Fermilab Steering Group develop roadmap for acceleratorbased HEP
Fermilab Steering Group develop roadmap for accelerator-based HEP program at Fermilab http: //www. fnal. gov/directorate/Longrange/Steering_Public/ Young-Kee Kim DOE Annual Program Review Fermilab September 25, 2007
Fermilab’s Scientific Program enables our community to address: 0. What is the origin of mass for fundamental particles? 1. Are there undiscovered principles of nature: New symmetries, new physical laws? 2. Are there extra dimensions of space? 3. Do all the forces become one? 4. Why are there so many kinds of particles? 5. What happened to the antimatter? 6. What is dark matter? How can we make it in the laboratory? 7. How can we solve the mystery of dark energy? 8. How did the universe come to be? 9. What are neutrinos telling us? Based on “Quantum Universe” and “Discovering Quantum Universe”
Fermilab 2006 -2007: Extraordinary years for Physics! Much more expected in the near future Planning further ahead in accelerator-based HEP program: Fermilab’s highest priorities – LHC/LHC upgrades & ILC
ILC Decision Timelines LH C di sc ov US c er ollid ie e Shu s tdow rs Gre n at O ppo for I rtunity LC nal o i t rna nts e t n I me d e e e r g t A ec l se te i S ILC 2010 ILC Decision EPP 2010 & P 5 Assumption ILC RDR with Cost Estimate in Feb. 2007 2010 ILC Decision Possible ILC Decision Timelines
Fermilab Director Pier Oddone formed Steering Group to develop roadmap for Fermilab’s accelerator-based HEP program. March 22, 2007
Steering Group Charge In his remarks to HEPAP, Undersecretary Orbach requested a dialog with the HEP community: "In making our plans for the future, it is important to be conservative and to learn from our experiences. Even assuming a positive decision to build an ILC, the schedules will almost certainly be lengthier than the optimistic projections. Completing the R&D and engineering design, negotiating an international structure, selecting a site, obtaining firm financial commitments, and building the machine could take us well into the mid 2020 s, if not later. Within this context, I would like to re-engage HEPAP in discussion of the future of particle physics. If the ILC were not to turn on until the middle or end of the 2020 s, what are the right investment choices to ensure the vitality and continuity of the field during the next two to three decades and to maximize the potential for major discovery during that period? "
Steering Group Charge (cont. ) With the encouragement of the Office of Science and the support of Professor Mel Shochet, the chair of HEPAP, Fermilab will develop a strategic roadmap for the evolution of the accelerator-based HEP program, focusing on facilities at Fermilab that will provide discovery opportunities in the next two to three decades. This roadmap should keep the construction of the ILC as a goal of paramount importance. To guide this proposal, the Fermilab Director has appointed a Steering Group consisting of members from Fermilab and the national particle and accelerator physics community to insure that the plan serves national needs. The Steering Group will also engage additional constituents in the analysis of the various physics opportunities.
Steering Group Charge (cont. ) The Steering Group will build the roadmap based on the recommendations of the EPP 2010 National Academy report and the recommendations of the P 5 subpanel of HEPAP. The Steering Group should consider the Fermilab based facilities in the context of the global particle physics program. Specifically the group should develop a strategic roadmap that: 1. supports the international R&D and engineering design for as early a start of the ILC as possible and supports the development of Fermilab as a potential host site for the ILC; 2. develops options for an accelerator-based high energy physics program in the event the start of the ILC construction is slower than the technically-limited schedule; and 3. includes the steps necessary to explore higher energy colliders that might follow the ILC or be needed should the results from LHC point toward a higher energy than that planned for the ILC.
Steering Group Charge (cont. ) I am asking Deputy Director Kim to chair the Steering Group. Any recommendations that might be relevant to the FY 09 budget should be transmitted as early as possible. The Steering Group's final report should be finished and delivered to the Fermilab Director by August 1, 2007. This deadline would allow for presentations to the DOE and its advisory bodies before the structuring of the FY 2010 budget.
