1

NSF Elementary Particle Physics

NSF Perspectives

Presentation for The Linear Collider Meeting

Ithaca, NY

July 16, 2003

Jim Whitmore

Marv Goldberg

Alex Firestone

2

To study Quarks/Cosmos:

We are working on partnerships …

Antimatter?: Antimatter?: Dark matter? Dark matter? Dark energy? Dark energy? Masses (Higgs)?; Masses (Higgs)?; Mixings?; Mixings?; Supersymmetry? Supersymmetry? Unification?Unification?More Dimensions?More Dimensions?Gravity?Gravity?

Quarks to the Cosmos (Q2C)

3

Toward Defining a Broad Program Connecting to

Quarks/CosmosBuilding on Existing

Partnerships

Revolutionizing the way science is done through advanced cyberinfrastructure.

A basis for restructuring the integration of international research and education.

Empowering Universities in Research and Education

Empowering teachers as part of the research community

Bringing advanced cyberinfrastructure into the classroom by using distributed infrastructure supported for long times by Research programs.

A true symbiosis- MPS/CISE/EHR/INT

4

Existing Partnerships-Leads to more funds available.

PHY/MPS

CISE

EHR CROP, ASPIRE

INT Physics Emasondosondo "Physics-on-the-move“in Africa, and joint funding.

Science/AST

With DOE

5

LHC and Global Infostructure

US Agreement on 5 Principles:

• The cost and complexity of 21st Century Science requires the creation of advanced and coherent global Infostructure

• The construction of a coherent Global Infostructure for Science requires definition and drivers from Global Applications (that will also communicate with each other)

• Further, forefront Information Technology must be incorporated into this Global Infostructure for the Applications to reach their full potential for changing the way science is done.

• LHC is a near term Global Application requiring advanced and un-invented Infostructure and is ahead in planning compared to many others.

• U.S. agencies must work together for effective U.S. participation on Global scale infostructure, and the successful execution of the LHC program in a 4-way agency partnership, with international cooperation in view.

DEVELOPING GLOBAL INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

DOE: OASCR; HEP NSF: CISE; EPP CERN; EU MORE...

+

6

Implementation of Grids for International Collaboration and Education/Outreach

Grid: Geographically distributed computing resourcesconfigured for coordinated useFabric: Physical resources & networks provide raw capabilityMiddleware: Software ties it all together (tools, services, etc.)Goal: Transparent resource sharing

Plan for Functional Demonstration Grids

DefinitionA series of functioning grids for use (now) by Trillium scientists and others--- version zero in November designed to be used in X countries and handle Y data. Each succeeding version (~6 months) will multiply these numbers by N>>1.

With DOE

NEW GLOBAL PLANNING

7

Features: Functional Demonstration Grids

Illustrates leadership in global grid development, told in ways designed to reach a large and important international audience.

Aligns project contributors and their products (from different cultures) in a common cause.

Allows broader audience (science/geology/biology) to be contributors/testers.

Serves as important milestones in getting the LHC “done.”

Provides real world tests of new concept functionality over ~20 year timeframe.

Points to what is needed next.

Thus, it is a very important management tool.

8

Progress to date: Great Best Practices: Yes

Teacher Satisfaction: High Benefits: Teachers are respected and knowledgeable professionals.

Goals (excellent)

•Managed like EPPExperiment

•Through Teachers,impacts 100,000H.S. StudentsEach Year

Heller SPECIAL NSF/DOE Panel Review December 2001

LHC and EDUCATIONLHC and EDUCATION OUTREACHOUTREACH

CENTERS

9

NSB RELATED FY 04 ITEMS

• CESR EPP OPERATIONS APPROVED With PHASE OUT IN FY 08

• CLEO becomes CLEO-c

• FY 04 MREFC Related Funding Requests:

•LHC Research;

•ICECUBE Construction;

•RSVP Construction;

(See Backup Slides for numbers)

Adding New Experiments

Planning LC and Underground Laboratory

10

LHC FY 04 Request- First Time Research Program (M&O/S&C)

LHC Funding, by Phase

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011Fiscal Year

$M Concept/Development Implementation Operations & Maintenance

MREFC

(Tables in Backup Slides)

11

IceCube FY 04 Request- Not Quite First Time

IceCube Funding, by Phase

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Fiscal Year

$M Concept/Development Implementation Operations & Maintenance

MREFC

(Tables in Backup Slides- Arrow is “actual” funding in FY03)

12

RSVP FY 04 Request- First Time

RSVP Funding, by Phase

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fiscal Year

$M Concept/Development Implementation Operations & Maintenance

MREFC

(Tables in Backup Slides)

13

PNA Spinoff

NEW More Spinoffs

Program News

Adding New Programs

14

Program News

Successful Particle Astrophysics (in FY02)

Physics Frontier Center Program (in FY02)NEW:

Physics at the Information Frontier Program:

Computational physics, information intensive physics, and quantum information and revolutionary computing (in FY04)

Biophysics Program (in FY04)

15

Program News (cont)

PLANNED:

Accelerator Program:

Enhancing Accelerator Science and its Impact on Other Sciences: the Role of Universities; and combined with mid-size projects (in FY05)

Motivated by ……….

