Transcript Nuclear Physics is a large part of the history of the universe

Report from NSAC
Donald Geesaman
IUPAP WG-9 Meeting
17 August 2012
8/17/2012
1
2012 NSAC Committee
Robert Atcher
LANL
Peter Jacobs
LBNL
Jamie Nagle
Colorado
Jeffrey Binder
ORNL
David Kaplan
Washington
Kenneth Nash (ACS)
Washington State
Jeffery Blackmon
Louisiana State
Joshua Klein
Pennsylvania
Allena Opper
George Washington
Gail Dodge
Old Dominion
Karlheinz Langanke
GSI
Jorge Piekarewicz
Florida State
Alexandra Gade
Michigan State
Zheng-tian Lu
ANL
Julia Velkovska
Vanderbilt
Susan Gardner
Kentucky
Robert McKeown
Jefferson Lab
Rajagopal Venugopalin
BNL
Donald Geesaman (Chair) Curtis Meyer
8/17/2012
ANL
Carnegie Mellon
2
US Outlook Raises the Spector
of Considerable Possible Changes
• 2007 Long Range Plan
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
Expectation of doubling of science budgets
Construction of JLab 12 GeV Upgrade
Facility for Rare Isotope Beams
Deep Underground Science Laboratory
RHIC Luminosity Upgrade
Future thinking of an electron-ion collider
2009 Influx of one time funding from recovery act (ARRA)
2009 FRIB “Other Project Costs” funding starts
2011 FRIB TEC Project Funding starts
FY2012 President’s request contains 15.9% increase
– HRIBF closed
– Enacted budget had a 3.7% increase
• FY13 request at FY11 level – possibility of flat budgets
8/17/2012
for some time to come.
3
2012 Program
• Running programs at RHIC, NSCL, ATLAS, LHC and
university facilities. STAR Heavy Flavor Tracker being
assembled. CARIBU getting 0.5 Ci source this
summer.
• JLAB 6 GeV running completed. 12 GeV construction
~60% complete
• FRIB funding in 4th year. Ready for CD-2
• Majorana demonstrator in progress and neutron
EDM R&D continuing. CUORE equipment funding
complete in 2012.
8/17/2012
4
The 2013 President’s Budget Request brings challenges
8/17/2012
5
FY12 NP down 3.5% from FY11 and NSCL held flat
FY13 expect about flat
8/17/2012
6
From Dr. Brinkman’s and Dr. Hallman’s
slides
8/17/2012
7
2012 Congressional Budget process
• House E&W Committee markup added 21 M$ to
Presidents request
• Senate Committee added $13M to President’s request.
• Likely there will only be a continuing resolution this
year, not a budget bill so it is not clear what happens.
“Agreement” on a CR til March.
• Both markup’s contained language about NSAC review
to inform priorities for the future.
• If “Sequestration” (part of debt limit increase
legislation) occurs, could be significant further cuts
8/17/2012
8
8/17/2012
9
8/17/2012
10
8/17/2012
11
8/17/2012
12
Underground Lab – now in the hands of HEP at DOE
8/17/2012
Long Baseline Neutrino Experiment reconfiguration
working group recently favored the option to build a
new beamline to Homestake with an initial 10 13
kton
LAr-TPC detector on the surface.
8/17/2012
14
8/17/2012
15
8/17/2012
16
Observations
projecting based on previous charges
• NSAC has repeatedly answered charges like this before
including 1985, 1992 and 2005. In 2005 we named a facility
to close in the event of declining budgets, but the tide of
research budgets changed. By 2006-2007 there was the
expectation of a doubling of R&D budgets.
• We are not asked to do new Long Range Plan but we need to
take into account progress, both in the U.S. and
internationally.
• 2013 budget followed by flat-flat budgets through 2018
represent an effective $86M/year cut from FY2012 budget
8/17/2012
(depending on estimates of inflation).
17
NSAC Subcommittee
Robert Tribble (Chair)
Adam Burrows
George Crabtree
Joseph Carlson
Brad Filippone
Stuart Freedman
Haiyan Gao
Donald Geesaman
Barbara Jacek
Peter Jacobs
David Kaplan
Kirby Kemper
Krishna Kumar
Naomi Makins
Curtis Meyer
James Nagle
Witold Nazarewicz
Krishna Rajagopol
Michael Ramsey-Musolf
Lee Sobotka
Michael Wiescher
8/17/2012
John Wilkerson
Texas A&M
Princeton
ANL
LANL
Caltech
UC-Berkeley
Duke
ANL
Stony Brook
LBNL
Washington
Florida State
Massachusetts
Illinois – UC
Carnegie-Mellon
Colorado
Tennessee/ORNL
M.I.T.
Wisconsin
Washington U. St. Louis
Notre Dame
18
North Carolina State
Plans for the Subcommittee
Discussion prior to charge at April APS meeting
May15: Organizational meeting in Washington Area
Sept 6-9: Meeting to gather input. Presentations summarizing major areas of
science and plans for major facilities. Detailed budget scenarios from the
agencies.
November: Resolution Meeting
January 7: Report due to NSAC
Late January: NSAC meeting to consider report.
Community input: Asked for input through DNP mailing. Most facilities are
working through their users groups. Some may self organize town meetings
Web Site:
http://cyclotron.tamu.edu/nsac-subcommittee-2012/
8/17/2012
19
Summary
• If we do this well, we can communicate the value of our science and the
wisdom in our planning decisions.
• NSAC is widely viewed as being able to respond coherently to the issues
at hand and that thus the agencies pay very close attention to our
recommendations.
• We must respond to the charge.
