P5 Report: The Particle Physics Roadmap

1A. Seiden Fermilab June 7, 2007

2

P5 Members

Abe Seiden (UCSC) ChairHiroaki Aihara (University of Tokyo)

Andy Albrecht (UCDavis)Jim Alexander (Cornell)

Daniela Bortoletto ( Purdue)Claudio Campagnari (UCSB)

Marcela Carena (FNAL)William Carithers (LBNL)

Dan Green (FNAL)JoAnne Hewett (SLAC)Boris Kayser (FNAL)

Karl Jakobs (University of Freiburg)Ann Nelson (U. of Washington)

Harrison Prosper (Florida State U.)Tor Raubenheimer (SLAC)

Steve Ritz (NASA)Michael Schmidt (Yale)

Mel Shochet (U. of Chicago) (Ex-Officio)Harry Weerts (ANL)

Stanley Wojcicki (Stanford U.)

3

Science Questions The question of mass:

How do elementary particles acquire their mass? How is the electroweak symmetry broken? Does the Higgs boson –postulated within the Standard Model- exist?

The question of undiscovered principles of nature:Are there new quantum dimensions corresponding to Supersymmetry?Are there hidden additional dimensions of space and time?Are there new forces of nature?

The question of the dark universe:What is the dark matter in the universe?What is the nature of dark energy?

The question of unification: Is there a universal interaction from which all known fundamental forces, including gravity, can be derived?

The question of flavor: Why are there three families of matter?Why are the neutrino masses so small? What is the origin of CP violation?

4

Science Opportunities

We have grouped the major science opportunities into five categories:

1) The energy frontier projects: LHC-ILC. 2) A program to study Dark Matter. This is complementary to

the work in astrophysics.3) A program to study the nature of Dark Energy. This is

collaborative with the work in astrophysics.4) A number of projects in neutrino science.5) Precision measurements involving charged leptons or

quarks.

5

Budget Assumptions

To arrive at a roadmap we need to make assumptions about budgets. In the case of the DOE, a five year funding profile in the document called “Office of Science 5-year Budget Plan: FY2007-FY2011” submitted by the DOE to Congress in early March of 2006 as part of the FY07 budget submission gives us a concrete budget plan to work with. The numbers in this plan were as follows:

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 $775M $785M $810M $890M $975M

In the latest submission to the Congress the numbers were: $782M $818M $884M $968M

We’ve also assumed the completion of PEPII running in FY08 and the Tevatron running in FY09 for purposes of planning.

6

Planning Guidelines

In order to arrive at recommendations, we have articulated a number of planning guidelines. We summarize the key points here. They have been developed with the recommendations of the EPP2010 committee in mind, the goal of capitalizing on the major science opportunities before us, and the specific numbers in our base budget plan.

1) The LHC program is our most important near term project given its broad science agenda and potential for discovery. It will be important to support the physics analysis, computing, maintenance and operations, upgrade R&D and necessary travel to make the U.S. LHC program a success. The level of support for this program should not be allowed to erode through inflation.

2) Our highest priority for investments toward the future is the ILC based on our present understanding of its potential for breakthrough science. We need to participate vigorously in the international R&D program for this machine as well as accomplish the preparatory work required if the U.S. is to bid to host this accelerator.

7

Planning Guidelines3) Investments in a phased program to study dark matter, dark energy, and

neutrino interactions are essential for answering some of the most interesting science questions. This will allow complementary discoveries to those expected at the LHC or the ILC. A phased program will allow time for progress in our understanding of the physics as well as the development of additional techniques for making the key measurements.

4) In making a plan, we have arrived at a budget split for new investments of about 60% toward the ILC and 40% toward the new projects in dark matter, dark energy, and neutrinos through 2012. The budget plan expresses our priority for developing the ILC but also allows significant progress in the other areas. We feel that the investments in dark matter, dark energy, and neutrino science in our plan are the minimum for a healthy program.

5) Recommendations for construction starts on the longer-term elements of the Roadmap should be made toward the end of this decade by a new P5 panel, after thorough review of new physics results from the LHC and other experiments.