16

Enhancing Accelerator Science and its Impact on Other Sciences: the Role of

Universities

M. Berz1, H. Blosser1, J. Bisognano2, R. Davidson3, K. Gelbke1, S. Gruner4, C. Joshi5,J. Kirz6, C. Pellegrini5, J. Rush7, M. Tigner4, R. York1

1. Michigan State Univ., 2. U. Wisconsin, 3. Princeton U., 4. Cornell U., 5. Univ. of California Los Angeles, 6. SUNY Stony Brook, 7. NIST

Abstract

The science of particle beams is rich and challenging. Particle beams are many body systems with non-isotropic, non-thermal distribution, exhibiting many collective instabilities and self-organizing phenomena when interacting with electromagnetic fields and plasmas. Studies of these transitions from one non-equilibrium state to another, has progressed rapidly in recent years, but much remains to be done. The impact of particle beam, or accelerator science is extremely broad. Indeed, advances in many branches of science such as the materials sciences, nuclear science, elementary particle science, to name but a few, are paced by advances in accelerator science and technology. Much of the work in these areas has come to reside in the DoE National Laboratories. There is growing realization that universities have a unique and important role to play and that enhancing the university role will result in significant advances in accelerator science and development and in their broad impact on other sciences. The needs and opportunities are discussed herein.

17

ADDRESS THE INCREASED NEED FOR MIDSIZE INFRASTRUCTURE. develop new funding mechanisms, as appropriate, to support midsize projects.

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/start.htm

THE MRI-MREFC FUNDING GAP ($2M-$100M)

NEW Funding Mechanism Statement FROM THE

18

FY 02-04 Incomplete Summary

• NSF $4,774.06 $5,028.22 $5,481.20 9.0%• MPS $920.42 $941.57 $1,061.27 12.7%• PHY $195.88 $193.31 $217.50 12.5%

- BUT FY04 INCREASE IS ADDED TO FY03 REQUEST-NOT FY03 ACTUAL

- WILL IT BE PRESERVED OVER THE FY03 ACTUAL?

FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 Request

Actual Request Request %Change

http://www.nsf.gov/home/budget/start.htm

$224.69 FY 03 actual

19

“Effective” Funding (>$100M) for Particle Physics in FY02 and FY03:

FY02 FY03Accelerator-based activities w Cornell $42.31M 47.58+Astrophysics (SPINOFF) 9.05 10.75+EP-Astro Theory 10.84 12.18+ ---------- -------Total Base $62.2 M 70.5 M (+13%)

PLUS

EPP Allied Funding (in FY03):PFC $ 4.0 MITR 0.4+MRI 0.6ESIE ? -------Subtotal $12.5 5.0+ M

MREFC (in FY03):LHC construction $ 9.72 MIceCube 24.54 ----------Subtotal $31.86 M 34.26 M

20

FY 03 EPP Priorities

• Increase Funding for University Groups

• Support Ongoing Experiments• Add Needed Funds to NSB

Approved Activities• All above based on peer review

21

Physics Fall Target Date

• The target date for proposal submissions to the Division of Physics that are competing for FY 2004 funds is September 24, 2003.

• The above date does not apply to proposals sent to the Physics Division in response to Foundation-wide solicitations, such as the Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER – July 22, 2003) or Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) programs.

• There are two general merit review criteria approved by the National Science Board (NSB) and listed in the GPG: (1) the intellectual merit of the proposed activity, and (2) the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activity. All proposals must separately address both of the merit review criteria in the Project Summary and should describe the broader impacts as an integral part of the narrative in the

Project description. • Please note that this is not a shift in the priorities or

strategic vision of the Division. It is rather a call for greater effort in expressing the broader context of our work.

22

• We recognize the importance of doing LC R&D

• We expect to put significantly more funds into LC R&D in FY04

• We look forward to your next proposal(s)

Summary

23

BACKUP

24

Physics at the Information Frontier

Program Description

This program provides support for proposals in three subareas: computational physics, information intensive physics, and quantum information and revolutionary computing. Computational physics focuses on computational problems in physics requiring significant long-term code development, and/or medium to large collaboratories involving physicists or physicists interacting with applied mathematicians and computer scientists. Information intensive physics seeks to develop rapid, secure and efficient access to physics data stores rising from Petabytes (today) to Exabytes (in 10 years) via heterogeneous and distributed computing resources and networks of varying capability and reliability. Quantum information and revolutionary computing supports proposals that continue to explore applications of quantum mechanics to new computing paradigms for physics.

