First, I have a confession to make – I just wrote a nice piece, hit the wrong key, and now the entire thing has vanished! Can’t seem to get it back. It’s been one of those days…. So here I go again:
I’m at the summer meeting of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP), which gives advice to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation about the US High Energy Physics program. (Yet another panel for me.) Today we had an intermediate report from the Particle Physics Project Priority Panel (known as P5 – I’m on that one too). P5 is charged with creating a roadmap for the funding and construction of future experiments which involve US funds. It is similar to a national program advisory committee.
The full report from P5 will be out in the Fall, but the main points of our deliberations thus far were given publicly today. In short, they are: we recommend (i) the B-Factory at SLAC continue operations until the natural completion of its program at the end of Fiscal Year 2008, (ii) the funding split during the next 5 years between research and development on the International Linear Collider and other new initiatives be 60-40, respectively, and (iii) three new projects begin construction during Fiscal Year 2008 – a smaller scale Dark Energy project (which will demonstrate technology for some larger future experiments) known as the Dark Energy Survey, a medium scale Dark Matter direct detection experiment (known as the 25 kg CDMS), and an accelerator based neutrino oscillation experiment at Fermilab known as Nova. We anticipate that this program will give breadth to the US particle physics program while still focusing on our first priority – the Linear Collider. Details of our plan beyond Fiscal Year 2008 will be given in the Fall.
We had quite a healthy discussion about this interim report today, and HEPAP gave it a thumbs up. The letter transmitted to and approved by HEPAP is given in its entirety (for those who are interested) by:
To produce a roadmap we have adopted a number of planning guidelines. We enumerate these guidelines below. They have been developed with the recommendations of the EPP2010 committee in mind, our view of the present science opportunities for the field, and specific conservative budgetary numbers furnished by the funding agencies.
Planning Guidelines:
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.3) Investment in a phased program to study dark matter, dark energy, and neutrino interactions is essential for answering some of the most interesting science questions before us. This will allow
complementary discoveries to those expected at the ILC and provide nearer term projects that, along with the LHC, will train the next generation of students in particle physics. A phased program will allow time for progress in our understanding of the physics as well as the development of additional innovative techniques for making the key measurements.4) In cases where new techniques are under development our recommendations will include rough dates for reviewing technical progress in order to select the most promising directions for new ambitious experiments.
5) 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. This excludes NSF funds made available through NSF investments in MREFC projects, which may include particle physics as part of an interdisciplinary program involving astronomy, biology, engineering or earth sciences. The budget plan expresses our priority for developing the ILC but also allows significant progress in the other areas. We feel the investments in dark matter, dark energy, and neutrino science in our plan are the minimum for a healthy program.
6) The projects recommended for a construction start in dark matter, dark energy, and neutrino science should complete construction by approximately the end of 2012. This will allow maximum flexibility for decisions on future investments to be made toward the beginning of the next decade in the light of new science results, progress in new technologies, better definition of interagency contributions and plans, and progress on the ILC.
7) Recommendations for construction starts on the longer-term elements of the particle physics roadmap should be made around the end of this decade by a new P5 panel, after thorough review of new physics results from the LHC and other experiments. A final decision regarding possible upgrade construction for the LHC, which will likely be a high priority, should also be made at that time. We have, however, included the LHC upgrade construction (starting in FY2011) in our budget plan to be sure that funding for this can be available. In evaluating this we have kept to our funding guideline that 60% of new investment be available for the ILC. The LHC upgrade construction would fit into the remaining 40%, while still allowing significant funds for investment in next-generation dark matter, dark energy and neutrino experiments.
Among a range of funding options for the future provided to us, we have made our recommendations within a conservative funding plan. Significant additional discovery physics, more rapid progress on exciting projects in dark energy, as well as more rapid progress on ILC R&D would be possible with additional resources.
