U S Department of Energy Office of Science

U. S. Department of Energy Office of Science High Energy Physics FY 2008 OMB Presentation Backup Slides

U. S. Department of Energy General Comment on Budget Figures Office of Science Note: Apparent HEP budget changes in many subprogram areas reflect a change in the way that certain program overhead-type expenses (e. g. , management, computing and networking, and engineering support) are charged at Fermilab. Ø Fermilab and SLAC have not previously assessed these expenses across program elements, instead directly assessing Facility Operations for the full cost. Ø Beginning in FY 2007 (after Congressional appropriations), Fermilab will assess these expenses through a proportional allocation across all activities at Fermilab, resulting in redistribution of funds among HEP B&R categories. FY 2008 funding reflects the expected redistribution. There is no net programmatic impact. Ø Similar redistributions are in progress for SLAC as Facility Operations transitions to BES support. These changes are not yet incorporated into FY 2008 HEP budget distributions. 2

U. S. Department of Energy Details of "Other" Category in Proton Accelerator-based Physics Office of Science 3

U. S. Department of Energy Laboratory Infrastructure (GPP) Office of Science § HEP labs will invest more than $36 M in FY 2008 to ensure infrastructure and facilities are properly maintained to support mission needs and minimize down time. § $13 M in GPP funds will be invested in recapitalization projects in 2008 at Fermilab, SLAC, and LBNL to make critical upgrades to infrastructure and facilities. Projects include: Ø An addition to the Grid Computing Center at Fermilab as well as upgrades to the high voltage electrical system. Ø Improvements to the Computing Center and other facilities at SLAC to better support research. Ø Upgrades to wet and dry laboratories at LBNL to meet current research needs and other facility modifications to enhance seismic safety. § HEP will continue to invest GPP resources which, along with the Science Laboratories Infrastructure Program, will ensure the laboratories have state-of-the-art facilities and infrastructure to support their missions. GPP ($ in millions) FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FNAL 5. 6 8. 8 9. 2 9. 6 9. 8 SLAC* 3. 1 3. 6 4. 2 3. 0 4. 5 LBNL 4. 5 4. 1 4. 2 *SLAC GPP is funded by both HEP and BES. 4

U. S. Department of Energy Composition of University “Core” (Research) Program in 2008 – 2012 Office of Science § The core strength of the University Physics Research program will increase in real terms in FY 2008 -12 by approximately 15% (planned growth of ~6% per year starting 2010) § A new component will be the build-up of effort for the ILC while maintaining strength on LHC, theory, and astro/cosmo. This new effort will come largely from redirection of other efforts, but may include some real growth of the manpower base. § Ba. Bar research will decrease during this time (from 10% to 0%). § Tevatron research will be decreasing during this time (from 20% to 10%). § Another new component during this period will be an increase in Equipment funds that will support university-based computing, new “small” experiments in dark matter, neutrino-less double beta decay, neutrino oscillations, proton decay, …and some restoration of university infrastructure. 5

U. S. Department of Energy Composition of University “Core” (Research) Program in FY 2008 Office of Science % 30 15 2 2 20 10 20 1 6

U. S. Department of Energy Composition of University “Core” (Research) Program in FY 2012 Office of Science % 30 15 2 2 20 10 20 1 7

U. S. Department of Energy HEP Drives Science Networking Office of Science DOE Science Networking Workshop (2003) identified the following drivers for dataintensive science HEP leads the way, though others are not far behind To meet these needs, HEP • Works closely with ESNet • Buys dedicated US CERN bandwidth (“LHCNet”) • Supports Grid technology via Sci. DAC Science Topic Data Size(2008) (Peta. Bytes/yr) Climate 3 Fusion 1 Nuclear Physics 5 -10 Materials 0. 3 Chemistry 2 Genomes “potential for” 10’s HEP 10 8

U. S. Department of Energy Sci. DAC-2 Competition Office of Science “Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing” § DOE received 240 Sci. DAC-2 proposals in 12 application topics § 109 laboratory lead; 131 university lead § We received 36 HEP-related proposals in 5 application topics. § 19 laboratory lead; 17 university lead § Three new awards, one 6 -month continuation § Planning follow-on FY 2007 HEP solicitation § Accelerator Simulation § HEP Sci. DAC FY 2006 -FY 2007 budget ~$5 M / year § Constant level of effort through FY 2010 § Recompete of HEP Sci. DAC portfolio planned for FY 2011 9

U. S. Department of Energy New Awards HEP Sci. DAC-2 Office of Science § § § Astrophysics: Woosley "Computational Astrophysics Consortium: Supernovae, Gamma-Ray Bursts, and Nucleosynthesis" (HEP, NNSA) § Peta. Scale simulations to investigate Type Ia SNe, Dark Energy, Nucleosynthesis, Radiation Transport, Gamma-Ray Bursters Physics with Petabytes: Livny "Sustaining and Extending the Open Science Grid: Science Innovation on a Peta. Scale Nationwide Facility" (HEP, NP, ASCR, NSF) § Large-scale, production-quality, distributed computing critical for LHC, LIGO, and RHIC data analysis and simulation Quantum Chromodynamics: Sugar "National Computational Infrastructure for Lattice Gauge Theory" (HEP, NP, ASCR) § Petascale simulations to study the Standard Model, properties of strongly interacting matter under extreme conditions, and masses and internal structure of strongly interacting particles 10