Steering Group Membership Fermilab and national particle and accelerator physics community Eugene Beier U. Penn Joel Butler Fermilab Sally Dawson BNL Helen Edwards Fermilab Thomas Himel SLAC Steve Holmes Fermilab Young-Kee Kim (chair) Fermilab / U. Chicago Andrew Lankford UC Irvine David Mc. Ginnis Fermilab Sergei Nagaitsev Fermilab Tor Raubenheimer SLAC Vladimir Shiltsev Fermilab Maury Tigner Cornell Hendrick Weerts ANL
Steering Group’s Emphasis • An intermediate physics-driven program – Addressing the Quantum Universe questions – Not likely answered by the Energy Frontier machines and non-accelerator based programs • Alignment with ILC: – Will this advance the ILC? – Development of an accelerator facility that helps ILC – Compatibility with the ILC Schedule
Engaging HEP community in the process The Steering Group subsequently formed physics groups (subgroups) to provide advice on the best physics opportunities. Physics groups drew upon university/lab scientists, largely from outside Fremilab. Neutrino Science Precision Physics Eugene Beier U Penn Joel Butler Fermilab Deborah Harris Fermilab Brendan Casey Brown Ed Kearns Boston Univ. Sally Dawson (chair) BNL Boris Kayser Fermilab Chris Hill Fermilab Sacha Kopp UT Austin Dan Kaplan IIT Andy Lankford (chair) UC Irvine Yury Kolomensky UCBerkeley/LBNL Bill Louis Los Alamos William Molzon UC Irvine Kevin Pitts UIUC Frank Porter Cal. Tech Bob Tschirhart Fermilab Harry Weerts ANL
Engaging HEP community in the process • For all Steering group activities, include – – Physics group members ILC GDE leaders, HEP / ILC program managers in DOE and NSF HEPAP Chair / Deputy Chair, P 5 Chairs of Fermilab/SLAC Users Executive committees • Public website: http: //www. fnal. gov/directorate/Longrange/Steering_Public/ – – – Agendas Presentations Minutes Documents Publicly accessible • Meetings – Weekly teleconference – 2 face-to-face meetings – SG daily meeting toward the end 2 nd face-to-face meeting at Fermilab, July 9 -10, 2007
Engaging HEP community in the process • Reach out to HEP community for input / ideas – Message sent out to DPF & DPB members – Meetings with FNAL staff – Meetings with HEP collaborations • CDF, DZero, MINOS, Mini. Boo. NE, MINERv. A, NOv. A, ILC TTC, US CMS, … – Presentations at Users meetings / Town-Hall meeting • FNAL, SLAC – Presentations (seminars) / Discussions • ANL, BNL, LBNL – – Many meetings with individuals Fermilab Today articles Meeting with ILC GDE Executive Committee ….
Letters and Proposals from the Community • Letters from the Community 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. • John Marriner (May 5, 2007) Norman Gelfand (May 8, 2007) Stanley Brodsky (May 31, 2007) Steve Geer et al. (June 8, 2007) Buck Field (June 12, 2007) Chuck Ankenbrandt et al (June 12, 2007) Maury Goodman (July 7, 2007) One Page Proposals from the community 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. • 6 Ge. V ILC Test Linac - Giorgio Apollinari and Bob Webber (May 7, 2007) LAr TPC in FNAL's Neutrino Beams - David Finley (May 29, 2007) Precision Neutrino Scattering at Tevatron - Janet Conrad and Peter Fisher (May 29, 2007) Very Large Cherenkov Detector - Milind Diwan et al (June 5, 2007) From Tevatron to Muon Storage Ring - Terry Goldman (June 6, 2007) Antimatter Gravity Experiment - Thomas Phillips (June 7, 2007) Neutrino Oscillation with high energy/intensity beam - Henryk Piekarz (June 10, 2007) Space-Time Ripples Study - Nikolai Andreev (June 11, 2007) Fixed Targer Charm Expt - Jeff Appel and Alan Schwartz (June 11, 2007) Stopped Pion Neutrino Source - Kate Scholberg (June 11, 2007) UNO Experiment - Change Kee Jung (June 11, 2007) n-nbar Transition Search at DUSEL - Yuri Kamyshkov (June 11, 2007) 8 Ge. V cw Superconducting Linac - Ankenbrandt et al. (June 12, 2007) Neutrino Expt with 5 kton LAr TPC - Fleming and Rameika (June 12, 2007) Micro. Boo. NE - Fleming and Willis (June 12, 2007) delta_s - Rex Tayloe (June 14, 2007) Expression of Interest (EOI) 1. 2. 3. • mu to e conversion - William Molzon (May, 2007) me to e conversion - E. J. Prebys, J. P. Miller et al (May, 2007) Klong to pi 0 nu nu - D. Bryman et al (June 11, 2007) Letter of Intent (LOI) 1. Low- and Medium-Energy Anti-Proton Physics - D. Kaplan et al (June 1, 2007)
Guidelines in forming the plan
Guidelines in forming the plan 1. The LHC program is our most important near-term project given its broad science agenda and potential for discovery. It is essential to support the physics analysis, computing, and accelerator and detector upgrades.