FY2008 Roadmap and Recommendation on Running the B-factory: We have tried to follow the guidelines enumerated above in making a FY2008 plan. The plan includes running of the Tevatron and the Fermilab neutrino program as presently foreseen. We congratulate the
groups at the Tevatron on their recent discovery and precision measurement of B_S mixing and the groups providing the impressive first results from the Numi-MINOS program. We look forward to continued excellent physics from these programs. We also recommend strongly
that FY2008 see continued improvement in support for the University program, as foreseen in the FY07 budget presently under consideration. Within our roadmap, we recommend that the B-factory running continue in FY08, allowing completion of the BaBar physics data collection at
close to 1000 fb-1 of integrated luminosity. The physics opportunities have been discussed in detail in our report of six months ago. The accelerator is running very well at present. The integrated luminosity through the summer of 2006 is expected to be about 415 fb-1. The
combined run in FY07 and FY08 would more than double this, allowing more incisive tests of the Standard Model and the search for new physics in channels where results are presently interesting but not definitive. The BaBar group continues to be very productive. Between January 1, 2006 and May 30, 2006 they have submitted 31 journal publications. They have also submitted 151 abstracts to the 2006 International Conference on High Energy Physics. We also make the following recommendations for other elements of the FY08 program, which are aimed at implementation of the EPP2010 vision for the field. These follow the guidelines we have listed above and provide the context for our B-factory recommendation.1) We recommend a strongly supported program at the energy-frontier through physics at the LHC and vigorous R&D for an ILC. We note that FY08 will likely be the first year of significant data collection at the LHC and the U.S. participants should be supported to vigorously engage in this first physics. We encourage international coordination of the ILC R&D to maximize progress toward the realization of this accelerator.
2) We recommend the start of construction on three smaller projects that have significant potential for important physics. These projects are: a) The Dark Energy Survey, which combines measurements on baryon oscillations, cluster surveys, supernovae studies, and weak lensing to significantly improve our understanding of dark energy. b) The next phase of the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search experiment, using a 25kg detector deep underground to significantly extend our sensitivity for direct detection of dark matter. c) The Daya Bay reactor experiment, contingent on satisfactory review of the costs, the construction plan, the technique, and the ability to control systematic errors to the required level. This experiment will significantly extend the reach for measuring the critical third mixing angle of the neutrino-mixing matrix.
3) We recommend the start of construction on the NOνA neutrino oscillation experiment using the Numi beamline at Fermilab. This experiment is complementary to the other neutrino experiments on a worldwide basis and represents the next step for the U.S. in a phased
international program aimed at measuring the remaining parameters of the neutrino oscillation matrix, determining the mass ordering among the neutrino mass eigenstates, and finding out whether neutrinos violate the CP symmetry.4) Numerous studies have identified a Large Survey Telescope and a Dark Energy Space Mission as providing large steps forward in the study of dark energy and tests of general relativity, our picture of inflationary cosmology, and measurement of cosmic distributions of dark matter. The particle physics community has been particularly active in developing candidates for each of these projects, which benefit from innovative work on detectors and data acquisition techniques developed in particle physics. These two projects, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) and the SuperNova Aceleration Probe (SNAP) are proposed as collaborative inter-agency projects. In the case of LSST, NSF has been the lead agency with DOE providing substantial resources as the partner agency. In the case of SNAP, DOE has been the lead agency with potential partners of either an international collaboration, which might include a foreign launch, or NASA, or perhaps both. We strongly re-affirm the compelling case for a Stage IV dark energy experiment (as described in the Dark Energy Task Force report). We recommend that both LSST and SNAP be supported to bring these projects to the “Preliminary Design Review Stage” in the case of NSF and LSST, “CD2 Stage” for the DOE parts of LSST, and “CD2 Stage” in the case of DOE and SNAP over the next two to three years (starting in FY07). This will allow sharpening of cost estimates, further interagency planning, further development of the collaborations, and continued work on the science potential as discussed in the Dark Energy Task Force report.
We place our highest priority on the new projects outlined above, which have been motivated by the EPP2010 vision. Should additional funds be available in FY08, compared to our planning model, our first priority among the several important uses for it would be to enable an even more ambitious start on ILC R&D.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
[...] HEPAP is meeting today and tomorrow, the presentations given at the meeting are available here. JoAnne Hewett is there and has a posting on Cosmic Variance. The Seed article with various physicist’s views about what to expect at the LHC that was discussed here earlier is now available online. [...]
July 7th, 2006 at 5:49 am
Wow JoAnne! you definitely know how to make physics sexy and exciting. There is a plethora of interests to be created and Science to be re-searched, as long as people like you can generate a wider interest on all physical matters among future grads and the general public. PS Congrats to Cosmic Variance & Real Climate for ‘hitting’ The Top of The Charts (hits parade).
July 8th, 2006 at 8:53 am
JoAnne,
I hope you won’t mind asking how the dark energy surveys are going to work, what if anything definite they hope to find, etc?