U. S. Department of Energy Office of Science Collider Program § Tevatron § LHC § B-factory § LQCD 11

U. S. Department of Energy Tevatron: Successful Upgrades Office of Science Scheduled shutdown in FY 06 for installation of detector and accelerator upgrades completed successfully. CDF and D-Zero detector upgrades completed on schedule under budget to take full advantage of Tevatron performance. Integrated luminosity 8 7 design ratio Integrated luminosity (fb-1) Setting new record peak luminosities: best is 2. 3 1032 cm-2 s-1 6 5 Mean initial luminosity 4 3 2 base 1 0 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 12

U. S. Department of Energy Closing in on Higgs at Tevatron Office of Science m. W (Ge. V) Higgs ruled out at LEP for mass < 114 Ge. V. Precision measurements of top quark and W boson masses favor low Higgs mass where discovery sensitivity at Tevatron is best. Run II 14 1 G e. V V e. V 3 00 G m. H = 1 Te mtop (Ge. V) Tevatron expectation for ruling out or discovering Higgs vs. time. 95% confidence exclusion at Higgs mass: < 185 G e. V < 160 G e. V 5 G e. V 11 Discover Higgs at 115 Ge. V 13

U. S. Department of Energy Tevatron: Update on Higgs Limit Ratio of current limit to SM cross section Office of Science New limit on SM Higgs based on 1 fb-1 of analyzed data Ø 95% confidence level can be reached for the mass range of 115 to 185 Ge. V with 8 fb-1 14

U. S. Department of Energy Tevatron: Top Quark Mass Improvements Office of Science Expect to measure width of the mass at ~1. 5 Ge. V accuracy by end of Run II 15

U. S. Department of Energy LHC: Luminosity and Physics Office of Science Z’@6 Te. V ADD X-dim@9 Te. V 3000 SUSY@3 Te. V H(120 Ge. V) gg 300 SUSY@1 Te. V 10 -20 fb-1/yr 100 fb-1/yr 200 fb-1/yr 30 SHUTDOWN Higgs > 200 Ge. V 1000 fb-1/yr 2008 First physics run: 1 to a Few fb-1 16

U. S. Department of Energy LHC Physics – Potential Discovery Office of Science Once LHC reaches steady state operation at its full energy (14 Te. V) and design luminosity (1033~1034/cm 2 sec) → start of physics data taking Potential discovery physics data taking for § SUSY at 1 Te. V: ~ 6 months § Higgs > 200 Ge. V ~1 year § Higgs at 120 Ge. V 2~3 years § Extra-dimension at 9 Te. V 3~4 years § Compositeness at 40 Te. V 6~8 years § SUSY at 3 Te. V > 10 years & luminosity upgrade 17

U. S. Department of Energy US LHC Research Program - strawman funding guidance Office of Science NSF guidelines are established at $9 M/experiment through FY 2011, and the DOE is currently developing its out-year recommendations. 18

U. S. Department of Energy LHC Detectors being installed - Impressive progress Office of Science CMS cavern is ready for installation of detector components being assembled and tested in the surface buildings ATLAS cavern already filled with a large fraction of assembled detector components 19

U. S. Department of Energy LHC in the News Office of Science 20

U. S. Department of Energy B-factory & New Physics Office of Science Some of rare decays studied at B-Factory are sensitive to the physics of the Terascale → Will constrain the discoveries possible at the LHC. High precision measurements at the B-Factory could produce evidence of the limitations of the Standard Model by the end of its run in 2008. Current New Physics constraints 21

U. S. Department of Energy B-Factory & New Physics Projections for charged Higgs Limit: B t t Office of Science Combined BABAR+Belle Significance: Standard Model expectation Conclusions FY 07 FY 08 Projected errors BABAR can rule out charged Higgs models and reach good precision for Vub with 2007 -2008 running 22

U. S. Department of Energy LQCD Office of Science § Major goals of experimental programs in HEP and NP Ø Make precise tests of the Standard Model. Ø Determine the properties of strongly interacting matter under extreme conditions. Ø Understand the internal structure of nucleons and other strongly interacting particles. § Lattice QCD calculations are essential to accomplish these goals § Supported jointly by HEP and NP FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 total HEP $2. 0 M $1. 2 M $7. 2 M NP $0. 5 M $2. 0 M § So far, utilization of installed clusters >99% § Starting to make significant impacts on physics results from Tevatron, B-factory, RHIC, and CEBAF 23

U. S. Department of Energy LQCD Computing Capability Profile Office of Science 24

U. S. Department of Energy Office of Science Neutrino Program § Nu. MI/MINOS § NOv. A § MINERv. A § Reactor Neutrino (Daya Bay) § Double Beta Decay (EXO) 25

U. S. Department of Energy Nu. MI/MINOS Office of Science Physics program: after $172 M investment, published its first physics results in less than a year • 2 Ge. V neutrinos • 5. 4 Kiloton far detector at Soudan • 1 Kiloton near detector at FNAL • Most precise measurements for neutrino oscillation • m disappearance observed Minos Far detector Minos near detector 26

U. S. Department of Energy MINOS Performance Enhancement Proton Plan I – Tasks & Funding Office of Science § § Goal: increase beam power from 200 k. W to 400 k. W Linac Ø R&D on replacement for RF power amplifiers to mitigate the venerability of a single manufacture Main Injector: Ø Utilize Booster multi-batch mode in Ø Add collimation system and increase aperture of quadrupole magnets to minimize beam losses Booster: Ø Reduce beam losses at injection from Linac to Booster and from Booster to Main Injector Ø Raise average repetition rate ($M) Ø Improve beam control system FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 Total OPE 0. 1 9. 1 10. 3 EQU 7. 2 2. 7 0. 1 10. 0 AIP 2. 3 0. 0 0. 4 2. 7 Total 9. 6 11. 8 1. 6 23. 0 27

