) = Americas Ldr FNAL is playing a major role in the GDE & ILC machine design

16. 16 What do we want with the RDR? Cost will not be precise: no known time scale, no real engineering design, no detailed site design; R&D not finished; no industrialization; done outside DOE costing rules …… So what good is it? Hopefully it allows the DOE to decide we really want to do this and to make the large investment necessary in the next few years to do real design and industrialization. We hope it will allow DOE to initiate international discussions on process for a bid-to-host

17. 17 Fourth element: ready for decision by the end of the decade After the RDR, will need site specific designs Agreement on a site? How many? 0,1,2,3…. All regions will contribute to generic elements of the design but individual regions to their site-specific designs Decision at the end of the decade will be based on success of R&D, full site specific design, credible cost estimate. No engineering test facility (2-3% of ILC) will be possible outside the project – if we want an early start of the ILC

18. 18 Getting ready for decision Fermilab ILC R&D activities following GDE: ILC Machine Design Development of SCRF technology & infrastructure Conventional Facility & Site Studies for a US ILC site Industrialization & Cost Reduction ILC Physics, Detector Design, and Detector R&D Support activities of and build partnerships with laboratories and universities Support GDE and transition to follow-on organization

19. 19 ILC Machine Design Fermilab has focused its R&D efforts on the ILC Main Linacs. Broad collaboration. Main Linac activities: Accelerator physics design Demonstrate feasibility of all Main Linac technical components. RF Cavities Engineering design of ML technical systems Estimates of the ML cost & methods for cost reduction U.S. Industrialization of high volume ML components

20. 20 Civil and Site Development "The U.S. Department of Energy has expressed its interest in the possibility of hosting a linear collider, at Fermilab, subject to the machine being affordable and scientifically validated by physics discoveries at the LHC.“ Our goal is to determine the best possible host site for a prospective ILC bid in northern Illinois With the GDE we are developing the ILC Civil Design Tunnel Design Geological and environmental studies Build up community support

21. 21 How do we line up ? Neutrino program: for us higher priority because we provide the accelerator facilities: Present neutrino program: most powerful through 2010: MINOS, MiniBoone; SciBooNE; MINERVA Near term program: proposed NOvA program, complementary to T2K; does this qualify as a “phased” approach and part of a coherent international effort as recommended by EPP2010? Can we get the support above the ILC R&D?

22. 22 Present Neutrino Program: MINOS Minos Far detector: 5.4 kton Minos near detector: 1 kton 735 km

23. 23 Producing the neutrino beam Moveable target relative to horn 1 – continuously variable neutrino spectrum

24. 24 Best-fit spectrum Measurement errors are 1 sigma, 1 d.o.f.

25. 25 Projected sensitivity of MINOS  m 2 = 0.003 eV 2  disappearance   e With increased statistics, we should be able to make a very precise measurement of  m 2 23 and also search for sub-dominant   e oscillations well-below the current exclusion limit In addition, by making a precise measurement of the CC spectrum, we should be able to test/rule out alternate models such as neutrino decay.

26. 26 Present Neutrino Program MiniBooNE - 1 GeV neutrinos (Booster) - 800 ton oil cerenkov - Operating since 2003 -   e appearance - Results in a few months

27. 27 What next in neutrinos? Understanding the Neutrino matrix: What is sin 2 2   What is the Mass Hierarchy What is the CP violation parameter  Fermilab is in the best position to make vital contributions to answer these questions with complementary program to T2K facility in Japan

28. 28 Construction of NO A “Totally Active” 25 kT Dtector: 32 cells/extrusion 12 extrusions/plane 132 m 15.7m 32-plane block Admirer

29. 29 Proton Development Plan Run II era (“Proton Plan”; in process) 5.4x10 13 ppp @ 120 GeV @ 2.2 sec 1.0x10 13 to antiproton target; 4.4x10 13 to NuMI target (380 kW) Post Run II: Utilization of the Recycler for proton accumulation 5.4x10 13 ppp @ 120 GeV @ 1.5 sec No antiproton target; 5.4x10 13 to NuMI target (700 kW); Post Run II: Utilization of the Accumulator for momentum stacking 7.2x10 14 ppp @ 120 GeV @ 1.3 sec 7.2x10 14 to NuMI target (1000 kW) Goal: 1 MW beam power onto the neutrino production target, utilizing accelerator assets available after Run II.