Also, has anyone to your knowledge even considered the redshift effect on the energy of the gauge bosons presumed to be exchanged in causing quantum gravitation?
If these exchanged gauge bosons are red-shifted (by cosmic expansion) over large distances of exchange, gravity will be weakened, so there will be little or no no observable gravitational acceleration of the expansion of the universe?
So the empirical Hubble law will hold with no slowing down on expansion velocities at extreme distances. Which is just what is observed… A simple modification of general relativity is needed, not CC/dark energy.
I can’t understand why Occam’s razor seems to be ignored. Like caloric and phlogiston, and also like material aether, dark energy is ad hoc and not a falsifiable scientific prediction as such. Sorry if this sounds like bitter attack on dark energy theories (arxiv deleted my paper and cern doc server won’t allow my paper there to be updated now, nor other ext papers).
July 8th, 2006 at 8:58 am
(sorry, my paragraph 3 should read “…deceleration of the…”, not “acceleration”)
July 9th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
A July 2006 Physics Today article on pages 20-21 by Toni Feder said in part:
“… CERN chief rethinks LHC fees
… Robert Aymar, director general of CERN, … has been quoted … in French and Swiss newspapers … saying … it … is “stingy” and “unfair” of the US not to contribute to the operating costs of the Large Hadron Collider …
The US put in $200 million toward building the LHC, plus $331 million for two of the experiments. …
says Aymar, “… it’s a very low percentage of the total cost of the LHC” – an estimated … $6.6 billion …
Barry Barish, who heads the planning process for the International Linear Collider … says … “… the US wouldn’t get a role in management. That’s a hard sell.” …
Aymar … says … “It will be difficult to globalize the ILC if we don’t make progress in the globalization of the LHC.” …”.
Would HEPAP be in favor of:
1 – LHC giving the USA a role in management; and
2 – the USA contributing substantially to LHC operating costs ?
It seems to me that would create good will and set a precedent for a truly international ILC.
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
July 9th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Tony,
You are correct in that the US got a really good deal in the negotiated contract with CERN management for our contribution to the LHC. And it is a problem for future projects such as the ILC. Some in our government are pleased with the bargin and wonder if we can get away with it again, while current CERN management is somewhat resentful. The amount of our contribution to the LHC is stipulated in a signed contract, agreed to by both sides, and is thus a done deal and can’t be changed.
Discussion is just beginning on how this tension might be eased for the benefit of future projects. One idea that has just been floated is that the US could contribute substantially to the LHC upgrade project. There’s alot of work to do to make this happen, and I don’t know what our funding agencies and government would think about it, but it sounds like an interesting idea in my book and worth pursuing.
July 9th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Nigel,
There are a variety of ways to measure the variables which parameterize dark energy: supernova surveys, baryon acoustic oscillations, weak lensing, and cluster surveys. From ground-based experiments or space-based experiments. Each technique is at a different stage of development (proven ability) and each has different features in terms of the precision with which it measures the parameters. Our job is to figure out which experiment(s) gives the best measurement of the parameters at an affordable cost. It’s tricky.
On the theoretical side, I think it’s safe to say that it’s fair game in explaining the source of dark energy. Many different options are being explored. We need the next generation of experiments to learn more.
There is a very nice Dark Energy Task Force report (sponsored by HEPAP) that was summarized by Risa.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
JoAnne, with respect to Dark Energy experiment/observation, you mention “… supernova surveys, baryon acoustic oscillations, weak lensing, and cluster surveys …”. Those proposals seem to all be astrophysical in nature.
Is there any USA interest in non-astrophysical Dark Energy experimental work such as the Josephson Junction experiment recently begun by Warburton in London?
It is It is EPSRC Grant Reference: EP/D029783/1,
“Externally-Shunted High-Gap Josephson Junctions: Design, Fabrication and Noise Measurements”,
starting 1 February 2006 and ending 31 January 2009 with £ Value: 242,348 ?
Roughly it is based on Christian Beck’s idea (see astro-ph/0512327 ) that If vacuum fluctuations are responsible for Dark Energy then Josephson Junctions might detect and study it.
For details of Warburton’s experimental work, see the web page at
http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/D029783/1
Isn’t it the kind of thing that might have such a high payoff that it is worth a gamble (especially if the cost is less than half a million US dollars) ?
Even a negative result would be useful, as it would rule out some types of Dark Energy models.