U. S. Department of Energy E A (and NO A) Office of Science § Mission Need Statements (MNS) for Electron Neutrino Appearance (Ev. A) Experiment Ø Submitted in July 2005 Ø Mission Needs approval granted in Nov 2005 § Options for Ev. A: Ø NOv. A: A large scale neutrino detector at Minnesota using Nu. MI beam Ø T 2 K: Participation of US groups in Japanese experiment Ø Do nothing § A case of one Mission Need Statements resulting more than one venue Ø NOv. A: Included in FY 07 budget as a line-item construction project • Enclosure to house a detector at Minnesota needs to be built • NOv. A was reclassified as an MIE in FY 08 budget submission (see next slide) Ø Also plan to pursue a small scale effort of participation in T 2 K • Fabrication of a parts of detector equipments for T 2 K “near” detector by US university groups 28

U. S. Department of Energy NO A – funding type Office of Science § § Decision on which option(s) to pursue for Ev. A was not made at the time of FY 07 budget submission FY 07 budget assumed NOv. A with Ø an enclosure to house a detector at Minnesota (estimated to be $20~30 M) Ø Fermilab will be the contractor to build this enclosure Since then § DOE conducted a successful CD-1 Lehman review for NOv. A project § Acquisition Strategy was developed → led to a change of funding type § University of Minnesota proposed to build the far detector enclosure on its land with DOE financial assistance as part of its neutrino research program § UM has experience constructing & operating Soudan Underground Lab & MINOS § Far detector site will not have any other SC or DOE use § NOv. A will be executed as an MIE rather than a line-item construction project § Financial assistance for far-detector enclosure will be a part of UM research grant and will be captured as a part of NO A OPC (ie. operating fund) § Need to reprogram FY 2007 PED funds soon after FY 07 appropriation occurs 29

U. S. Department of Energy NO A Is Very Large Office of Science Utilization of existing investments - Fermilab accelerator complex including Nu. MI Beam Require massive new detector (Far Detector) to be located at northern Minnesota ▪ Measure oscillations of muon-neutrinos to electron-neutrinos (“appearance experiment”) ▪ physics goals: better measure of missing mixing angle ( 13), study “mass hierarchy” Original Investments: $400 M Booster + Linac $200 M Main Injector $150 M Nu. MI Beam NOv. A Detector in the Minneapolis Metrodome 30

U. S. Department of Energy NOv. A Performance Enhancement Proton Plan II – Tasks & Funding Office of Science § § § Goal: increase beam power from 400 k. W to 700 k. W Nu. MI beamline: Ø Upgrade to power supplies, magnet cooling and kickers for higher rate operation Ø Increase capacity of the target and horn cooling systems Booster: Ø Raise average repetition rate Ø Install additional shielding to minimize radiation damage at higher intensities Recycler: Ø Removal of antiproton specific devices Ø New injection line from Booster to Recycler Ø New extraction line from Recycler to Main Injector ($M) Ø Dampers and instrumentation FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 Total Main Injector: Ø Additional RF cavities OPE 3. 3 7. 9 7. 4 18. 5 EQU 9. 0 5. 0 2. 0 16. 0 AIP 0. 0 5. 0 4. 0 9. 0 12. 3 17. 9 13. 4 43. 5 Total 31

U. S. Department of Energy NOv. A Sensitivity Office of Science With Proton Plan II, improvement by > factor of 3 Original Investments: $400 M Booster + Linac $200 M Main Injector $150 M Nu. MI Beam $200 M NOv. A Detector Additional Investment: $43. 5 M Proton Plan II 32

U. S. Department of Energy Neutrino Cross Sections Office of Science Quasi elastic production Oscillation experiments use measured cross sections or models fit to data. Ø Data analysis § Background mix § Energy calibration § A-dependence Ø Simulations Cross sections at the Nu. MI beam energy Ø Done in the 70’s and 80’s with low intensity beams. Ø Have large statistical and systematic errors. MINERv. A Sensitivity § Current Measurements § 33

U. S. Department of Energy MINER A Detector Office of Science § Finely segmented scintillator detector § Recognize different interaction topologies § Electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters § Multiple targets to study A-dependence § Located in the MINOS near detector hall at Fermilab § Use the Nu. MI beam § World’s most intense neutrino beam § Small for a neutrino detector § 180 tons 34

U. S. Department of Energy MINER A - Benefit to MINOS Office of Science At higher values of Δm 2 the systematic error becomes larger than the statistical. With MINERv. A the systematic error due pion scattering is inconsequential. Without MINERv. A With MINERv. A Current MINOS Δm 2 range. 35

U. S. Department of Energy Reactor Neutrino Detector Office of Science • Measures one of mixing angle 13 for neutrino oscillation • 3 options evaluated by Nu. SAG: Ø Braidwood (Illinois, US) Ø Daya Bay (China) Ø Double Chooz (France) Detectors Lb 2 San Luis Obispo or Hong Kong La 1 Reactor 36

