Department of Energy Office of Science DOE Office

Department of Energy Office of Science DOE Office of High Energy Physics SLAC User Organization Meeting Dennis Kovar Associate Director of the Office of Science for High Energy Physics September 18, 2008 1

Department of Energy Status of U. S. HEP § HEP is at a productive and exciting period today Ø Significant discoveries anticipated over the next decade • at the energy frontier • at the intensity frontier • at the particle astrophysics frontier § But current circumstances for the U. S. program are challenging Ø Competition for federal funding is fierce • HEP is not a priority of the Administration or Congress • HEP funding has eroded over the last decade • “Why does the U. S. have to be a leader in HEP (particle physics)? ” • “What is particle physics”? Office of Science Ø Reductions in FY 2008 funding resulted in loss of • HEP’s scientific productivity and workforce • Momentum on planned activities (NOv. A, SRF infrastructure, ILC R&D) • U. S. credibility as an interagency/international collaborator (Ba. Bar, ILC) Ø A realistic strategic plan for a world-class program that deals with • the increase in cost and the delay in possible start of an ILC • energy frontier moving to Europe in FY 2009 & closure of Tevatron • Fermilab’s role in the future has been (is being) developed that needs to accepted and implemented! 2

Need for a Realistic Strategic Plan Guidance Sought from the Community Department of Energy Office of Science DOE/NSF Charge to HEPAP (P 5) (November 2007/revised January 2008) Identify and evaluate the scientific opportunities and options that can be pursued at different funding levels for mounting a world-class, vigorous and productive national particle physics science program. Understand evaluate the role Fermilab will play in the national and worldwide context of particle physics over the next two decades. Recommendations on the priorities for an optimized high energy physics program over the next ten years (FY 2009 -2018), under the following four funding profile scenarios: • Constant effort at the FY 2008 (Omnibus) funding level • Constant effort at the FY 2007 funding level • Doubling of funding starting in FY 2007 • Additional funding above the previous level, in priority order, associated with specific activities needed to mount a leadership program that addresses the scientific opportunities identified in the National Academy (“EPP 2010”) report. Report was submitted in June 2008 3

HEPAP (P 5) Report Major Findings Department of Energy Office of Science • Progress in achieving the goals of particle physics requires advancements at the: • Energy Frontier • Intensity (or precision) Frontier • Cosmic (or particle astrophysics) Frontier (each provides a unique window for insight about the fundamental forces/particles of nature) • LHC offers an outstanding opportunity for discoveries at the Energy Frontier • Resources will be needed to support the extraction of the science by U. S. scientists • Resources will be needed for planned accelerator and detector upgrades • An opportunity exists for the U. S. to become a world leader at the Intensity Frontier • Central is an intense neutrino beam and large underground long-based line detector • Building on infrastructure at Fermilab and partnering with NSF • Develops infrastructure that positions the U. S. to regain Energy Frontier (Muon Collider) • Promising opportunities for advancing particle physics identified at Cosmic Frontier • Requires partnering with NASA, NSF, etc. • HEP at its core is an accelerator based experimental science • Accelerator R&D develops technologies needed by the field and that benefit the nation 4

HEPAP (P 5) Report My Comments Department of Energy Office of Science • P 5 seriously addressed the charge given by DOE/NSF: • to examine the scientific opportunities and options • for mounting a world class particle physics program • at different funding levels • Grappled with the issue of how to mount a world-class program that addresses the highest priority scientific opportunities identified with the funding available • Result is a realistic vision whose priorities are consistent with the major findings - that is robust and that should produce outcomes that justify the investment • Lays out what the nation will get with different investments • Scenario B (FY 2007 level w/COL) - productive, world-class research program at all three frontiers - minor player in next generation Tevascale facility • Scenario A (FY 2008 level w/COL) – not adequate to mount productive, world-class programs at all three frontiers - not part of next generation Tevascale facility – U. S. leadership is significantly diminished • Scenario C (FY 2007 ACI level) – Scenario B, but faster, cheaper and better! • Scenario D (additional above C) – the funding needed to host next generation Tevascale facility 5

Information from all Scientific Campaigns needed to achieve the Ultimate Goal Department of Energy Office of Science Campaigns Target Unification Scales. Sensitive to other scales. 6

Discoveries at the Energy Frontier have revealed the building blocks of matter Top Quark 172. 6 + 1. 4 Ge. V/c 2 ct Z Department of Energy Office of Science gluons W b c n n. t. m Where will the Higgs be found? Tevatron @ Fermilab Large Hadron Collider (LHC) @ CERN 7