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
July 9th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
Tony,
I am not aware of any such projects in the US, but let me preface this comment with the remark that our committee is only charged at looking at experiments that cost $20 Million or more. Anything as inexpensive as you mention is way below our radar screen.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Well JoAnne comments like your lastone certainly cup up on my ‘radar’
However, I feel you were a little dismissive to Tony’s query. After all increase the budget by a magnitude of 40 and the question would read:
“Is there any USA interest in non-astrophysical Dark Energy experimental work”?
Have a nice day! as they say in the USA!
July 10th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Though of course I hope all Dark Energy is related to Astro Physics whether its $20.oo or $20million projects. Imagine letting your military walk around loose with that kinda energy on Earth. lol!
July 10th, 2006 at 10:47 am
Tony and Quasar9:
Apparently Beck’s idea for any Dark Energy measurement has run into a number of troublesome issues; see Moran & Jaeckel in astro-ph/0605711 and their Refs. 2-5.
It seems that this is not what we are after in a Dark Energy measurement..Of course we should all be reminded, as Sean will tell us, that it is not obvious whether or not Dark Energy (as a new form of matter) exists and even if it does it may be unrelated to the cosmological constant or the `vacuum energy’ of ordinary field theory.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Hi Graviton383, I think you missed the point of the question.
The Question was not whether Dark Energy exists (or not) in Space, but whether the US military might be working on creating Dark Energy on Earth. As for dark energy existing in space – well let us open this can of worms – what do you call dark energy?, the forces of the evil Empire: Darth Vader in the Dark Star, or maybe even a blackhole that syphons garbage from this universe into a parallel one – you know incinerator style, or much much more like the tornadoes which clean any pollution on their path across the US, you know vaccum cleaner style, and throw cows, pigs, and even fish on some other part of the farm, state or planet or even ‘parallel’ world.
PS – Do Nuclear warheads count as dark energy producers?
PPS – Never mind anti-matter, can anti-gravity be produced, and I don’t just mean conventional rocket or Space Shuttle propulsion systems
July 10th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
graviton383 said “… Beck’s idea for any Dark Energy measurement has run into a number of troublesome issues; see Moran & Jaeckel in astro-ph/0605711 and their Refs. 2-5. …”.
To the extent that the “troublesome issues” are in the form of No-Go theorems:
the way to resolve whether or not Beck’s idea is valid is NOT to have debates about No-Go theorems (a lot of interesting physics has come about by regarding No-Go theorems, not as signals to give up, but as telling us to ask which of their assumptions need to be changed in order to evade them – for example, the use of Lie superalgebras to evade Coleman-Mandula No-Go restrictions on constructions with ordinary Lie algebras);
but
the way to resolve whether or not Beck’s idea is valid IS to DO EXPERIMENTS AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
That is what Warburton is doing, and maybe it will show that Beck’s ideas are correct, maybe it will indicate what types of superconductors should be used, and maybe it will show that Beck’s ideas are wrong,
but
whatever the results, they are guaranteed to be interesting,
and
cheap (less than 1/40 of the $20 million threshold for HEPAP to even consider it.
If (long shot) Beck turns out to be correct and Warburton shows how to control Dark Energy, then it is fair to hope (but not guaranteed) that people will use Dark Energy for constructive purposes.
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
July 10th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Hi
Joanne,
I would like to add to something to what Tony said.
Besides these astrophysical experiments in searching for dark energy, there should be more
experimental tests of fundamental gravity (such as precision tests of EEP, lunar laser ranging tests of strong equivalence principle, tests for deviation from Newton’s law at small
distances, high precision ‘COW’ [Collela-Overhause-Werner] experiments, testing the
gravitational force on antimatter , testing if Pioneer anomaly is correct and so on.
Of course not all these experiments may not solve the dark energy problem. But if dark energy
is really due to “modified gravity”, why not design/invest in laboratory based experiments
to test/probe gravity more precisely. (note that there is a also a tiny community of physicists
who believe that “dark matter ” could also be due to modified gravity) . this way we could at least rule out modified gravity as amn explanation. But of course
it is possible that all the experiments which I mention do not come under the purview of
HEPAP.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Hi Shantenu,
I agree with you, although HEPAP isn’t the right forum for that. NASA used to have a nice little program doing some of the things you’re mentioning, but recent cuts have decimated it. I wrote about this a little while ago, if it is useful at all
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/05/22/from-quantum-to-cosmos-i/