1. f Fermilab: The Future Fermilab Users Meeting Hugh Montgomery June 3, 2003

2. f Theory ( full range of theory except formal strings) Particle Astrophysics Experiments –Pierre Auger –Cold Dark Matter Search (CDMS) –Sloan Digital Sky Survey Flavor Physics –CDF, D0 –CKM –BTeV Fixed target Program –MIPP –E906 –Test Beam Neutrino Physics –MINOS –MiniBooNE The Energy Frontier –CMS –Tevatron Collider- CDF, D0 The FNAL Research Program

3. f Fermilab PAC, June 2002: Neutrino Initiatives At the Aspen meeting, the PAC considered two submissions addressing initiatives which go beyond the neutrino program consisting of the NuMI/MINOS and MiniBooNE experiments. The PAC response to a potential extension of the neutrino program was positive. Therefore, we will encourage a series of workshops and discussions, designed to help convergence on strong proposals within the next few years. These should involve as broad a community as possible so that we can accurately gauge the interest and chart our course. Understanding the demands on the accelerator complex and the need for possible modest improvements is also a goal. Potentially, an extension of the neutrino program could be a strong addition to the Fermilab program in the medium term. We hope to get started on this early in 2003. Michael Witherell We are doing this: Off-Axis Detector Workshop at SLAC Special Lecture Series (just completed) Nov 2002 PAC had a range of neutrino submissions

4. f Public Face http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/ Longrange/Long_range_planning_public.html Will develop method for posting communications, opinions, and positions. Will develop plans for “public “ input and discussion.

5. f Goal of the Committee The face of particle physics is changing. Over the course of the next decade we expect that the high energy frontier will pass from the Tevatron at Fermilab to the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. The particle physics world would like to build a Linear Collider and we at Fermilab have stated that we would like to host such a machine. This was not a trivial decision yet it leaves many open questions. When will the Linear Collider be built? What resources will Fermilab need to devote? How does this change if the Linear Collider is not built at Fermilab? There are many opportunities for excitement in flavor and neutrino physics, and in particle astrophysics. Perhaps these need other enhancements to the accelerator complex? Accelerators are also the basis for many directions in experimental science. How might all these components fit together?

6. f Goal of the Committee There is one certainty and many uncertainties; the role for Fermilab will change, but how? In order to facilitate a broad and open discussion of this future, the Director has appointed a committee of scientists drawn from the Fermilab staff and elsewhere. Over the next few months they will work to map out some options available for Fermilab.

7. f Charge to the Committee The first recommendation of the 2001-2 HEPAP Subpanel on Long- Range Planning for U.S. High Energy Physics was “that the United States take steps to remain a world leader in the vital and exciting field of particle physics, through a broad program of research focused on the frontiers of matter, energy, space, and time.” As the largest U.S. laboratory dedicated to High Energy Physics, Fermilab has a special responsibility to develop the research facilities needed to implement that recommendation. The HEPAP Subpanel also recommended that the U.S. participate in the linear collider, wherever it is built in the world, and that the U.S. prepare to bid to host such a facility. Fermilab is working within the framework of the international and US steering groups to develop a global project, and to work out what it would take to host such a facility here. Finally, the HEPAP Subpanel argued persuasively that to address the range of compelling scientific issues the field needs a broad range of experimental strategies and techniques. Many of the experiments that exist as possibilities on the roadmap would be most easily done at Fermilab.

8. f Charge to the Committee I would like the Long-range Planning Committee to develop in detail a few realistically achievable options for the Fermilab program in the period 2011-2015 under each possible outcome for the linear collider. The goal in developing each option should be to optimize the opportunities available at Fermilab in this period for high energy physicists to answer the most important questions in our field. The options should be guided by the priorities for the field as laid out in the HEPAP Subpanel and in the HEPAP response to the Office of Science on the facilities plan. The committee should develop scenarios for each of the two cases spelled out by the HEPAP Subpanel. A linear collider project will be built here, starting late in this decade with international support and organization. The linear collider will be built offshore with substantial participation from U.S. High Energy Physics. In either case, you should make the following additional assumptions. Fermilab will have a central role in an active U.S. research program at the LHC, both as host of the US-CMS collaboration and as developer of accelerator upgrade plans. Fermilab will carry out the presently approved program of experiments following approval from the national program.

9. f Charge to the Committee The context for the plan includes the following: The plan should fit into, and be a major component of, the twenty-year roadmap for the field described in recommendation two of the HEPAP Subpanel report. Another important planning document is the recent HEPAP submission to the Office of Science for the facilities plan. The initial assets that will make it possible to build a strong future with available resources are the existing facilities at Fermilab, the strengths of the existing Fermilab staff, and the active participation of a strong Fermilab user community. I would like the Committee to give an interim progress report in time to discuss the important issues at the Aspen meeting of the Fermilab Physics Advisory Committee. We will develop a schedule for the committee to write a final report after the initial meetings to organize the work.