Near term Energy Frontier Campaign is rich in potential discoveries Department of Energy Office of Science ATLAS CMS 8

P 5 Executive Summary: The Energy Frontier Department of Energy Office of Science § “The panel recommends continuing support for the Tevatron Collider program for the next one to two years, to exploit its potential for discoveries. ” § “The panel recommends support for the US LHC program, including US involvement in the planned detector and accelerator upgrades. ” (Cited as the highest priority. ) 9

Luminosity (Precision) Frontier provides only known way to answer some questions Department of Energy Office of Science Processes mediated by very massive states but yield clues about unification scales. Ø High luminosity compensates for the low production rates. • Neutrino observations map to the super heavy “see-saw” scale – Neutrino oscillations (accelerators, reactors), double beta decay • Proton decay accesses GUT scales. • Charged lepton flavor violation provides information on matter antimatter asymmetry (e. g. muon electron) m- N e - N p e+p 0 NUMI Horn 10

U. S. has on-going, planned and proposed Neutrino Programs NSF’s proposed Underground Lab. DUSEL NOv. A (off-axis) Department of Energy Office of Science MINOS (on-axis) 735 km 1300 km Mini. Boo. NE Sci. Boo. NE MINERv. A 11

Possible Opportunities with a proposed Fermilab “Project X” Neutrinos: Oscillation Department of Energy Office of Science Energy Frontier (International Collaboration) ILC Muons m e, g-2 Kaons K+ p+nn KL p 0 nn Muon Collider Project X Antiprotons Hyperon CP Antihydrogen CPT Charm Mixing, CP n’s EWK Neutrino Factory 12

P 5 Executive Summary: The Intensity Frontier Department of Energy Office of Science § “The panel recommends a world-class neutrino program as a core component of the US program, with the long-term vision of a large detector in the proposed DUSEL and a high-intensity neutrino source at Fermilab. ” § “The panel recommends an R&D program in the immediate future to design a multi-megawatt proton source at Fermilab and a neutrino beamline to DUSEL and recommends carrying out R&D on the technologies for a large multi-purpose neutrino and proton decay detector. ” § “The panel endorses the importance of a deep underground laboratory to particle physics and urges NSF to make this facility a reality as rapidly as possible. Furthermore the panel recommends that DOE and NSF work together to realize the experimental particle physics program at DUSEL. ” § “The panel recommends funding for measurements of rare process to an extent depending on the funding levels available…” (Muon to electron conversion is recommended in all scenarios. ) 13

Particle Astrophysics Frontier provides a new tool Department of Energy Office of Science >> From Quarks to the Cosmos << Need to connect three big mysteries to their parent energy scale Ø Dark matter: • If a Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP) – Terascale physics • If axions, (associated with the strong force) - unification scale physics Ø Dark energy: • No idea what the fundamental underlying energy scale is • Or Cosmological Constant, failure of general relativity, or…. ? Ø Baryogenesis (dominance of matter over antimatter): • Could be explained at the Terascale or at the unification scale. 14

U. S. has on-going, planned and proposed Particle Astrophysics experiments Gamma-ray Astrophysics Dark Matter (WIMPs) COUPP Department of Energy Office of Science Dark Energy Ground-based Dark Energy Space-based SDSS Telescope at Apache Point JDEM VERITAS (BOSS) CMS II Launch June 2008 DES XENON 10 Cosmic Ray Astrophysics Dark Matter (axions) Pierre Auger (LSST) Anti-matter, Dark Matter ADMX AMS 15

P 5 Executive Summary: The Cosmic Frontier Department of Energy Office of Science § “The panel recommends support for the study of dark matter and dark energy as an integral part of the US particle physics program. ” § “The panel recommends that DOE support the space-based Joint Dark Energy Mission, in collaboration with NASA, at an appropriate level negotiated with NASA. ” [See http: //jdem. gsfc. nasa. gov/] § “The panel recommends DOE support for the ground-based Large Synoptic Survey Telescope program in coordination with NSF at a level that depends on the overall program budget. ” § “The panel further recommends joint NSF and DOE support for direct dark matter search experiments. ” § “The panel recommends limited R&D funding for other particle astrophysics projects and recommends establishing a Particle Astrophysics Science Advisory Group. ” 16