U. S. Department of Energy Daya Bay Reactor Site Office of Science § 2 reactors in foreground, 2 more in distance (along coast), 2 under const. § Total reactor power 12 -17 GW (new reactors come online during exp’t) § Detectors to be located under mountain (horizontal tunnel) § Total cost ~$60 M (detectors only); discussion with China ongoing § Scientific review scheduled for October 16 -17, 2006 37

U. S. Department of Energy Double-Beta Decay Experiment Office of Science § Discover particle/anti-particle nature of the neutrino and measure its effective mass § R&D being pursued: EXO, MAJORANA, and Cuore § EXO-200 (R&D detector) will be ready for data taking at WIPP in <1 year. § A large step forward understanding in detector sensitivity. § Dark Matter SAG report expected to be completed by early 2007 § Decision on the option for the large scale detector (could be jointly with NSF and NP) expected to be in 1~2 years 38

U. S. Department of Energy Our Plan for HEP: Neutrinos Office of Science § Pursue a coordinated, international program in neutrino physics § Key physics issue: how large is [ 13]? [APS Study] § Reactor neutrino experiment at Daya Bay with China § NOv. A (will also address neutrino mass hierarchy) § T 2 K (US to contribute to near detector) § Nu. SAG: “the combination of [NOv. A and T 2 K]…is considerably more powerful than either alone” § Plus supporting measurements § Minerva, Sci. Boo. NE to measure low-energy [nu] interaction rates; needed input for MINOS, NOv. A, T 2 K § R&D on technology choices for large-scale (1000 kg), next-generation neutrinoless double beta decay experiment now, build later (~2011) § 200 kg Xenon prototype (EXO-200) in operations at WIPP § NP plans similar scale experiment with alternative technology § Later experiments could be at DUSEL? 39

U. S. Department of Energy Office of Science Dark Energy § Ground Base: DES, LSST § Space Base: SNAP/JDEM 40

U. S. Department of Energy Ground Based Dark Energy Experiment - an option: Dark Energy Survey (DES) Office of Science § Scientific Purpose: Ø Study Dark Energy – a mid-term (“Stage III”) experiment Ø Primary methods are galaxy cluster counting and spatial clustering of galaxies Ø Other methods are weak gravitational lensing of distant galaxies and measurements of Type Ia supernova distances § Proposal: § Build a 520 mega-pixel CCD camera & associated hardware in exchange for 30% observing time on the NSF-funded Blanco telescope in Chile § This telescope and camera will provide the first high precision (5 -10% statistical errors on the equation of state w) dark energy measurements § Collaboration: DOE, NSF (telescope operations and data management) + foreign partners § Costs: expect to be ~$20 M for DOE-HEP § Schedule: 3 year MIE construction + 5 years operations § DES Instrument Camera Filters Optical Lenses Prime Focus Cage of the Blanco Telescope to be replaced by DES instrument Status/Readiness: Ø Technology has been proven Ø Design work in progress for fabrication start in FY 08 41

U. S. Department of Energy Ground Based Dark Energy Experiment - an option: Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) Office of Science § § Scientific Purpose: Ø Study Dark Energy – a longer term ground-based experiment Ø Primary method: measurements of galaxy shape distortions caused by weak gravitational lensing to determine the growth of galaxy clusters over time Ø Other methods: supernovae, galaxy cluster counting Ø Data expected to be used by the larger community for many different science topics Proposal: § Build a next-generation 8. 4 meter telescope facility with a 3 billionpixel camera and data acquisition system § Will obtain sequential images of the entire visible sky every 3 nights with fast (10 second) exposures § Data will provide high precision (2 – 3% errors on the equation of state w) dark energy measurements § Request DOE to provide funding for camera and data acquisition system Telescope Camera & Filters Partnership: DOE, NSF + private Costs: DOE TPC $105 M, Total ~ $250 M Schedule: 5 year MIE construction + 10 years operations Status/Readiness: R&D continuing 42

U. S. Department of Energy Super. Nova/Acceleration Probe (SNAP) Office of Science • • Next-generation space-based dark energy experiment SNAP will be a proposed concept for the DOE/NASA JDEM mission Collaboration: LBNL, JPL, GSFC, U. S. universities, French institutions Status: Finalizing R&D for the SNAP concept SNAP R&D funds ($M): FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 0. 6 1. 4 1. 8 3. 5 2. 5 1. 9 2. 6 7. 5 43

U. S. Department of Energy Office of Science Dark Matter § GLAST § AMS § CDMS II § ADMX 44

U. S. Department of Energy GLAST (Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope) Office of Science Scientific Purpose - measures the energy (20 Me. V to 300 Ge. V) and direction of celestial gamma-rays with good resolution over wide field of view to: • study mechanism of particle acceleration in astrophysical sources • determine high energy behavior of gamma ray bursts and transient sources • search for dark matter candidates Large Area Telescope (LAT) § Primary instrument on the NASA GLAST Mission – managed by SLAC § Partnership between DOE and NASA Ø Collaborators from France, Italy, Japan and Sweden § Fabrication cost $155. 8 M; DOE share is $45 M § Schedule: Ø Fabrication 100% completed in Jan ‘ 06 Ø Commissioning and spacecraft integration in progress at NRL Ø Schedule to launch in Oct/Nov 2007 Large Area Telescope – all 16 towers installed in October 2005 45

U. S. Department of Energy AMS (Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer) Office of Science Ø Scientific purpose: What happened to the (cosmic) antimatter? § High quality magnetic spectrometer in space to measure cosmic rays outside atmosphere § Will operate on the International Space Station Ø Schedule: unknown § Scientific merit review conducted on Sep 25 Ø Partnership: Joint Project, funded by DOE, NASA, and Foreign Agencies (total 18 participating countries largely from Europe and Asia) Ø Cost for detector fabrication & space qualification test > $900 M § DOE share is $5. 3 M 46