Guidelines in forming the plan 2. The particle physics community’s highest priority for investment toward the future is the ILC, based on our present understanding of its potential for breakthrough science. Fermilab will continue to participate vigorously in the international R&D program for the ILC and to be one of the leaders in the global ILC effort. The laboratory will strive to make the ILC at Fermilab a reality by accomplishing the preparatory work required for the U. S. to bid to host the ILC.
Guidelines in forming the plan 3. There is a need for an intermediate science program in case the timeline for ILC is stretched out. This program will be an opportunity to do exciting physics that complements discoveries at energy frontier facilities and to make further progress on ILC technology. The program should provide great discovery potential, support ILC R&D and industrialization as well as R&D on future accelerators beyond the ILC and the LHC. It should strengthen ties with the university community and with other laboratories. The plan must be robust and flexible.
Guidelines in forming the plan 4. Fermilab will continue a phased program of particle astrophysics including dark matter and dark energy. The program will allow complementary discoveries to those expected at the accelerator-based particle physics programs. These non-accelerator-based efforts are outside the Steering Group’s charge, and are not included in the plan.
Plan (Roadmap) for Fermilab
Plan for Fermilab (1) • Fermilab’s highest priority is discovering the physics of the Terascale by participating in LHC, being one of the leaders in the global ILC effort, and striving to make the ILC at Fermilab a reality. • Fermilab will continue its neutrino program with NOv. A as a flagship experiment through the middle of the next decade.
Plan for Fermilab (2): ILC Onshore • If the ILC remains near the timeline proposed by the Global Design Effort, Fermilab will focus on the above programs. • If the ILC departs from the GDE-proposed timeline, in addition Fermilab should pursue neutrino-science and precisionphysics opportunities by upgrading the proton accelerator complex. – If the ILC start must wait for a couple of years, the laboratory should undertake the SNu. MI (an upgrade of Nu. MI) project. – If the ILC postponement would accommodate an interim major project, the laboratory should undertake Project X for its science capability and ILC alignment.
Plan for Fermilab (3): ILC Offshore • If the ILC is constructed offshore, in addition Fermilab should pursue neutrino-science and precision-physics opportunities by upgrading current proton facilities while supporting the ILC as the highest priority. – The laboratory should undertake SNu. MI at a minimum. – Alternatively, the laboratory should undertake Project X if resources are available and ILC timing permits.
Plan for Fermilab (4) • In all scenarios, – R&D support for Project X should be started now, with emphasis on • expediting R&D and industrialization of ILC cavities and cryomodules, • overall design of Project X. – R&D for future accelerator options concentrating on a neutrino factory and a muon collider should be increased. – The laboratory should support detector R&D and test-beam efforts for effective use of future facilities.
Intensity Frontier, Project X
Project X: Properties 8 Ge. V H- Linac with ILC Beam Parameters (9 m. A x 1 msec x 5 Hz) 100 -200 k. W at 8 Ge. V for Precision Physics, … >2. 0 MW at 50 -120 Ge. V for Neutrino Science, … Project X Linac: ILC-like (0. 6 – ~1. 0 Ge. V) ILC-identical (~1 – 8 Ge. V) Vehicle for National & International Collaboration
Project X: Proton Beam Power Protons from Main Injector 8 Ge. V protons available from Recycler with MI protons at 120 Ge. V 200 k. W Power and Flexibility 0* (Project X) (SNu. MI) I u. M N S v. A) O N I( Nu. M 16 k. W (Nu. MI-NOv. A) Nu. MI (MINOS) 17 k. W (Nu. MI-MINOS) 35 -year-old injection (technical risk) * Protons could be made available at the expense of 120 Ge. V power.