P 5 Executive Summary: Enabling Technologies Department of Energy Office of Science § “The panel recommends a broad strategic program in accelerator R&D, including work on ILC technologies, superconducting rf, high-gradient normal-conducting accelerators, neutrino factories and muon colliders, plasma and laser acceleration, and other enabling technologies, along with support of basic accelerator science. ” § “The panel recommends for the near future a broad accelerator and detector R&D program for lepton colliders that includes continued R&D on ILC at roughly the proposed FY 2009 level in support of the international effort. This will allow a significant role for the US in the ILC wherever it is built. The panel also recommends R&D for alternative accelerator technologies, to permit an informed choice when the lepton collider is established. ” 17

Department of Energy Office of Science Budgets 18

Some Budget Realities Funding Trends Department of Energy Office of Science In U. S. percentage of GDP for R&D has remained about same or decreased somewhat 19

Some Budget Realities Funding Trends Department of Energy Office of Science DOE Office of Science funding has grown somewhat – but less than others 20

SC Request vs. Appropriation History (FY 2008$) Department of Energy Office of Science 21

Department of Energy Office of Science BES FES HEP ASCR NP BER 22

DOE HEP Budget Realities Funding Trends Are Austere Department of Energy Office of Science Ø U. S. HEP funding has been eroded by inflation : FY 2007/FY 1996 ~ - 16% Ø U. S. HEP has closed Facilities: BNL/AGS (FY 1999): SLAC/B-Factory (FY 2008) Ø HEP FY 2008 funding was a -8. 5% reduction from FY 2007: FY 2008/FY 1996 ~ -23% (Partially mitigated by emergency supplement providing $32 M to HEP) Suppl. 23

Department of Energy FY 2008 Budget/Program Office of Science FY 2008 Appropriations ($689 M 8. 4% reduction compared to FY 2007) • A Productive Program • Tevatron is running well – CDF/D 0, MINOS, Mini. Boo. NE • B-Factory completed successful four month run • LHC circulating beam and ATLAS/CMS ready • GLAST collecting data • Many projects are underway: Minerva, T 2 K, Daya Bay, EXO, DES, CDMS • DOE/NASA planning to proceed on JDEM • DOE/NSF discussing participation in LHC Phase I upgrade • DOE review for Advanced Plasma Acceleration Facility (APAF) • 10 OJI awards in FY 2008 (increased $500 k $750 K) • ~22 awards (out of 69) Dark Energy R&D (~$3. 8 M) • There have been significant impacts • Staff reductions at SLAC and Fermilab • Work on NOv. A stopped • ILC & SRF R&D supported at a minimal level FY 2008 Supplemental • $32 M for HEP ($29. 5 M for Fermilab, $2. 5 M for SLAC) 24

Department of Energy FY 2009 President’s Budget Request Office of Science • The DOE SC Budget Request is $ 4, 721 Million • It is a +21% (+$819 Million) increase compared to FY 2008 Appropriations • It is a +24% (+$909 Million) increase compared to FY 2007 Appropriations • The DOE SC HEP Budget Request is $ 805 Million • It is a +11. 6% (+$83. 1 Million) increase compared to FY 2008 Appropriations (plus supplement) • It is a + 7. 1% (+$53. 1 Million) increase compared to comparable FY 2007 Appropriations • There a number of significant program shift • B-Factory run completed • • • begin ramp-down and D&D. Data analysis will continue for a few years Tevatron running full-out either discovery or significant limits on New Physics in advance of LHC NOv. A project proceeds one year delay in schedule and increase in cost U. S. researchers playing leading roles at LHC increased funding to support efforts Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM) R&D ramping up to complete conceptual design and select a mission concept in FY 2009 Accelerator R&D efforts modified in light of ILC developments to address near-term, mid-term and long-term opportunities 25

FY 2009 Budget Request ILC and Accelerator R&D Department of Energy Office of Science A central challenge for the U. S. and international HEP community has been Ø to define and execute a balanced scientific program Ø that includes a next generation collider at the energy frontier. The International Linear Collider (ILC) is widely viewed as that collider, but: Ø The ILC physics case and some design parameters depend on results from the LHC Ø It is a complex, challenging, multi-billion $ investment that requires international commitments Ø This will take some time FY 2009 Budget Request: Ø Continues support for a U. S. role in the global ILC R&D effort, but focused on areas where the U. S. is the acknowledged leader Ø Maintains a balanced scientific program that will preserve options for U. S. leadership in targeted areas, both in the LHC era and whatever comes next Ø Supports overall strategy for accelerator technology R&D has both short-, medium- and long -term components to provide options for the U. S. program over the next decade 26