U. S. Department of Energy Cryogenic Dark Matter Search II (CDMS II) Office of Science Purpose: direct detection of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPS) Location - Soudan Mine in Minnesota Data-taking: full operations with 5 towers taking data Results so far: …set the world's lowest exclusion limits on the WIMP cross section by a factor of 10 compared to other experiments, ruling out a significant range of neutralino supersymmetric models. CDMS-II Blue line – new results Dotted Blue line – expected full results 47

U. S. Department of Energy Super CDMS 25 kg Current and Future Limits on Direct Dark Matter Detection Office of Science Zeplin II Xenon 10 CRESST II Edelweiss II In P 5 recommendation Super CMDS 25 kg Super CMDS 130 kg Super CMDS 1000 kg X, X supersymmetry models Green m. SUGRA Purple m. SUGRA+(g-2) ○ ILC standard points 48

U. S. Department of Energy Axion Dark Matter Experiment (ADMX) Stage-1 Office of Science § ADMX Physics: What is Dark Matter? § Search for “axion” as dark matter particle § Predicted by Peccei-Quinn explanation of strong CP violation § Continues line of experiments at LLNL § Utilizes “SQUID” amplifiers, high-Q cavities § Searches 1 -10 micro-e. V mass region § ADMX Cost: $1. 9 M 49

U. S. Department of Energy Office of Science Other Particle Astrophysics § SDSS § Auger § VERITAS 50

U. S. Department of Energy Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Office of Science Galaxy surveys, dark matter, dark energy + astronomy • Taking data since 1998 • First Baryon oscillation measurement in Jan 2005 • Approved for additional data-taking thru summer 2008 • June 2006: 5 th public data release • Now have data on 8000 square degrees of sky, with 1, 048, 960 spectra. Funding: Sloan Foundation, NSF, DOE, Japan, Germany Project is led by Fermilab Mosaic Imaging Camera Telescope in New Mexico 640 fiber spectrograph 51

U. S. Department of Energy Pierre Auger – high energy cosmic ray detector array Office of Science Funded by DOE, NSF and Foreign Partners • Auger Collaboration: 300 members from 18 countries • Partial Operation started in 2005 • Fabrication expected to be completed by early 2007 Water Cherenkov surface detectors Current status Ø 18 (out of 24) fluorescence telescopes operating Ø last building to house 6 telescopes under construction, expect to be completed by October 2006 Ø 1186 (out of 1600) surface Cherenkov detectors deployed and 984 operating Ø some problems with site access for final ~300 surface detectors – negotiating with landowners Fluorescence telescopes 52

U. S. Department of Energy VERITAS (Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System) Office of Science Ø Scientific Purpose: Study of celestial sources of very high energy gamma-ray sources in the energy range of 50 Ge. V- 50 Te. V & search for dark matter candidates § Using atmospheric Cherenkov 4 - telescope array at Kitt Peak Ø Collaboration: DOE, NSF + contributions from Smithsonian & foreign institutions Ø Funding: DOE TPC = $7. 4 M Ø Schedule: DOE fabrication project will be completed at end of 2006. Telescope 1 fabrication Ø Status: In April 2005, work at Kitt Peak was stopped in response to suit filed by Tohono O’odham Indian Nation. § Mitigation in progress between NSF and Tohono O’odham Indian Nation. § Telescopes are being installed and commissioned at the Whipple Base camp Artist’s conception 53

U. S. Department of Energy VERITAS - Issues Office of Science Ø In April 2005, work at Kitt Peak was stopped so NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) & NHPA (National Historic Preservation Act) process could be redone according to specifications, in response to suit filed by Tohono O’odham Indian Nation. Ø Since NSF holds the lease to Kitt Peak, they are leading the NEPA/NHPA process with DOE acting as cooperating agency Ø Had “government to government” meeting with Tohono O’odham Nation (TON) in January 2006; NSF had another meeting with the TON in May and sent a draft Mo. U with proposed mitigating actions (sunset clauses, etc. ) and waiting to hear TON response. Ø Current status: VERITAS telescopes will be installed and commissioned at the Whipple Base camp (parking lot) by the end of 2006, while waiting for Kitt Peak access. They have been approved for a 2 year engineering run at Whipple, starting early 2007. 54

U. S. Department of Energy Office of Science Accelerator R&D 55

U. S. Department of Energy HEP Accelerator R&D Program Office of Science § Strong Integration of National Labs, Universities, and Industry § Supports Unique & Dedicated Research Facilities Ø Advanced Wakefield Accelerator at ANL Ø Accelerator Test Facility at BNL Ø Photo-injector Laboratory (FNPL) at FNAL Ø L’OASIS at LBNL Ø NLCTA at SLAC Ø Neptune Laboratory at UCLA Ø Proposed SABER at SLAC § Support for Cultivation of Next Generation Accelerator Physicists Ø HEP Accelerator R&D program supported production of over 230 Ph. D since 1982 Ø US Particle Accelerator School: started in 1982, office located at FNAL: Two week intensive program being offered twice a year. Accepted as being equivalent to graduate schedule program credit (2~3 credit course) Ø Sponsoring major Conferences and Workshops 56

