1. Fermilab Steering Group develop roadmap for accelerator-based HEP program at Fermilab http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/Longrange/Steering_Public/ Fermilab Steering Group develop roadmap for accelerator-based HEP program at Fermilab http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/Longrange/Steering_Public/ Young-Kee Kim DOE Annual Program Review Fermilab September 25, 2007

2. 0. What is the origin of mass for fundamental particles? 1. Are there undiscovered principles of nature: New symmetries, new physical laws? 2. Are there extra dimensions of space? 3. Do all the forces become one? 4. Why are there so many kinds of particles? 5. What happened to the antimatter? 6. What is dark matter? How can we make it in the laboratory? 7. How can we solve the mystery of dark energy? 8. How did the universe come to be? 9. What are neutrinos telling us? Based on “Quantum Universe” and “Discovering Quantum Universe” Fermilab’s Scientific Program enables our community to address:

3. Fermilab Fermilab 2006-2007: Extraordinary years for Physics! Much more expected in the near future Planning further ahead in accelerator-based HEP program: Fermilab’s highest priorities – LHC/LHC upgrades & ILC

4. ILC Decision Timelines Possible ILC Decision Timelines LHC discoveries International Agreements ILC 2010 ILC Decision Site selected US colliders Shutdown Great Opportunity for ILC EPP2010 & P5 Assumption ILC 2010 ILC Decision ILC RDR with Cost Estimate in Feb. 2007

5. Fermilab Director Pier Oddone formed Steering Group to develop roadmap for Fermilab’s accelerator-based HEP program. March 22, 2007

6. Steering Group Charge In his remarks to HEPAP, Undersecretary Orbach requested a dialog with the HEP community: "In making our plans for the future, it is important to be conservative and to learn from our experiences. Even assuming a positive decision to build an ILC, the schedules will almost certainly be lengthier than the optimistic projections. Completing the R&D and engineering design, negotiating an international structure, selecting a site, obtaining firm financial commitments, and building the machine could take us well into the mid- 2020s, if not later. Within this context, I would like to re-engage HEPAP in discussion of the future of particle physics. If the ILC were not to turn on until the middle or end of the 2020s, what are the right investment choices to ensure the vitality and continuity of the field during the next two to three decades and to maximize the potential for major discovery during that period?"

7. Steering Group Charge (cont.) With the encouragement of the Office of Science and the support of Professor Mel Shochet, the chair of HEPAP, Fermilab will develop a strategic roadmap for the evolution of the accelerator-based HEP program, focusing on facilities at Fermilab that will provide discovery opportunities in the next two to three decades. This roadmap should keep the construction of the ILC as a goal of paramount importance. To guide this proposal, the Fermilab Director has appointed a Steering Group consisting of members from Fermilab and the national particle and accelerator physics community to insure that the plan serves national needs. The Steering Group will also engage additional constituents in the analysis of the various physics opportunities.

8. Steering Group Charge (cont.) The Steering Group will build the roadmap based on the recommendations of the EPP2010 National Academy report and the recommendations of the P5 subpanel of HEPAP. The Steering Group should consider the Fermilab based facilities in the context of the global particle physics program. Specifically the group should develop a strategic roadmap that: 1.supports the international R&D and engineering design for as early a start of the ILC as possible and supports the development of Fermilab as a potential host site for the ILC; 2.develops options for an accelerator-based high energy physics program in the event the start of the ILC construction is slower than the technically-limited schedule; and 3.includes the steps necessary to explore higher energy colliders that might follow the ILC or be needed should the results from LHC point toward a higher energy than that planned for the ILC.

9. Steering Group Charge (cont.) I am asking Deputy Director Kim to chair the Steering Group. Any recommendations that might be relevant to the FY09 budget should be transmitted as early as possible. The Steering Group's final report should be finished and delivered to the Fermilab Director by August 1, 2007. This deadline would allow for presentations to the DOE and its advisory bodies before the structuring of the FY2010 budget.

10. Steering Group Membership Eugene BeierU. Penn Joel ButlerFermilab Sally DawsonBNL Helen EdwardsFermilab Thomas HimelSLAC Steve HolmesFermilab Young-Kee Kim (chair)Fermilab / U.Chicago Andrew LankfordUC Irvine David McGinnisFermilab Sergei NagaitsevFermilab Tor RaubenheimerSLAC Vladimir ShiltsevFermilab Maury TignerCornell Hendrick WeertsANL Fermilab and national particle and accelerator physics community

11. Steering Group’s Emphasis An intermediate physics-driven program –Addressing the Quantum Universe questions –Not likely answered by the Energy Frontier machines and non-accelerator based programs Alignment with ILC: –Will this advance the ILC? –Development of an accelerator facility that helps ILC –Compatibility with the ILC Schedule