10. f Membership Hugh Montgomery (Chair) Steve Holmes (Deputy) Joel Butler Marcela Carena Josh Frieman Steve Geer Chris Hill Bob Kephart Sergei Nagaitsev Jim Strait John Womersley Gary Feldman, Harvard Young-Kee Kim, Chicago Peter Meyers, Princeton Angela Olinto, Chicago Ritchie Patterson, Cornell

11. f Subcommittee Work A: Prepare proposal of how to work, scope etc B: Plan to get Input –existing reports –Fermilab Divisions –interviews with experts –presentations To committee Public C: Draft Report D: Describe Report to Full Committee E: Complete Report

12. f Subcommittees Physics Chris Hill Large Hadron Collider John Womersley Linear Collider Steve Holmes Neutrinos Gary Feldman Proton Driver Bob Kephart Particle Physics Expts Particle Astrophysics Josh Frieman Non-(Particle Physics) Joel Butler Accelerator R&D Steve Geer Detector R&D Resources Hugh Montgomery International Lab Issues membership beyond full committee, guest presentations public presentations and discussions

13. f Physics: Partial Goals Understand and summarize the possible scenarios for the international field of elementary particle physics in the 2010-2020 time frame. Summarize the existing plans for the Fermilab HEP facilities and likely upgrades into the era 2010-2020. Identify interesting yet reasonable targets of opportunity for the Fermilab HEP program. Understand the role Fermilab can play, in terms of likely available facilities and reasonable goals for upgrades of new facilities and addressing these scenarios. Understand and summarize the need for, and the potential for, new general HEP accelerator based initiatives in the time frame 2010-2020 For different funding levels, explore the potential scope of the future HEP activities at Fermilab. Recommend a particular areas of interest, targets of opportunity and plans of action.

14. f LHC Partial: What would this need? Physicists –How many –How to get the best Computer infrastructure (regional center) The best buildings/facilities/working environment/VC –Better than at universities –Better than at CERN(?!) –Includes social aspects/quality of life Synergies –Theorists –Other experiments –Detector and accelerator work Core of Fermilab people resident at CERN(?) CMS visitors coming here Host one (or more) of the physics analysis groups here –Meetings to present/approve results here –People from CERN come here, not always vice versa

15. f Linear Collider: Partial Define the essential elements of the Fermilab component of a U.S. “bid to host”. Comment and/or make recommendations on how Fermilab’s internal organization might be restructured to optimize the prospects for landing a linear collider and/or for playing a leading role in its construction elsewhere. Discuss approaches for stronger coupling of the Fermilab scientific staff to the linear collider effort. Discuss an approach for external outreach associated with establishing a linear collider in Northern Illinois. Identify relevant constituencies and recommend an approach to each. Understand the implications of Fermilab existing as an international laboratory. Provide a model for the level of Fermilab effort will be required to support a bid to host and subsequent construction of a linear collider in northern Illinois. Provide a model for the level of Fermilab effort will be required to support construction of a linear collider elsewhere.

16. f Neutrinos Draft

17. f Proton Driver Goals Understand and summarize the physics, operational, and technical arguments for constructing a new high intensity proton source at Fermilab (Proton driver). Summarize the arguments pro and con for the two options for a Proton Driver: –Circular booster replacement –Superconducting linear accelerator (Bill Foster’s Talk!) Define the steps including R&D program that would allow Fermilab to gain approval for such a machine. Summarize the funding, schedule, and manpower considerations Recommend a plan of action and a near-term level of laboratory effort that should be devoted to this task.

18. f Non-(Particle Physics) Partial

19. f Accelerator R&D: Partial Goals Understand and summarize the case for accelerator R&D at Fermilab, and the role Fermilab should play in facilitating the accelerator R&D program that is needed to keep High Energy Physics healthy. Summarize the existing accelerator R&D program at Fermilab (excluding explicit Linear Collider R&D, LHC-related R&D, and Proton Driver upgrade related R&D), and its possible evolution in the future. Understand and summarize the need for, and the potential for, new general accelerator R&D initiatives at Fermilab. For different funding levels, explore the potential scope of the future general accelerator R&D program at Fermilab. Recommend a plan of action that would enable an increase in the scope and effectiveness of the accelerator R&D program at Fermilab.

20. f Conclusions “Fermilab: The Future”: study is launched. Subcommittees are very active Input is sought Goal is a report in the Fall

21. f Spares follow

22. f “Fermilab: The Future” Context Goals Charge, Membership Issues/Subcommittees Conclusions

23. f Experiments Operating in US in 2010 (MW:P5)

24. f HEP Facilities report

25. f Fermilab PAC November 2002

26. f Off-Axis Neutrino Possibilities

27. f Issues ( Common to several Labs ) BIG Issues – Linear Collider LC at FNAL? LC Offshore? –LHC LHC Physics Program (Maintenance and Operations, Software & Computing, PHYSICS, upgrades) LHC Accel. Research Program –Neutrino Program Lay out a coherent program –Proton Driver Synchrotron Superconducting LINAC? Physics (Neutrinos + ?) –Resources

28. f Issues Other Issues – Accelerator Physics R&D Experimental Computational –Particle Astrophysics –Non particle physics Computational physics Computer Science Physics with proton machines Physics with SC Linac (X-ray physics) Medical physics/therapy –Detector R&D –Other Particle physics Tev FT MI FT Test Beams Antiproton physics –Theory –FNAL as International Lab??

29. f LHC Partial : Where we want to get to A role in CMS that is commensurate with the scale of Fermilab now and our future hoped for role in world HEP Not just –A very competent collaborating institution –“the best place to get your data from” –“the best place to be if you can’t be at CERN” But “the best place to be if you want to do physics” –Why not? And a leading center (the leading center?) for detector development and accelerator development for the luminosity upgrades

30. f Non-(Particle Physics) Partial

31. f Final Report I: Executive Summary/Report Proper –Lay out the broad options. –Indicate where the flexibility/choice is –Indicate the choices made. –Indicate how options fit into a “budget”/larger HEP II: Individual sections –Issue by issue describe and discuss –Make the conclusions clear Eg. “ If the LC is in construction here at FNAL we will need to devote xxx of technical effort, yyy of physics effort, $zzzz…”