U. S. Department of Energy HEP- Current R&D Topics Office of Science § § New accelerator concepts : 13 institutions (16 groups) including 4 national labs (ANL, BNL, LBNL, SLAC) Ø Laser acceleration: 6 groups Ø Plasma acceleration: 9 groups Ø Wakefield acceleration: 2 groups Super Conducting Magnet Technology & Materials Development: 8 institutions including 3 national labs (BNL, FNAL, LBNL) § High Powered rf Sources & Accelerating Structures (ex: SC rf cavity): program at 9 institutions including 4 national labs (ANL, BNL, FNAL, SLAC) § Code Development: 5 institutions including 2 labs (LANL, LBNL) § Theory: 14 institutions including 1 national lab (LBNL) § Accelerator Experiments: 3 institutions including 1 national lab (SLAC) § Special Facilities: Unique and Dedicated Research Facilities (list in previous slide) 57

U. S. Department of Energy Accelerator R&D - Tools for other sciences Office of Science HEP has developed accelerators & technology that are used for other science & commercial applications – huge contribution to economy. § Cyclotrons, linacs, synchrotrons – proton, neutron, electron & X-ray based cancer therapy; medical isotope production; food sterilization § Electron synchrotrons & storage rings – synchrotron radiation sources (ALS, APS) for material science, biology … § Electron linacs (SLAC) – FELs for materials science, etc. (LCLS is a direct spinoff), food sterilization, ion implants for electronics, X-ray treatment § Proton linacs & synchrotrons – neutron sources for material science (SNS); nuclear physics (RHIC) § Superconducting magnets – MRI magnets for medical imaging § Super Conducting RF – material science (SNS) & nuclear physics (CEBAF) § Compact laser-plasma accelerators – future electron & X-ray based cancer therapy (U. Texas) 58

U. S. Department of Energy Ge. V Electron Beams from a cm-scale - Accelerator R&D at LBNL Office of Science • First demonstration of a Ge. V beam from laser accelerator Ø 3. 3 cm capillary + 40 TW laser pulse Ø few percent energy spread X 108 (p. C Ge. V-1 sr-1) • Future Work: 10 Ge. V laser accelerator 59

U. S. Department of Energy Accelerator R&D at other parts of the world Office of Science § § Hard to account for the total size of the efforts and resources Europe: 16 major Advanced Accelerator Facilities Japan: 16 Advanced Accelerator Facilities Also advanced accelerator research laboratories at Taiwan, Korea, India, China, and Israel 60

U. S. Department of Energy High Gradient Superconducting rf acceleration – a key future technology Office of Science § U. S. lags Europe and Japan in developing high gradient superconducting rf (SCRF) technology. § In order to catch up, current estimate for required investment on SCRF infrastructure and R&D of cavities and cryomodules is ~$300 M over 6 years. Where U. S. is now ( FNAL Meson Lab) DESY Tesla Test Facility >$150 M of M&S only (not including any salary) 61

U. S. Department of Energy HEP Plan for SCRF R&D Office of Science Building upon the strength of HEP Accelerator R&D program, SCRF R&D in U. S. can be significantly improved from where we are today. This R&D program will include: Ø FNAL: Coordinating role with infrastructure development for cavity, cryomodule and string tests Ø ANL: High volume facility for surface preparation using buffered chemical polishing and electropolishing Ø TJNAF: Development of new materials and maintain modest volume capability for cavity fabrication and electropolishing Ø LANL: test stand for single cavities Ø SLAC/LLNL: develop high power rf power systems Ø Universities* (Cornell, Michigan State, William & Mary, Old Dominion, Wisconsin, Northwestern): modest surface preparation facilities, develop new electropolishing techniques, new cavity fabrication techniques, materials research. 62

U. S. Department of Energy Superconducting rf acceleration – the key to ILC R&D Office of Science DOE/OHEP has recognized the generic importance of SCRF R&D and infrastructure and will define a budget category for it in FY 2007. Budget $23 M (if FY 2007 appropriation is at $60 M). The FY 2008 over target request of $47 M for SCRF infrastructure and industrial partnership is essential for advancing ILC R&D, and for establishing the basis for future SC facilities. Without such infrastructure and industrial capability, the advanced DOE/SC accelerator facilities will not be possible. Developing high yield, cost-effective and reproducible SC cavities is the highest priority for the ILC R&D program worldwide. 63

U. S. Department of Energy Office of Science ILC R&D 64

U. S. Department of Energy ILC R&D Office of Science The US and its international partners are in the R&D phase to validate the technology, prepare the detailed design and cost of a future ILC project approval will require successful completion of this R&D phase, validation of the scientific potential at the LHC, selection of a site and preliminary agreement on the partnership and potential roles. Project start would not occur before FY 2012. The R&D phase will deliver much of the societal benefits – development of superconducting rf acceleration technology. Current R&D expenditures are equal in Asia, Europe and Americas (at $60 M/yr in US accounting). 65

U. S. Department of Energy Worldwide Commitment to ILC Office of Science EPP 2010 Report “The US should launch a major† program of R&D, design, industrialization, and management and financing studies of the ILC accelerator and detectors. ” (as the highest priority future effort. CERN Council European strategy for particle physics (2006): “It is fundamental* to complement the results of the LHC with measurements at a linear collider. ” “The first general meeting of the [Japanese] Federation of Diet members to promote the realization of ILC … As an important international project in the fundamental sciences, the Federation decided to give strong support toward the realization of the ILC. ” (ILC News, 6 -22 -06) † EPP 2010 identified R&D costs as $500 M over FY 2007 -- 2011. Adding FY 2006 actual and FY 2012 estimate, detector R&D, SCRF infrastructure raises this to $820 M. * CERN strategy group lexicon: 66