12. Engaging HEP community in the process The Steering Group subsequently formed physics groups (subgroups) to provide advice on the best physics opportunities. Physics groups drew upon university/lab scientists, largely from outside Fremilab. Eugene BeierU Penn Deborah HarrisFermilab Ed KearnsBoston Univ. Boris KayserFermilab Sacha KoppUT Austin Andy Lankford (chair)UC Irvine Bill LouisLos Alamos Joel ButlerFermilab Brendan CaseyBrown Sally Dawson (chair)BNL Chris HillFermilab Dan KaplanIIT Yury KolomenskyUCBerkeley/LBNL William MolzonUC Irvine Kevin PittsUIUC Frank PorterCalTech Bob TschirhartFermilab Harry WeertsANL Neutrino SciencePrecision Physics

13. Engaging HEP community in the process For all Steering group activities, include –Physics group members –ILC GDE leaders, HEP / ILC program managers in DOE and NSF –HEPAP Chair / Deputy Chair, P5 Chair –Chairs of Fermilab/SLAC Users Executive committees Public website:http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/Longrange/Steering_Public/http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/Longrange/Steering_Public/ –Agendas –Presentations –Minutes –Documents –Publicly accessible Meetings –Weekly teleconference –2 face-to-face meetings –SG daily meeting toward the end 2 nd face-to-face meeting at Fermilab, July 9-10, 2007

14. Engaging HEP community in the process Reach out to HEP community for input / ideas –Message sent out to DPF & DPB members –Meetings with FNAL staff –Meetings with HEP collaborations CDF, DZero, MINOS, MiniBooNE, MINERvA, NOvA, ILC TTC, US CMS, … –Presentations at Users meetings / Town-Hall meeting FNAL, SLAC –Presentations (seminars) / Discussions ANL, BNL, LBNL –Many meetings with individuals –Fermilab Today articles –Meeting with ILC GDE Executive Committee –….

15. Letters and Proposals from the Community Letters from the Community 1.John Marriner (May 5, 2007)John Marriner (May 5, 2007) 2.Norman Gelfand (May 8, 2007)Norman Gelfand (May 8, 2007) 3.Stanley Brodsky (May 31, 2007)Stanley Brodsky (May 31, 2007) 4.Steve Geer et al. (June 8, 2007)Steve Geer et al. (June 8, 2007) 5.Buck Field (June 12, 2007)Buck Field (June 12, 2007) 6.Chuck Ankenbrandt et al (June 12, 2007)Chuck Ankenbrandt et al (June 12, 2007) 7.Maury Goodman (July 7, 2007)Maury Goodman (July 7, 2007) One Page Proposals from the community 1.6GeV ILC Test Linac - Giorgio Apollinari and Bob Webber (May 7, 2007)6GeV ILC Test Linac - Giorgio Apollinari and Bob Webber (May 7, 2007) 2.LAr TPC in FNAL's Neutrino Beams - David Finley (May 29, 2007)LAr TPC in FNAL's Neutrino Beams - David Finley (May 29, 2007) 3.Precision Neutrino Scattering at Tevatron - Janet Conrad and Peter Fisher (May 29, 2007)Precision Neutrino Scattering at Tevatron - Janet Conrad and Peter Fisher (May 29, 2007) 4.Very Large Cherenkov Detector - Milind Diwan et al (June 5, 2007)Very Large Cherenkov Detector - Milind Diwan et al (June 5, 2007) 5.From Tevatron to Muon Storage Ring - Terry Goldman (June 6, 2007)From Tevatron to Muon Storage Ring - Terry Goldman (June 6, 2007) 6.Antimatter Gravity Experiment - Thomas Phillips (June 7, 2007)Antimatter Gravity Experiment - Thomas Phillips (June 7, 2007) 7.Neutrino Oscillation with high energy/intensity beam - Henryk Piekarz (June 10, 2007)Neutrino Oscillation with high energy/intensity beam - Henryk Piekarz (June 10, 2007) 8.Space-Time Ripples Study - Nikolai Andreev (June 11, 2007)Space-Time Ripples Study - Nikolai Andreev (June 11, 2007) 9.Fixed Targer Charm Expt - Jeff Appel and Alan Schwartz (June 11, 2007)Fixed Targer Charm Expt - Jeff Appel and Alan Schwartz (June 11, 2007) 10.Stopped Pion Neutrino Source - Kate Scholberg (June 11, 2007)Stopped Pion Neutrino Source - Kate Scholberg (June 11, 2007) 11.UNO Experiment - Change Kee Jung (June 11, 2007)UNO Experiment - Change Kee Jung (June 11, 2007) 12.n-nbar Transition Search at DUSEL - Yuri Kamyshkov (June 11, 2007)n-nbar Transition Search at DUSEL - Yuri Kamyshkov (June 11, 2007) 13.8GeV cw Superconducting Linac - Ankenbrandt et al. (June 12, 2007)8GeV cw Superconducting Linac - Ankenbrandt et al. (June 12, 2007) 14.Neutrino Expt with 5kton LAr TPC - Fleming and Rameika (June 12, 2007)Neutrino Expt with 5kton LAr TPC - Fleming and Rameika (June 12, 2007) 15.MicroBooNE - Fleming and Willis (June 12, 2007)MicroBooNE - Fleming and Willis (June 12, 2007) 16.delta_s - Rex Tayloe (June 14, 2007)delta_s - Rex Tayloe (June 14, 2007) Expression of Interest (EOI) 1.mu to e conversion - William Molzon (May, 2007)mu to e conversion - William Molzon (May, 2007) 2.me to e conversion - E.J. Prebys, J.P. Miller et al (May, 2007)me to e conversion - E.J. Prebys, J.P. Miller et al (May, 2007) 3.Klong to pi0 nu nu - D. Bryman et al (June 11, 2007)Klong to pi0 nu nu - D. Bryman et al (June 11, 2007) Letter of Intent (LOI) 1.Low- and Medium-Energy Anti-Proton Physics - D. Kaplan et al (June 1, 2007)Low- and Medium-Energy Anti-Proton Physics - D. Kaplan et al (June 1, 2007)