30. 30 Neutrino Program 2005 20102015 detectors accelerators Minos run MiniBoone run NOvA R&D and Construction NOvA run Detector construction International Planning for Long Term Neutrino Program Proton plan first stage 0.2 MW moving to 0.4 MW Proton plan 2 nd stage (If no proton driver) 1 MW at 120 GeV Depending on investment ILC RDR ILC TDRDecision Construction Test Facility/injector

31. 31 Neutrinos and EPP2010 Carry out a “phased neutrino program…. internationally” NOvA as first step? Nothing to negotiate now other than giving up on the domestic program. Loss to world’s program. Decision largely up to the US since the Japanese will not consider coming here to do the neutrino program in the initial phases The elephant in the room is the ILC – EPP2010’s clear hope is that we can help the Japanese in exchange for their help on the ILC. This is a fine approach, but is the timing right? The key question is for P5: is the complementary reach of NOvA a compelling physics program.

32. 32 P5 and neutrinos P5 has two scenarios: 1) out year scenarios given by DOE to Congress: FY07=+7%; FY08=+1.5%; FY09=+3.0% and 10% increases per year for the next administration 2) 7% increases per year (approximately 3.5% real growth) In the first scenario: no room to do anything except continue ILC R&D unless we shut down facilities almost immediately. The second scenario is very tight but allows for initiatives to get started and supported to conclusion when we shut down facilities after FY08 and FY09.

33. 33 How do we line up? Astrophysics-Particle Physics Connection key opportunities identified by EPP2010: direct detection of dark matter CMB polarization towards physics of inflation properties of dark energy We are attacking 2 of these three areas with modest, feasible, high impact facilities that do not affect significantly the rate of ILC development.

34. 34 Dark Matter: CDMS Measured background rejection: 99.995% for EM backgrounds using charge/heat 99.4% for  ’s using pulse risetime as well Much better than expected in CDMS II proposal! Detectors with excellent event-by- event background rejection Tower of 6 ZIPs Tower 1 4 Ge 2 Si Tower 2 2 Ge 4 Si gammas betas neutrons betas gammas

35. 35 What next ? : 5 Tower operation is almost ready 30 detectors (5 towers x 6 detectors) – 4.75 kg of Ge, 1.1 kg of Si detectors – Run through 2006--2007 – Improve sensitivity further 10x Now commisioning Result today CDMS II projected

36. 36 SuperCDMS and Accelerator reach Result today SuperCDMS-A: 25kg Current Acc bound LHCILC LCC1

37. 37 Sloan Digital Sky Survey

38. 38 The Dark Energy Survey (DES) Proposal: Perform a 5000 sq. deg. survey of the southern galactic cap constrain the Dark Energy parameter w to ~ 5% with 4 complementary techniques begin to constrain dw/dz New Equipment: Replace the PF cage on the CTIO Blanco 4m telescope with a new 2.2 deg. FOV optical CCD camera Time scale: Instrument Construction 2005-2009 Survey: 30% of the telescope time from 2009-2013

39. 39 SNAP Instrument Concept Baffled Sun Shade Solar Array, ‘Sun Side’ 3-mirror anastigmat 2-meter Telescope Spacecraft Bus Solar Array, ‘Dark Side’ Instrument Radiator Instrument Suite

40. 40 Strategic context: U.S. contribution 2005 2015 2010 = secondary = leadingNeutrino Frontier Flavor frontier Energy Frontier Domestic accelerator program with new and redirected investment X First Priority

41. 41 Summary of Main Issues Transition Tevatron  LHC program: how to complete the Tevatron program successfully Neutrino program: solve tritium issue, cost of NOvA and how (and if) it fits in the US roadmap ILC: need to ramp up the effort – not possible with present out-year budget plans (HEP part of ACI?) until closure of facilities. Situation might be much better.

42. 42 Many reasons to be optimistic Extraordinary level of support for the field Extraordinary level of support for an ambitious next stage: the ILC The laboratory is aligned with EPP2010.

43. 43 Thank You! Thank you UEC and Sacha Kopp – great meeting! Thanks to all the speakers: great talks! Thank you! audience