25

• NSAC PLAN

• HEPAP PLAN

• REPORT ON THE SEPTEMBER NEUTRINO AND SUBTERRANEAN SCIENCE WORKSHOP

http://www.physics.umd.edu/ness02/

• DECEMBER 2002 SUMMARY BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY

A deep underground laboratory can house a new generation of experiments that will advance our understanding of the fundamental properties of neutrinos and the forces that govern elementary particles, as well as shedding light on the nature of the dark matter that holds the Universe together. Recent discoveries about neutrinos, new ideas and technologies, and the scientific leadership that exists in the U.S., make the time ripe to build such a unique facility.http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bpa/Neutrinos_Sum.pdf

Underground Science Laboratory Update

26

7555-01NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel; Notice of MeetingIn accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.NAME: Special Emphasis Panel for Assessment of Proposals for an Underground Science Laboratory.DATE AND TIME: May 19-20, 2003, 8:00am to 6:00pmPURPOSE OF MEETING: To review proposals submitted to the Particle and Nuclear Astrophysics Program for development of an Underground Science Laboratory.REASON FOR CLOSING: The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary orConfidential nature....These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C.552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

Underground Science Laboratory Update

CONT.

27

Revolutionizing Science and Engineering Through Cyberinfrastructure:

Report of the National Science FoundationBlue Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure

http://www.cise.nsf.gov/evnt/reports/toc.htmExecutive Summary Excerpt Testimony from research communities indicate that many contemporary projects require effective federation of both distributed resources (data and facilities) and distributed, multidisciplinary expertise, and that cyberinfrastructure is a key to making this possible.... A few examples are the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulations (NEES), the Space Physics and Aeronomy Research Collaboratory (SPARC), the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), the Grid Physics Network (GriPhyN), the International Virtual Data Grid Laboratory (iVDGL), and the High Energy Physics Collaboratory for the ATLAS project

28

Report of the National Science FoundationBlue Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure

The Panel”s overarching recommendation is that the National Science Foundation should establish and lead a large-scale, interagency, and internationally coordinated Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Program (ACP) to create, deploy, and apply cyberinfrastructure in ways that radically empower all scientific and engineering research and allied education.

29

LHCGrand

R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC TotalFY 1994 & EarlierFY 1995FY 1996 1.20 $1.20 $1.20FY 1997 1.50 $1.50 $1.50FY 1998 1.50 $1.50 $1.50FY 1999 1.50 0.15 22.00 0.16 $1.81 $22.00 $23.81FY 2000 15.90 0.53 $0.53 $15.90 $16.43FY 2001 16.36 2.30 $2.30 $16.36 $18.66FY 2002 16.90 1.60 $1.60 $16.90 $18.50FY 2003 Est. 9.72 5.00 $5.00 $9.72 $14.72FY 2004 Est. 10.00 $10.00 $10.00FY 2005 Est.* 15.00 $15.00 $15.00FY 2006 Est.* 20.00 $20.00 $20.00FY 2007 Est.* 25.00 $25.00 $25.00

Subtotal, R&RA $5.70 $0.15 $79.59 $85.44Subtotal, MREFC $80.88 $80.88

Total, each phase $5.70 $81.03 $79.59 $166.32

Development Implementation Maintenance TotalsConcept/ Operations &

30

RSVPGrand

R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC TotalFY 1999 & EarlierFY 2000FY 2001 0.90 0.90 0.90FY 2002 1.20 1.20 1.20FY 2003 Est 1.20 1.20 1.20FY 2004 Est 1.50 1.50 1.50FY 2005 Est 2.00 2.00 2.00FY 2006 Est 2.00 30.00 5.30 7.30 30.00 37.30FY 2007 Est 42.66 8.50 8.50 42.66 51.16FY 2008 Est 44.00 8.50 8.50 44.00 52.50FY 2009 Est 20.25 13.50 13.50 20.25 33.75FY 2010 Est 8.00 14.30 14.30 8.00 22.30FY 2011 Est 14.80 14.80 14.80Subtotal, R&RA $8.80 $64.90 $73.70 $73.70Subtotal, MREFC $144.91 $144.91 $144.91

Total, Each Phase $8.80 $144.91 $64.90 $218.61

TotalsMaintenanceImplementationDevelopmentConcept/ Operations &

31

IceCubeGrand

R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC TotalFY 1999 & Earlier

FY 2000

FY 2001 0.50 0.50 0.50

FY 20021

15.00 15.00 15.00

FY 2003

FY 2004 Req 60.00 60.00 60.00

FY 2005 Est 33.40 33.40 33.40

FY 2006 Est 34.30 34.30 34.30

FY 2007 Est 35.30 35.30 35.30

FY 2008 Est 36.30 36.30 36.30

FY 2009 Est 37.30 37.30 37.30

FY 2010 Est 10.40 10.40 10.40

FY 2011 Est 10.60 10.60 10.60

FY 2012 Est 10.90 10.90 10.90

FY 2013 Est 11.20 11.20 11.20Subtotal, R&RA $0.50 $43.10 $43.60 $43.60Subtotal, MREFC $251.60 $251.60 $251.60

Total, Each Phase $0.50 $251.60 $43.10 $295.20

TotalsDevelopment ImplementationOperations &Maintenance

Concept/