NSF Elementary Particle Physics
NSF Perspectives
Presentation for The Linear Collider Meeting
Ithaca, NY
July 16, 2003
Jim Whitmore
Marv Goldberg
Alex Firestone
1
To study Quarks/Cosmos:
Quarks to the
Cosmos (Q2C)
Antimatter?:
Dark matter? Dark
energy? Masses
(Higgs)?; Mixings?;
Supersymmetry?
Unification?
More Dimensions?
Gravity?
We are working on partnerships …
2
Toward Defining a Broad Program
Connecting to Quarks/Cosmos
Building 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
3
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
4
DEVELOPING GLOBAL INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION
DOE: OASCR; HEP
+
•
•
•
•
•
NSF: CISE; EPP
CERN; EU
MORE...
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 uninvented 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.
5
NEW GLOBAL PLANNING
Implementation of Grids for International
Collaboration and Education/Outreach
Grid: Geographically distributed computing resources
configured for coordinated use
Fabric: Physical resources & networks provide raw capability
Middleware: Software ties it all together (tools, services, etc.)
Goal: Transparent resource sharing
Plan for Functional Demonstration Grids
Definition
A 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
6
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.
7
LHC and EDUCATION OUTREACH
Heller SPECIAL NSF/DOE Panel Review
December 2001
Progress to date: Great
Teacher Satisfaction: High
Best Practices: Yes
Benefits: Teachers are respected
and knowledgeable professionals.
Goals (excellent)
•Managed like EPP
Experiment
•Through Teachers,
impacts 100,000
H.S. Students
Each Year
CENTERS
8
Adding New Experiments
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)
Planning LC and Underground Laboratory
9
LHC
FY 04 Request- First Time Research Program
(M&O/S&C)
LHC Funding, by Phase
$M
$50
Concept/Development
Implementation
Operations & M aintenance
$40
$30
MREFC
$20
$10
$0
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
Fiscal Year
2007
2009
2011
(Tables in Backup Slides)
10
IceCube FY 04 Request- Not Quite First Time
IceCube Funding, by Phase
$M
Concept/Development
Implementation
Operations & M aintenance
$70
$60
$50
$40
MREFC
$30
$20
$10
$0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Fiscal Year
(Tables in Backup Slides- Arrow is “actual”
funding in FY03)
11
RSVP FY 04 Request- First Time
RSVP Funding, by Phase
$M
Concept/Development
Implementation
Operations & M aintenance
$50
$40
MREFC
$30
$20
$10
$0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Fiscal Year
(Tables in Backup Slides)
12
Adding New Programs
Program News
PNA Spinoff
NEW More Spinoffs
13
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)
14
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 ……….
15
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 nonequilibrium 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
16
NEW Funding Mechanism Statement FROM THE
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/start.htm
THE MRI-MREFC FUNDING GAP ($2M-$100M)
ADDRESS THE INCREASED NEED
FOR MIDSIZE INFRASTRUCTURE.
develop new funding mechanisms,
as appropriate, to support midsize
projects.
17
FY 02-04 Incomplete Summary
http://www.nsf.gov/home/budget/start.htm
• NSF
• MPS
• PHY
FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
Request
Actual
Request
Request
%Change
$4,774.06 $5,028.22 $5,481.20 9.0%
$920.42
$941.57 $1,061.27 12.7%
$195.88
$193.31
$217.50 12.5%
$224.69
FY 03 actual
- BUT FY04 INCREASE IS ADDED TO FY03 REQUESTNOT FY03 ACTUAL
- WILL IT BE PRESERVED OVER THE FY03 ACTUAL?
18
“Effective” Funding (>$100M) for Particle Physics in
FY02 and FY03:
FY02
FY03
Accelerator-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 M
ITR
0.4+
MRI
0.6
ESIE
?
------Subtotal $12.5
5.0+ M
MREFC (in FY03):
LHC construction
IceCube
Subtotal
$ 9.72 M
24.54
---------$31.86 M 34.26 M
19
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
20
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.
21
Summary
• 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)
22
BACKUP
23
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.
24
Underground Science Laboratory Update
• 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
25
Underground Science Laboratory Update
CONT.
7555-01
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Special Emphasis Panel; Notice of Meeting
In 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 6:00pm
PURPOSE 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.
26
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.htm
Executive 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
27
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.
28
LHC
Concept/
Operations &
Development
Implementation
Maintenance
Totals
R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC
FY 1994 &
Earlier
FY 1995
FY 1996
FY 1997
FY 1998
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003 Est.
FY 2004 Est.
FY 2005 Est.*
FY 2006 Est.*
FY 2007 Est.*
Subtotal,
R&RA
Subtotal,
MREFC
Total, each
phase
1.20
1.50
1.50
1.50
0.15
$5.70
$0.15
22.00
15.90
16.36
16.90
9.72
0.16
0.53
2.30
1.60
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
$1.20
$1.50
$1.50
$1.81
$0.53
$2.30
$1.60
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$79.59
$85.44
$80.88
$5.70
$81.03
$22.00
$15.90
$16.36
$16.90
$9.72
Grand
Total
$1.20
$1.50
$1.50
$23.81
$16.43
$18.66
$18.50
$14.72
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$80.88
$79.59
$166.32
29
RSVP
Concept/
Operations &
Development
Implementation
Maintenance
Totals
R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC
FY 1999 &
Earlier
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003 Est
FY 2004 Est
FY 2005 Est
FY 2006 Est
FY 2007 Est
FY 2008 Est
FY 2009 Est
FY 2010 Est
FY 2011 Est
Subtotal,
R&RA
Subtotal,
MREFC
Total, Each
Phase
0.90
1.20
1.20
1.50
2.00
2.00
30.00
42.66
44.00
20.25
8.00
$8.80
5.30
8.50
8.50
13.50
14.30
14.80
0.90
1.20
1.20
1.50
2.00
7.30
8.50
8.50
13.50
14.30
14.80
$64.90
$73.70
$144.91
$8.80
$144.91
30.00
42.66
44.00
20.25
8.00
0.90
1.20
1.20
1.50
2.00
37.30
51.16
52.50
33.75
22.30
14.80
$73.70
$144.91
$64.90
Grand
Total
$144.91
$218.61
30
IceCube
Concept/
Operations &
Development
Implementation
Maintenance
Totals
R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC R&RA MREFC
Grand
Total
FY 1999 &
Earlier
FY 2000
FY 2001
0.50
0.50
1
FY 2002
0.50
15.00
15.00
15.00
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 2003
FY 2010 Est
10.40
10.40
10.40
FY 2011 Est
10.60
10.60
10.60
FY 2012 Est
FY 2013 Est
Subtotal,
R&RA
Subtotal,
MREFC
Total, Each
Phase
10.90
11.20
10.90
11.20
10.90
11.20
$43.10
$43.60
$43.60
$0.50
$251.60
$0.50
$251.60
$251.60
$43.10
$251.60
$295.20
31