Possible Physics Opportunities with Project X
Neutrino Science • Ultimate goal – use neutrinos to find answers to big questions like • “Did we all come from neutrinos? ”, “What happened to the antimatter? ” (leptogenesis) • “Do all forces and masses become one? ” (unification) • Neutrinos are different! – They may be their own antiparticles or obey a different set of rules with respect to matter-antimatter (CP) asymmetry. – Their tiny masses suggest a “see-saw” with superheavy partner n’s not yet detected.
Neutrino Science • Re-running the Big Bang with all these n properties gives leptogenesis – creation of matter from decay of superheavy n’s • These n properties may fit into a larger picture including the unification and supersymmetry • This requires a broad ambitious program to detect CP violation in n’s, determine their mass hierarchy, the Majorana nature of n mass, and how n’s mix.
Neutrino Science An upgrade of the Fermilab proton complex could greatly enhance FNAL’s current world-class program on neutrino science by strengthening Fermilab’s flagship program of longbaseline neutrino-oscillation experiments
Neutrino Oscillation NOv. A will be competitive with the Japanese experiment T 2 K. The ability of NOv. A to determine the neutrino mass hierarchy makes the U. S. long-baseline neutrino program unique in the world. Ability to resolve mass ordering at 95% CL (NOv. A, NOv. A + T 2 K) Neutrino mass hierarchy
Neutrino Oscillation Ability of NOv. A experiment to observe sin 22 q 13 = 0 at 3 s significance sin 22 q 13 L = 810 km, 15 k. T Dm 322 = 2. 4 x 10 -3 e. V 2 3 years for each n and n. Dm 2 > 0 10 -2 Dm 2 < 0 Nu. MI SNu. MI Project X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 CP-violating phase d (radians) (Courtesy of Gary Feldman)
Neutrino Oscillation Mass Ordering CP Violation 95% CL (dotted) and 3 s (solid) sensitivity with 3 years of each n and n (Courtesy of Niki Saoulidou) 2 100 kt LAr detectors at 1 st(700 km) & 2 nd(810 km) oscillation maxima w/ Nu. MI beamline One 100 kt LAr (or 300 kt water Cerenkov) at 1300 km using a wide-band n beam A large n detector in DUSEL would also be a world-class proton decay detector, addressing “Do all the forces become one? ”
Neutrino Oscillation (Mass Ordering) Project X J-PARC Upgrades (Courtesy of Niki Saoulidou) 4 MW beam 2 100 kt LAr detectors at 1 st (700 km) and 2 nd (810 km) oscillation maxima using Nu. MI beamline 100 kt LAr (or 300 kt water Cerenkov) at 1300 km using a wide-band n beam 95% CL (dotted lines) and 3 s (solid lines) sensitivity. 3 years of neutrino and 3 years of antineutrino running Phys. Rev. D 72, 033003 (2005) 2 s (thin lines) and 3 s (thick lines) sensitivity. 4 years of neutrino and 4 years of antineutrino running
Neutrino Ocillation (CP Violation) Project X J-PARC Upgrades (Courtesy of Niki Saoulidou) 4 MW beam 2 100 kt LAr detectors at 1 st (700 km) and 2 nd (810 km) oscillation maxima using Nu. MI beamline 100 kt LAr (or 300 kt water Cerenkov) at 1300 km using a wide-band n beam 3 s sensitivity. 3 years of neutrino and 3 years of antineutrino running Phys. Rev. D 72, 033003 (2005) 2 s (thin lines) and 3 s (thick lines) sensitivity. 4 years of neutrino and 4 years of antineutrino running
Neutrino Oscillation • Quite apart from their relative sensitivities, the Japanese and U. S. programs, when combined, would be much stronger than either one alone, because they would operate under different physical conditions. • In the U. S. program, there could be a wide-energy-beam directed at a single large detector, possibly using liquid-argon technology, 1300 km away. • In the Japanese program there would be a much lower-energy, and narrower-band beam directed at either a single large water-Cerenkov detector 300 km away, or possibly a split version of this detector, with part of it 300 km from the neutrino source and the rest in Korea, about 1000 km from the source. • Thanks to these differences between the U. S. and Japanese programs, together they would provide a much better probe of the mysteries of the neutrino world than either one alone.