U. S. Department of Energy International discussions Office of Science China: Staffin/Minister of Science and Technology in June 2006: “we will join the ILC”; discussing R&D involvement at $10 M level India: Staffin/Minister of Science and Technology in October 2006: Indian partnership with US in SCRF at $10 M level? So. Korea: first ILC specific funds allocated in 2006 Japan: Formation of Federation of Diet members for realizing the ILC (Sugawara), with statement of intent to propose ILC in Japan. Priority of JPARC had prevented official discussion of ILC in Japan; now MEXT expresses its desire to pursue ILC. First infusion of significant funds for detector R&D (JSPS). Russia: Funding constraints, difficulty in securing the Russian contribution to LHC hinders formal ILC role, but the accelerator expertise helps ILC R&D. Canada: minimal involvement, but growing. 67

U. S. Department of Energy International discussions Office of Science Europe: Situation in Europe is complex. (Orbach visit in August 2006. ) Top priority is LHC, with LHC upgrade prominent in many nations priorities. CERN Council Strategy Group rated ILC as “fundamental”. Council is emerging as primary European strategic planning group. CERN continues to pursue CLIC R&D as potential future project; expert evaluation sees CLIC as being beyond the horizon of next decade. Germany is leading the XFEL construction project. France is most aligned to CERN future plans. UK is contributing large funding to ILC, with focus on beam delivery system, detector R&D. Tension between CERN and US over operating costs, LHC upgrades will tend to limit European funding for ILC in US. 68

U. S. Department of Energy International discussions Office of Science China - visit 6/06 S. Korea - first – “will join ILC” ILC funding 2006 Europe - LHC priority. CERN Council: “‘fundamental to complement LHC with Russia - ILC. ” waiting to complete LHC commitment India - visit 10/06 discuss partnering with US on SCRF Canada: minimal now, but interest US – NAS panel: “US should launch major ILC R&D” Japan: Diet Federation: “support realization of ILC” 69

U. S. Department of Energy ILC Funding in Europe and Asia Office of Science §Current R&D expenditures for Europe and Asia reported to GDE for current fiscal year (JFY starts 4/1; EUFY starts 3/1). §Europe provided M&S and SWF direct funding. Adding indirect and overheads as done in US (average of SLAC and FNAL rates) and associating half the expenditures for the DESY XFEL as synergistic to ILC gives total (US accounting) of $58 M. SWF to M&S ratio similar to US. §Japan gives only M&S direct (not including funding though industry). Scaling their estimate up by European SWF/M&S ratio, adding indirect and overheads as above, and estimating total expenditures in China, S. Korea, India at $5 M gives Asian total (US accounting) of $58 M. §Future outlook: Proposal to EU Framework 7 program for $100 M level facilities. Both India and China indicate substantial increase in ILC funding. Increase detector R&D funding in Japan. 70

U. S. Department of Energy FALC Office of Science FALC = Funding Agencies Linear Collider (US DOE, US NSF, Canada, Germany, France, UK, Italy, CERN (smaller EU nations), Japan, S. Korea (India, China, Russia to be added? ) v Established common fund for GDE. v International review of Reference Design cost estimate (2007) v Document technological benefits of ILC for governments/industry v Coordinate planning of large world projects (ILC, LHC upgrade, intense n sources, CLIC R&D) TO DO: v Establish procedure and time table for site proposals, evaluations (needed to complete TDR). v Formalize oversight and organization structure of GDE 71

U. S. Department of Energy ILC Estimated Time Line Office of Science 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Ref Design, cost, review Engineering design FALC proposal for site selection process Interim R&D oversight organization for GDE Identification of site (or 2? ) Final site specific TDR Preconstruction planning GDE FALC Govts offramps ILC organization draft plan RDR cost LHC results Formal negotiation of ILC lab agreements Project start 72

U. S. Department of Energy GDE FY 2007 plans Office of Science v Complete Reference Design, cost estimate. Aim for international review under FALC oversight (Lehman from US). v R&D on critical baseline elements and alternates holding promise for cost saving or improvement in reliability. v Restructure the GDE to begin the Technical (engineering) Design activities. v Develop world R&D plan. At present 4 planning task forces: § cavities and cryomodule § string tests § damping rings § final focus/beam delivery) 73

U. S. Department of Energy US FY 2007 plans (assuming $60 M) Office of Science v ~$120 M in work package requests for R&D and engineering design from labs and universities, prioritized to fit $60 M budget. v Top R&D priority is getting reliable 35 MV/m cavities and infrastructure needed to refine process and test prototypes. v By end 2006, complete a 3 year R&D plan for US R&D: goals, resource needs, milestones, deliverables. (Must be iterated with GDE guidance on worldwide plans) v Detector R&D multiyear plan with goals, milestones, resource needs. 74

U. S. Department of Energy Deployment of FY 2007 Labs effort Office of Science FNAL (47%): SCRF cavity, cryomodule; SCRF test infrastructure; beam optics; civil construction; outreach; magnet design. SLAC (37%): rf power sources and tests; rf distribution; high availability power supplies; controls; electron/positron sources; damping ring optics; bunch compressor; beam alignment; wakefield studies; magnet design; electron cloud tests; beam instrumentation. ANL (5%): damping ring design; cavity surface treatment. BNL (3%): final focus magnets. LBNL (3%): damping ring design; positron source; vacuum engineering. LLNL (3%): rf couplers; rf pulse power systems; positron target; beam position monitor. TJNAF (1%): cavity surface treatment, large grain Nb cavity development. LANL (1%): cavity testing. 75