8

Recommendations for Construction and Reviews

To provide recommendations for major construction and R&D activities we have grouped the projects under consideration into several broad categories, with different degrees of priority for each group. We list groupings below in priority order. They are based on our set of planning guidelines. The activities are meant to mainly fit into a five-year timeline.

9

Recommended for Construction or R&D Within Base Budget Plan

1. The highest priority group involves the investigations at the energy frontier. These are the full range of activities for the LHC program and the R&D for the ILC.

2. The second group includes the near-term program in dark matter and dark energy, as well as measurement of the third neutrino-mixing angle. This grouping includes the three small experiments: DES, the 25 kg CDMS experiment, and the Daya Bay reactor experiment. Also in this group is the support for the LSST and SNAP, to bring these to the “Preliminary Design Review Stage” in the case of the NSF and “CD2 Stage” in the case of the DOE over a two to three year time frame. We recommend that the DOE work with NASA to ensure that a dark energy space mission can be carried out and that the three potential approaches to the mission have been properly evaluated. The final item in this group is the R&D funding for DUSEL, along with support by the NSF and the DOE for R&D for both a large dark matter and neutrino-less double beta decay experiment.

3. The next item is the construction of the NOA experiment at Fermilab along with a program of modest machine improvements.

10

Recommendations for Reviews

We recommend a review by P5 toward the end of this decade to look at projects that could start construction early in the next decade. The base budget plan would allow a significant number of these to move forward to construction. The review should take into account new physics results, especially those from the LHC, results on R&D for new projects, budget and cost projections at the time, and the status of interagency agreements and MREFC plans. We list some of the areas to be examined.

1. The ILC, including a possible U.S. bid to host, and the steps needed at the governmental level for internationalization.

2. The LHC Upgrades, required for an order of magnitude luminosity increase at the LHC.

3. DUSEL and the large experiments to search for dark matter and neutrino-less double beta decay.

4. The Stage IV dark energy experiments, a large survey telescope and a dark energy space mission. Interagency agreements are crucial to these projects, which could start construction soon after review.

5. An evaluation of the status of flavor physics and the importance of further experiments across a number of possibilities such as the muon g-2, to e conversion, a very high luminosity B experiment, and rare K decays.

11

Recommendations for Reviews

We anticipate that a separate review by P5 will be required to look at the best directions for further experiments in neutrino physics. Much work is ongoing internationally in this area with an optimum program dependent on measurements to be made by the next generation of neutrino experiments as well as results from ongoing R&D. A second important physics area that might be included in this review would be an ambitious proton decay experiment. These two projects could be the major second phase of experiments for DUSEL. The physics results over the next five to ten years will determine the best date and best set of areas to look at in such a review.

12

Perspectives on ILC

Proceeding with the ILC will require LHC input on the physics, technical and engineering progress, and global political decisions. We hope for important LHC results by the end of the decade. The P5 recommendation is meant first of all to enable the technical and engineering effort needed for an accurate costing and design by the end of the decade, to match the LHC schedule. If the physics and technical issues look favorable, the community can make a push on the political front. The P5 budgeting exercise attempts to make available approximately 10% of the estimated U.S. ILC construction cost through 2012 (a fraction typical of the R&D cost prior to a construction start) if the political push is made. The post-2010 activities are contingent on the review toward the end of the decade, described earlier.

13

NOA Experiment Status

• Accelerator and NuMI upgrades to achieve 700 kW beam power incorporated into the project. A further upgrade to 1.2 MW expected early in the experiment’s run

• President’s FY2008 budget requests $260M for the total project cost, with $36.5M in FY2008

• CD-1 signed May 2, 2007• CD-2 review July 16-18, 2007• Experiment start expected January 2012

14

Daya Bay: Status and Plans

• Passed DOE scientific review Oct 06

• Passed US CD-1 review Apr 07

• Passed final nuclear safety review in China Apr 07

• Began to receive committed project funding for 3 years

from Chinese agencies Apr 07

• Start civil construction Jun 07

• Anticipate US CD-2/3a review Oct 07

• Start data taking with 2 detectors at Daya Bay near hall May 09

• Begin data taking with 8 detectors in final configuration Apr 10

0 1 2 3 4 5

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

Run Time (Years)

Sens

itivi

ty

Run Time (Years)

sin2 2

13

0.01Goal:

sin2 2

13 (

90%

C.L

.)