Other Possible Neutrino Programs • Using 8 Ge. V protons – An experiment • to study low-energy neutrino interactions for neutrinooscillation expt. s such as Mini. Boo. NE, NOv. A, and T 2 K • to develop liquid-argon detector technology – An experiment • to measure strange quark contribution to nucleon spin. • Using 800 Ge. V protons – An experiment • to precisely measure the weak mixing angle.
Precision Physics • Ultraprecise experiments with high intensity sources of muons and quarks provide unique discovery potential. – The discovery of Lepton Flavor Violation (muon to electron conversion) could probe unification physics complementary to neutrinos and LHC/ILC programs. – Precise measurements of quark flavor violation with kaons could complement LHC and probe even higher energy scales.
Charged Lepton Flavor Violation (CLFV) • Discovery of n masses and oscillations – Neutral lepton flavor quantum #’s are violated in nature. • “Does lepton flavor violation also occur at an appreciable rate with charged leptons? ” – SM predict negligible rates. Many new physics models predict appreciable and potentially observable rates. – CLFV searches are powerful and promising probes for new physics at and above the Te. V scale. Compositeness 103 – 104 Te. V scale Supersymmetric models predict Rμe~ 10 -15 for weak scale SUSY
Muon-to-Electron Conversion Rare muon processes provide the deepest CLFV probes. m e conversion: Potential FNAL m e conv. expt. 10 -17 ~ 10 -18 (Project X) Estimating the new physics expectations for different CLFV processes in a model independent way. L CLFV effective Lagrangian: MEG experiment ~ 10 -13 L sets the scale of new physics. k interpolates between models. k (Courtesy of Andre de Gouvea)
Precision Physics with Kaons • Theories of Terascale physics typically predict new contributions to flavor violating processes involving quarks • If LHC discovers SUSY particles, kaon experiments could distinguish SUSY breaking mechanisms. K pnn Rare Decay: SM prediction: 10 -10 ~ 10 -11 Future experiments: assuming SM rates with a 4 year run: • CERN NA 48 (2012): ~200 K+ +nn events • J-PARC I (2012): ~20 KL 0 nn events • J-PARC II upgrade (~2016) ~100 KL 0 nn events • Potential Fermilab experiment • K+ +nn events • ~800 (w/o Project X), ~2400 (w/ Project X) • KL 0 nn events • ~80 (w/o Project X), ~800 (w/ Project X)
Project X – Alignment with ILC and Future Accelerators
Aligned to ILC Beam parameters (9 m. A x 1 msec x 5 Hz) ILC-like Linac (0. 6 – ~1. 0 Ge. V) ILC-identical Linac (~1 – 8 Ge. V) • Identical to ILC: – – – ~263 Cavities ~33 Cryomodules ~13 Klystrons Cryogenic distribution Beam parameters • ILC-like – ~42 Cavities – ~6 Cryomodules • Cryomodule Industrialization – ILC RDR Regional Profile • Doubling time = ~1 year • Year 1: 3 cryomodules / year • Year 4: 25 cryomodules / year – Advancing technology • Find cheaper ways to produce in large quantities
Project X 360 k. W 8 Ge. V Linac 19 Klystrons (2 types) 422 SC Cavities 55 Cryomodules 325 MHz Front End Linac 325 MHz 0 -10 Me. V 1 Klystron (JPARC 2. 5 MW) 16 RT Cavities Modulator 2. 5 MW JPARC Modulator Klystron Multi-Cavity Fanout Phase and Amplitude Control 325 MHz 10 -120 Me. V 1 Klystron (JPARC 2. 5 MW) H- RFQ RT SSR 1 SSR 2 51 Single Spoke Resonators 9 or 11 Cavites / Cryomodule 5 Cryomodules Modulator 0. 12 -0. 6 Ge. V 6 Klystrons (JPARC 2. 5 MW) 66 Triple Spoke Resonators 11 Cryomodules TSR TSR Modulator TSR 6 Cavites / Cryomodule 1300 MHz 2 Klystrons (ILC 10 MW MBK) 42 ILC-like Cavities ( b=1, 8 p/9 mode) 6 ILC-like Cryomodules 1300 MHz Modulator Modulator 1. 0 -8. 0 Ge. V 11 Klystrons (ILC 10 MW MBK) 263 ILC-identical Cavities 33 ILC-identical Cryomodules Modulator ILC LINAC 0. 6 -1. 0 Ge. V Modulator 8 /9 8 /9 ILC ILC ILC 7 Cavites / Cryomodule Modulator 8 or 9 Cavites / Cryomodule Modulator ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC
ILC- 8 /9: 6 cryomodules, 42 cavities, 12 quads ILC-1 : 9 cryomodules, 63 cavities, 18 quads 0. 6 – 1. 0 Ge. V 1. 0 – 2. 4 Ge. V ILC-2: 12 cryomodules, 96 cavities, 12 quads 2. 4 – 5. 2 Ge. V + + ILC : 12 cryomodules, 104 cavities, 4 quads 5. 2 – 8. 0 Ge. V
Aligned to ILC e- Linac with ILC Beam parameters (9 m. A x 1 msec x 5 Hz) ILC Linac ILC Damping Ring In Tevatron Tunnel Preassemble and test the ILC Damping Ring
First Stage of Future World Facilities M uo n S Ri tor ng a ge m Capture / Cooling DUSEL neutrino beam
First Stage of Future World Facilities m Capture / Cooling Muon Acceleration Muon Collider 4 km
Draft “Internal” Report submitted to Pier Oddone on August 7, 2007
Final Report September 18, 2007
Steering Group’s Internal Report Reviewed by Accelerator Advisory Committee Accelerator part of the Report August 8 -10, 2007 Presented by John Corlett today
Next Steps Steering Group (SG) Report to Pier Oddone SG Report PAC Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Public Report Aug 2007 Sep 2007 FNAL AAC Review SG Report to HEPAP Oct 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2007 Jan 2008 Feb 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Jun 2008 Ju 200 FNAL PAC Review SG Report to HEPAP to P 5 We are here! P 5 Review FY 10 Budget Preparation P 5 Report to HEPAP
Communication with the community about the Report • FNAL staff and users – Aug. 24: FNAL All Hands meeting – Oddone/YKK – Sep. 14: Meeting with FNAL Users’ Executive members – Oddone/YKK – Sep. 27: Town-Hall meeting with FNAL Users - YKK • Seminars, Town-Hall meetings – Seminars (Abroad): Imperial College, RAL, Oxford Univ. (Oct. 1), … – Seminars (US): U. Florida, U. Chicago, UIUC (Oct. ), Maryland (Nov. ), … – Town-Hall meeting: American Linear Collider Physics + GDE (Oct. 22) • Workshops at FNAL – Accelerator: November, organized by Mc. Ginnis, Holmes, et al – Physics: Fall 2007, in discussion with FNAL UEC • DPF, DPB – We will send a message to DPF and DPB members. • Thanking them for their input/ideas to the Steering Group process • Announcing workshops
Workforce Planning • Workforce Planning exercise (FY 08 – FY 12) – 1 st iteration complete. – Large uncertainties • e. g. LHC/CMS upgrades, Tevatron decommissioning, increase in ILC R&D, Project X R&D, … – This process will be re-iterated for more accurate results. • Project X: Nation-wide efforts – Various models • Council • Central Design Group • … – Possible discussion item at the “November” workshop
Conclusions • The Steering Group plan gives the highest priority to energyfrontier physics with the LHC and the ILC, where experiments will search directly for the physics of the Terascale, addressing the most compelling questions of 21 st-century particle physics. • If the ILC is delayed, the Steering Group’s plan keeps Fermilab and U. S. particle physics on the pathway to discovery in the domain of neutrinos and precision physics, while advancing the technology of the ILC. The field of neutrino science and precision physics offer promising pathways to physics breakthroughs not accessible to the LHC, the ILC or nonaccelerator physics. • If the ILC start is postponed significantly, the Steering Group proposes Project X, an intense proton-beam facility: a linear accelerator with the planned characteristics of the ILC at ~1% of the ILC’s length, combined with existing Fermilab accelerator rings.
Conclusions (cont. ) What are neutrinos telling us? How did the universe come to be? Are there undiscovered principles of nature? What happened to the antimatter? Do all the forces become one? • An intensity-frontier program, Project X, that provides unique experiments to address these profound questions would serve many scientific users. • Project X would prepare future generations of U. S. particle physicists to exploit the potential of accelerator-based scientific opportunities in the U. S. and worldwide. • Project X would help pave the way to the extremely powerful energy- and intensity-frontier facilities of the long-term future beyond the ILC (a neutrino factory and a muon collider).
- Slides: 58