Meetings and Minutes
Minutes of the 7 Dec 2007 UEC Meeting
Question and answer sessions held with Director Oddone and Deputy Director
Kim. Joel Butler spoke on the US contributions to CMS with an emphasis on
plans for future upgrades. Reports from the Government Relations and Users
Meeting sub-committees were given.
Jan 25-26 2nd Project X Physics Workshop
Jan 31-Feb 2 P5 at Fermilab
Feb 14-15 HEPAP Meeting
Meeting with Director Oddone
(UEC) Can you give us a brief update on the accelerator?
(PO) Right now they are trying to isolate the source of a vacuum
leak in the linac. Startup from the shutdown has been slowed by
several unrelated problems. Once these problems are addressed, we
look forward to strong Tevatron performance. Antiproton production
is doing very well now, having recently set several records for
(UEC) What can you report from the HEPAP meeting?
(PO) The most important part is the new charge to P5 under a couple of
different scenarios. The first scenario is how to prioritize the HEP
program with only cost of living increases over the next 10 years?
Even to justify the $800M currently in the budget, we will need an
attractive physics program. The other scenario will be more along the
lines of exploring possibilities with a doubling of the budget over the
next 10 years. The presidential budgets have been starting out with this
type of scenario, but last year we ended up with only half of the increase
by the time the actual budget was resolved. A continuing resolution this
year that maintains funding at last year's levels is actually an 18% cut
relative to what is in the president's budget. This is because the current
proposed budget assumes the other half of last year's increase along with
this year's installment of the doubling plan.
Now is the time that it is very important for the university-based users,
and the presidents of their colleges, to write government representatives
in support of the increased funding to physical sciences. There is
currently a letter-writing campaign organized by the APS at:
Out of the first 700 users who have participated, only 6 selected Fermilab
from the affiliated facility pull-down menu. This lackluster response from
the Fermilab user-base was even noticed by Denis Kovar. As of the last count,
Fermilab users who have participate is up to 75, but a much stronger showing
is still needed.
If no new FY08 funding bill is passed and we remain in a continuing budget
resolution, it would result in a loss of about $30M in the DOE HEP budget
in a year when we are trying to ramp up new efforts like JDEM and NOVA.
(UEC) What is the timescale for the P5 report?
(PO) We expect a verbal report in March, followed by a written version
in April. P5 is trying to also put together a 10-year plan. If you assume
the optimistic doubling over 10 year it is really closer to 50% with
inflation. Integrate the current DOE HEP budget of $800M that goes to
$1.6B over the course of the next 10 years, which effectively becomes
$1.2B after adjusting for inflation. We have to convince Congress that
it is important to keep a US effort in HEP, and it will take an
investment beyond the normal budget for a large project like the
ILC. Again, we HAVE to have a compelling plan for the $800M
budget in an environment without ILC under construction and programs
at SLAC and the Tevatron shutting down.
(UEC) What can you say about the prospects for Tevatron running in 2010?
(PO) We need to resolve a 2010 run by March, and evaluate whether it comes
at the cost of other programs. Hopefully the funding agencies will want to
treat the Tevatron well in its final year such that the impact to other
areas is not significant.
(UEC) Have you been getting much feedback on the proposed Project X?
(PO) We have had lots of good comments from the Project X proposal that
Young-Kee has been presenting. When P5 comes we will present the project
again. Many people in the field have lost sight of the importance of the
flavor frontier. While the energy frontier gets to new production modes,
neutrinos are really the only area where we have definitively seen physics
beyond the Standard Model. In addition, lepton flavor violating experiments
have an enormous reach. Add all these areas together and there is a nice
program. There is a misperception that many of these programs were shut
down in the past due to a lack of interest, but in reality many were
approved and budget constraints were just too tight. Several of these
experiments have an even better sensitivity in the context of a machine
we would build today. It is clear that the first thing we need is a
'yellow book' documenting the physics potential. The second key is to put
together the interesting pieces of accelerator technology in conjunction
with other laboratories. There will also be pressure on us to present a
preliminary cost estimate. It is important that this estimate be
accurate. Without a projected cost, HEPAP and P5 cannot
begin to build it into a budget scenario
Meeting with Deputy Director Kim
(UEC) What kind of preparations are being made for the P5 visit?
(YKK) P5 will review the ILC plans, Tevatron extensions, LHC upgrades
and Project X. They will also go to SLAC and BNL to review other
aspects of the US program. By then we need to have the physics case
clearly established in each of the four Project X areas, neutrinos,
kaons, muons, and anti-protons. Each area could have multiple experiments,
so we should make a staged and strategic plan. Also need a clear description
of the R&D that is still needed for the various efforts. Each
working group will need regular meetings to establish the physics case
and timeline. Overall, we are aiming for about a 100 page document. This
will require lots of work done between now and the 2nd workshop, so
that the working groups can present the emerging picture at the workshop.
(UEC) Given the short timescale, do you see this primarily documenting
endeavors that have already been established?