Department of Energy FY 2009 & FY 2010 Office of Science FY 2009 Budget Request ($805 M +$115 M over FY 2008 ($689 M)) • However, expectation of six month Continuing Resolution (CR) • Tevatron plans to run six months into FY 2009 • LHC program will be supported (but no growth) • Some projects will be delayed • Still plan to proceed with JDEM selection • Continue discussions on participation in LHC Phase I upgrade • APAF project will be delayed • Across program – the higher priority programs are supported • If year-long CR the impacts will be significant • RIFs of 175 -200 at labs and ~80 (Ph. Ds/students) at universities • Tevatron Operations will be terminated at end of six months • NOv. A project cancelled and other projects delayed or canceled • Appropriation is pivotal • Future of HEP Program will depend upon level of FY 2009 Appropriation • HEPAP (P 5) Report viewed as important for determining funding level FY 2010 Budget Request to be submitted by new administration • DOE is developing plans for programs at different funding levels • HEP are using HEPAP (P 5) findings/recommendations in it plans 27

Department of Energy Office of Science Office of High Energy Physics 28

DOE Office of High Energy Physics (OHEP) Department of Energy Office of Science DOE OHEP’s Mission is to maintain the Nation’s competency and leadership in HEP Ø Strategic planning to maintain a sustainable, world-leading program • Have obtained guidance from the scientific community • Will utilize scientific community for additional guidance Ø Management of available resources for a productive, cost-effective program that delivers world-class science • FY 2008 Appropriations and FY 2009 Request to do this • Reorganized the Office and Review structure to be more effective Ø Formulate, justify and defend the Budget Request • Scientific community is essential (scientific priorities, science, projects, …) • Need to effectively communicate the importance of program to the nation 29

Department of Energy New HEP Organization Chart Office of High Energy Physics Office Director HEP Budget and Planning HEP Operations Research & Technology Division Facilities Division Director Physics Research Technology Facility Operations Proton Accelerator Physics Accelerator Science Fermilab Complex Electron Accelerator Physics Detector R&D LHC Operations Non-Accelerator Physics Computational HEP Theoretical Physics SBIR/STTR Office of Science Facilities Development General Accelerator R&D Instrumentation & Major Systems LARP T 2 K Daya Bay NOv. A Minerva DES Other Operations (SLAC/ Other Labs) SRF R&D ILC R&D CDMS JDEM February 2008 30

New Review Process for National Laboratories Department of Energy Office of Science § Annual User Facility Reviews (Fermilab) § Institutional Reviews (on a rotating basis for multipurpose laboratories): 1) FY 2008 SLAC 2) FY 2009 LBNL 3) FY 2010 BNL 4) FY 2011 ANL § Research Program Reviews (on a rotating basis): 1) FY 2008: theory and accelerator science subprograms 2) FY 2009 for the non-accelerator and detector R&D subprograms 3) FY 2010 for the proton-based and electron-based subprograms § Reviews of specific activities/initiatives annually (similar to before but expanded) 31

Department of Energy Changes in DOE HEP Office New Positions Facility Management Division Director Science /Technical/Planning Advisor Program Manager Proton (fixed target) Research Program Manager Non-Accelerator Research Program Manager Instrumentation (other positions now on hold) Office of Science Deadline: Sept 22 Interviews Deadline: Oct 10 IPA/Detailees Arriving Amber Boehnlein (FNAL) Don Petravik (FNAL) Ted Levine (SLAC) David Muller (SLAC) Eli Rosenberg (Iowa State) April July August IPA/Detailees Departing Craig Tull (LBNL) Randy Johnson (Cincinnati) Tom Ferbel (Rochester) March August 32

Department of Energy Office of Science 33

Department of Energy HEP is supported by Federal Government Office of Science To deliver: Ø new scientific knowledge Ø advanced technologies Ø next generation scientific/technical trained workforce that will have significant impact and benefit the nation 34

Department of Energy Summary Office of Science HEP is in an exciting period • Near term future has incredible potential A pivot point in the U. S. for the HEP program (and physical sciences basic research) • There is support for research and development – but there is a debate about how much should go for short-term, mid-term and long-term (basic) research • The Administration has strongly supported long-term basic research • FY 2009 Budget Request provides funding for doubling funding for SC • However, expect a Continuing Resolution (funding at previous level) for 6 months • President will not submit a FY 2010 Budget Request HEPAP (P 5) has presented a vision for the U. S. program • It appears to be realistic and robust • It has been (is being) used in the development of the DOE OHEP strategic plan and budgets OHEP will use this vision as basis for requesting funding • To try to change the direction of the U. S. HEP program that was implied in the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill (and has been the trend over the last decade) • To ensure a strong, productive world-class program with resources available 35