U. S. Department of Energy Outyear projections Office of Science The R&D phase of ILC R&D should follow a profile similar to that of a construction project. The synergy with SCRF activity is important to ILC as well as serving the broader DOE SC program. EPP 2010 estimate (adding infrastructure, detector R&D not included) is a five-year integral of $820 M. Without the SCRF effort the profile fails to meet the need to validate the ILC design or put the US in a position to make a credible bid to host. 76

U. S. Department of Energy Office of Science International HEP 77

U. S. Department of Energy Partnering with others (experiments) Office of Science Total number of collaborators 78

U. S. Department of Energy Office of Science Advisory Processes 79

U. S. Department of Energy New Ways Office of Science 80

U. S. Department of Energy Advisory Committee Flow Chart Tactics Strategy Agencies Office of Science DOE-NP NSF DOE-HEP Other agencies EPP 2010 HEPAP NSAC Other panels P 5 future Nu. SAG Other SAG’s 81

U. S. Department of Energy Role of P 5 Office of Science § To develop and maintain the roadmap of the field § To address relative priorities of (medium-sized) proposed projects within the program context (Ideally) P 5 would be asked to compare the recommended options from the SAG process and prioritize relative to one another (More realistically) P 5 will be given a nominal (optimistic but not “blue sky”) envelope of available funding for new initiatives and asked to prioritize within that constraint 82

U. S. Department of Energy Nu. SAG – Report #1 & 2 Office of Science Recommendations Actions Ø Double Beta Decay Initiate a two-phase program: (1) two or more exp’ts on the 200 kg scale, then (2) one 1000 kg experiment Double Beta Decay HEP is sponsoring EXO-200 and supporting R&D to demonstrate its viability for a 1000 kg exp’t. NP has the lead on the alternative technologies. Reactor Experiments We are working with the Daya Bay collaboration to mount a successful experiment in China. Accelerator Experiments 1. Done; at CD-1 stage 2. Supporting detector R&D (2006); in FY 2008 Request 3. Collaboration on R&D efforts forming. No formal program yet. Ø Reactor Experiments Mount one multi-detector experiment sensitive at the level of sin 2 y 13 ~ 0. 01 Ø Accelerator Experiments 1. Pursue NOv. A 2. Participate in T 2 K 3. Support a program of R&D on liquid argon detector technology 83

U. S. Department of Energy Dark Energy Task Force - Report Office of Science DETF was a subpanel of both HEPAP and AAAC Their final report was released in June 2006 and it was transmitted by HEPAP to DOE-HEP on July 17, 2006 and by AAAC to DOE-HEP on June 30, 2006. From the report: Dark Energy could be Einstein’s cosmological constant, new exotic form of matter or may signify a breakdown in Einstein’s GR. To date, there are no compelling theoretical explanations for the dark energy, therefore, observational exploration must be the focus No single technique can answer the outstanding questions - need combinations of at least two of these techniques, at least one of which is a probe sensitive to the growth of cosmological structure in the form of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Recommends medium term (stage III) and longer term (stage IV) program. Stage III should improve the DETF figure of merit (FOM) by at least a factor of 3 and stage IV by at least a factor of IV. DETF FOM: reciprocal of the area of the error ellipse enclosing the 95% confidence limit in the w 0 –wa plane. Recommends that high priority for near-term funding should be given to projects that improve our understanding of the dominant systematic effects 84

U. S. Department of Energy AARD - Report Office of Science Recommendations Actions 1. Develop a strategic R&D plan 1. Draft plan in development by OHEP staff + consultant 2. Conduct an annual external review of the medium- and long-range R&D program 2. OHEP staff and consultant are drafting a charge and identifying members for a Review Committee 3. Grow Accelerator Science from 5% of the OHEP budget to 6% over 10 years 3. Accelerator science is 4. 3% of the HEP budget in FY 2007 Pres. Request, 4. 9% in FY 2008 OMB Request 85

U. S. Department of Energy Dark Matter SAG - Charge Office of Science § What are the most promising experimental approaches for the direct detection of dark matter using particle detectors in underground laboratories? DMSAG should consider: Ø Technology: Ge/Si crystals, liquid Xe, two-phase Xe, liquid Ar, … Ø Relative stage of development; time to implement; ultimate sensitivity; scalability; required overburden § § § What is the optimum strategy to operate at the sensitivity frontier in the short and intermediate term, while making the investments required to meet the ultimate sensitivity? Assess the state of the worldwide program. Does the US program have the potential to make unique contributions? What guidance and constraints can be gained from other approaches to understanding dark matter? § E. g. , astronomical observations, Te. V-scale colliders, theory, … 86

U. S. Department of Energy University Grant Program Subpanel - Charge Office of Science § § § § In broad terms, what should be the goals and objectives of the university grant program? What defines the scope of the program? Appraise the scientific and technical quality of the work supported. Assess the impact of the program on the US and worldwide HEP efforts. Does the program have the correct number and distribution of researchers at all levels to meet program objectives? Does the program have sufficient resources to carry out its scope of work? How should the program respond to an increase or decrease of resources? Examine how the programs are managed and suggest improvements if appropriate. Consider the impact of the program reach to the broader community. 87