(YKK) Yes, I do not see much in the way of developing new experiments, but
more along the lines of solidifying the proposals that we have already been
(UEC) Sounds like a challenge to sew all four components into one coherent
picture. For instance, aren't the anti-proton experiments in direct conflict
with the demand for resource from other areas?
(YKK) Yes, hopefully understanding the interplay between these areas will
be taken into consideration by the working groups at the next workshop.
(UEC) Can you comment on the trade-off between presenting a compelling
program without making too many promises regarding the experimental program?
(YKK) We need to outline a roadmap that presents a very interesting path.
However, that path might change over the next few years depending on
physics results, for example results from LHC, being established, new ideas
that might come along, etc.
(UEC) Pier mentioned the need to get a cost together while being careful to
recognize that any number given too prematurely will stick.
(YKK) We'll we need to give a funding profile of the needs to resolve
technical issues, etc. We need to specify how much money will it take for
the R&D, and a range of costs for the construction. Also need to profile
the experimental costs for detector construction, which means we need to
think about which experiments come first.
(UEC) Is there any update on response from HEPAP, or feedback from the
(YKK) I think our presentation at the HEPAP meeting was very well received.
General responses from the panel and those that attended the HEPAP meeting
were quite positive. Of course, this all has to go through P5, which will
be a very important stage. People were impressed that users from 70-80
institutes registered for the workshop. The UEC has really done a great job
helping this effort get started.
(UEC) Is Jan 25-26 fixed for the 2nd Project X Workshop and safe to announce?
(UEC) There is still some sentiment out there that the physics is marginal
and composed of canceled experiments, etc. It needs to be made clear
that many of the experiments, particularly in the kaon sector, that are
much improved from their original incarnations.
(YKK) Yes, it will be useful to get a document with all of the details of
the experiments. It would help if the UEC could help engage users in the
development of the documentation. The UEC can play an important role in
helping to prepare the documentation.
Joel Butler on CMS
Joel Butler, US CMS Research Program Manager, spoke to the UEC about
recent developments and eventual CMS upgrade ideas.
Some LHC facts:
Billion interactions per second @ 14 TeV
26.659 km circumference
1.9 K operating temperature
Injection at 450 GeV from SPS
Stored energy of 350 MJ (2 MJ at Tevatron)
20 event per crossing
Some CMS facts:
solenoid 6m diameter by 13m long
12500 tons of steel
66 million pixels in silicon pixel detector
11 million strips in silicon microstrip detector
20 interactions per beam crossing
The current status of the LHC is that one of the eight sectors has
been fully commissioned. The goal is to have the rest cold by May
2008. Challenging since the cooling cycle takes about two months.
The US contribution to CMS has been substantial. The combined DOE and
NSF contribution towards construction has been about $167M. There is a
Tier 1 computing facility at FNAL along with 7 Tier 2 computing centers
at US universities. We also have an LHC Physics Center and Remote
Operations located at FNAL.
Given the scale of the detector and the anticipated luminosity, it
is natural to plan upgrades on a 8 year timescale. It is a sobering
fact for the detector that the anticipated luminosity upgrades for
an SLHC would produce 10 times the radiation and 400 events per crossing.
One of the primary challenges in maintaining the detector performance
will be producing pixel and tracker detectors with higher granularity.
to degrade after 5 years. Given the US CMS role in tracking and
triggering, it is clear that we will play a major role in the
SLHC upgrades as well.
(UEC) What is the run strategy at the LHC? How many day per year does
the collider run?
(JB) They run for about 7 months. With 50% efficiency it works out
to about 100 days per year. Shutdowns are in the winter due to heating
costs, which is opposite to the US where shutdowns are in the summer to
avoid cooling energy demands.
Government Relations Update
A letter is circulating Biggert-Tauscher-Holt to provide 4.5B in FY2008 to
the DOE Office of Science. (Note after meeting: this letter has 122
signees as of Dec 11.) The January meeting in preparation for the DC
Trip will be held at SLAC on Jan 9. About 5 representatives from the FNAL
UEC will travel to the meeting. The primary goal is to tune the message
for the visit in March. The regular UEC meeting in February (possibly March)
will be very important for the entire contingency from the FNAL UEC to get
together, explain how the trip works to new members, describe what can be
expected, and role play. It looks like week of March 10 is still the best
possible date for the trip. Work is progressing on the message and building
the "particle physics in picture" pamphlet.
Need to follow-up with local trip volunteers from the various universities.
There is a clear ask right now for the House with the signing of the
currently circulating letter. More generally, it is also the right time
to ask Congress to support president's science budget.
Users Meeting Update
The data has been set for Jun 4-5 and the auditorium reserved. Public
lecture candidates have been reviewed and invitations will be extended
to the top choices. A list of political dignitaries has been created.
Dates for Future UEC Meetings
Jan 18, Feb 15, Mar 7, Apr 11, May 9
Submitted by: Chris Polly, UEC Secretary