15

DES: Status and Plans

• October 2006: NSF and DOE requested a plan that described the entire experiment “end-to-end” so that they could review the entire project jointly.

• January 2007: DES submitted NSF Proposal No:0715596,The Dark Energy Survey, a joint proposal to NSF and DOE .

• The DOE FY08 Congressional Budget Request (Feb. 2007) contains a request for DES MIE funding for $3.6 M, with the caveat that funding in FY 2008 is contingent on successful scientific and technical readiness reviews by the interested funding agencies.

• April 30-May 3, 2007: The joint NSF-DOE review of DES:– Scientific Merit – relevance in the context of the DETF– DECam Project: led by Fermilab, funding requested primarily from DOE– CTIO Facilities Improvement Project: led by CTIO/NOAO, NSF supports

NOAO budget– DES-Data Management: led by NCSA, funding requested from NSF

16

DES: Status and Plans

Comments from the Joint DOE/NSF review closeout May 1-3, 2007

• Science:“The DES is an ambitious project that will provide significant scientific results on all four of the science projects recommended by the Dark Energy Task Force: supernovae, clusters of galaxies, baryon acoustic oscillations, and weak lensing. The science proposed clearly fits in the Stage III project envisioned by the DETF (both members of this SC subcommittee were members of the DETF), both in terms of science goals and exploring systematic errors that will affect the Stage IV experiments. They have demonstrated that the DES meets the minimum factor of 3 recommended by the DETF …

Careful attention has been paid to understanding the systematic errors in the data, and designing the experiment to either make these effects irrelevant or controllable by the experimental technique.”

• DECam Project:“The Committee endorses DOE proceeding with CD-1 for the DECam project”

Since the review:May 15th: DES project director (John Peoples) was informed that DOE and NSF

formed a Joint Oversight Group to act as the official contact point between the agencies and the DES Project Director

17

Deep Underground Science & Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL)

• DUSEL is a joint initiative within NSF between Physics (lead), Engineering, and Geosciences – Biology currently serving in advisory capacity

• Well-matched to NSF mission:– Broad, multidisciplinary scientific program– New & unique opportunities for growth, diversity, interdisciplinary research– Intrinsically strong program for education, outreach

• Addresses worldwide need for extensive space for all programs, at multiple depths

• Will enable new, long-term partnerships between disciplines, organizations – public, private, international

• DUSEL is centerpiece of increasing NSF Physics Division investment in US underground science program

• #1 priority for new project start in NSF Physics Division

18

DUSEL 07 Events

• Solicitation 3 (S3): Site selection and Technical Design- Single site will be selected for further development, based on panel review of

proposals received 09 January ’07

- Chosen site will receive up to $5M per year for up to three years for development of facility design

- Review currently in process

- Above targets FY2010 project (MREFC) start, with funds expected to support both experimental instrumentation & facility infrastructure

• DUSEL-related R&D for ’07:– NSF Physics, DOE HEP and DOE NP jointly called for and reviewed

proposals for DUSEL-related R&D. March ’07 review, awards being finalized.• Candidate topics: dark matter, d-beta decay, solar, long baseline, geoneutrinos,…

– NSF Geomechanics & Geotechnical Systems Program (ENG) also supporting DUSEL-related R&D. April ’07 review, awards being finalized.

– Programs expected to continue in ’08 and beyond

19

NSF Direct Detection of Dark Matter

• PHY (co-)supports the following projects:• (S)CDMS DRIFT-II• XENON10 Zeplin-II• WARP COUPP• SIGN Others,R&D• FY06: $3.6M and • FY07: $4.5M

– these numbers include– construction, M&O, DUSEL– R&D and base support

• Dark Matter experiments are a centerpiece of envisioned DUSEL program

• Looking towards 1 ton detector(s) to reach 10-

46 cm2