• There is currently an element of uncertainty in the future U.S. program
which has international ramifications . However, the U.S. will continue to
invest heavily in nuclear physics research. There may be new opportunities
for collaborations and joint ventures.
• NP2010, the National Research Council Decadal Report on Nuclear Physics
has been released. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13438
Also two videos http://sites.nationalacademies.org/BPA/BPA_069589
8/17/2012
20
National Research Council Decadal Survey of
Nuclear Physics NP2010
• Chair:
Stuart Freedman,
Vice Chair:
Ani Aprahamian
• Pre-Publication version released June 2012
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13
438
Recommendations on the next four slides.
8/17/2012
21
Finding: By capitalizing on strategic investments, including the ongoing upgrade of
the continuous electron beam accelerator facility (CEBAF) at the Thomas Jefferson
Accelerator Facility and the recently completed upgrade of the relativistic heavy ion
collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory (RHIC), as well as other upgrades to
the research infrastructure, nuclear physicists will confront new opportunities to
make fundamental discoveries and lay the
16 groundwork for new applications.
Conclusion: Exploiting strategic investments should be an essential component of
the U.S. nuclear science program in the coming decade.
After years of development and hard work involving a large segment of the U.S.
nuclear physics community and the Department of Energy, a major, world leading
new accelerator is being constructed in the United States.
Finding: The Facility for Rare Isotope Beams is a major new strategic investment
in nuclear science. It will have unique capabilities and offers opportunities to
answer fundamental questions about the inner workings of the atomic nucleus, the
formation of the elements in our universe, and the evolution of the cosmos.
Recommendation: The DOE’s Office of Science in conjunction with the State of
Michigan and Michigan State University, should work toward the timely
completion of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams and the initiation of its physics
8/17/2012
22
program.
Recommendation: The Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation,
and, where appropriate, other funding agencies should develop and implement a
targeted program of underground science, including important experiments on
whether neutrinos differ from antineutrinos, on the nature of dark matter, and on
nuclear reactions of astrophysical importance. Such a program would be
substantially enabled by the realization of a deep underground laboratory in the
United States.
Finding: The dual role of universities—education and research—is important in
all aspects of nuclear physics, including the operation of small, medium, and large
facilities, as well as the design and execution of large experiments at the
national research laboratories. The vitality and sustainability of the U.S. nuclear
physics program depend in an essential way on the intellectual environment and
the workforce provided symbiotically by universities and the national laboratories.
The fraction of the nuclear science budget reserved for facilities operations cannot
continue to grow at the expense of the resources available to support research
without serious damage to the overall nuclear science program.
Conclusion: In order to ensure the long-term health of the field, it is critical to
establish and maintain a balance between funding of operations at major facilities
and
the needs of university-based programs.
8/17/2012
23
Recommendation: The Department of Energy and the National Science
Foundation should create and fund two national competitions: one a fellowship
program for graduate students that will help recruit the best among the next
generation into nuclear science and the other a fellowship program for
postdoctoral researchers to provide the best young nuclear scientists with
support, independence, and visibility.
Recommendation: A plan should be developed within the theoretical
community and enabled by the appropriate sponsors that permits forefront
computing resources to be deployed by nuclear science researchers and
establishes the infrastructure and collaborations needed to take advantage of
exascale capabilities as they become available.
Finding: The range of projects in nuclear physics is broad, and sophisticated new
tools and protocols have been developed for successful management of the
largest of them. At the smaller end of the scale, nimbleness is essential if the
United States is to remain competitive and innovative in a rapidly expanding
international nuclear physics area.
Recommendation: The sponsoring agencies should develop streamlined and
flexible procedures that are tailored for initiating and managing smaller-scale
nuclear science projects.
8/17/2012
24
Finding: An upgrade to an existing accelerator facility that enables the colliding
of nuclei and electrons at forefront energies would be unique for studying new
aspects of quantum chromodynamics. In particular, such an upgrade would yield
new information on the role of gluons in protons and nuclei. An electron-ion
collider is currently under scrutiny as a possible future facility.
Recommendation: Investment in accelerator and detector research and
development for an electron-ion collider should continue. The science
opportunities and the requirements for such a facility should be carefully
evaluated in the next Nuclear Science Long-Range Plan.
8/17/2012
25
The 2007 Long Range Plan
8/17/2012
26
Recommendations of the 2007 NSAC Long Range Plan
Recommendation I
• We recommend completion of the 12 GeV CEBAF Upgrade at Jefferson Lab. The
Upgrade will enable new insights into the structure of the nucleon, the
transition between the hadronic and quark/gluon descriptions of nuclei, and the
nature of confinement.
Recommendation II
• We recommend construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB), a
world-leading facility for the study of nuclear structure, reactions, and
astrophysics. Experiments with the new isotopes produced at FRIB will lead to a
comprehensive description of nuclei, elucidate the origin of the elements in the
cosmos, provide an understanding of matter in the crust of neutron stars, and
establish the scientific foundation for innovative applications of nuclear science
to society.
8/17/2012
27
Recommendation III
• We recommend a targeted program of experiments to investigate neutrino
properties and fundamental symmetries. These experiments aim to discover the
nature of the neutrino, yet-unseen violations of time-reversal symmetry, and
other key ingredients of the New Standard Model of fundamental interactions.
Construction of a Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory is vital
to U.S. leadership in core aspects of this initiative.
Recommendation IV
• The experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider have discovered a new
state of matter at extreme temperature and density—a quark-gluon plasma that
exhibits unexpected, almost perfect liquid dynamical behavior. We recommend
implementation of the RHIC II luminosity upgrade, together with detector
improvements, to determine the properties of this new state of matter.
Recommendations for the further future
Initiatives
8/17/2012
28