16. Guidelines in forming the plan

17. 1.The LHC program is our most important near-term project given its broad science agenda and potential for discovery. It is essential to support the physics analysis, computing, and accelerator and detector upgrades.

18. Guidelines in forming the plan 2.The particle physics community’s highest priority for investment toward the future is the ILC, based on our present understanding of its potential for breakthrough science. Fermilab will continue to participate vigorously in the international R&D program for the ILC and to be one of the leaders in the global ILC effort. The laboratory will strive to make the ILC at Fermilab a reality by accomplishing the preparatory work required for the U.S. to bid to host the ILC.

19. Guidelines in forming the plan 3.There is a need for an intermediate science program in case the timeline for ILC is stretched out. This program will be an opportunity to do exciting physics that complements discoveries at energy frontier facilities and to make further progress on ILC technology. The program should provide great discovery potential, support ILC R&D and industrialization as well as R&D on future accelerators beyond the ILC and the LHC. It should strengthen ties with the university community and with other laboratories. The plan must be robust and flexible.

20. Guidelines in forming the plan 4.Fermilab will continue a phased program of particle astrophysics including dark matter and dark energy. The program will allow complementary discoveries to those expected at the accelerator-based particle physics programs. These non-accelerator-based efforts are outside the Steering Group’s charge, and are not included in the plan.

21. Plan (Roadmap) for Fermilab

22. Plan for Fermilab (1) Fermilab’s highest priority is discovering the physics of the Terascale by participating in LHC, being one of the leaders in the global ILC effort, and striving to make the ILC at Fermilab a reality. Fermilab will continue its neutrino program with NOvA as a flagship experiment through the middle of the next decade.

23. Plan for Fermilab (2): ILC Onshore If the ILC remains near the timeline proposed by the Global Design Effort, Fermilab will focus on the above programs. If the ILC departs from the GDE-proposed timeline, in addition Fermilab should pursue neutrino-science and precision- physics opportunities by upgrading the proton accelerator complex. –If the ILC start must wait for a couple of years, the laboratory should undertake the SNuMI (an upgrade of NuMI) project. –If the ILC postponement would accommodate an interim major project, the laboratory should undertake Project X for its science capability and ILC alignment.

24. Plan for Fermilab (3): ILC Offshore If the ILC is constructed offshore, in addition Fermilab should pursue neutrino-science and precision-physics opportunities by upgrading current proton facilities while supporting the ILC as the highest priority. –The laboratory should undertake SNuMI at a minimum. –Alternatively, the laboratory should undertake Project X if resources are available and ILC timing permits.

25. Plan for Fermilab (4) In all scenarios, –R&D support for Project X should be started now, with emphasis on expediting R&D and industrialization of ILC cavities and cryomodules, overall design of Project X. –R&D for future accelerator options concentrating on a neutrino factory and a muon collider should be increased. –The laboratory should support detector R&D and test-beam efforts for effective use of future facilities.

26. Intensity Frontier, Project X

27. Project X: Properties ILC-identical (~1 – 8 GeV) >2.0 MW at 50-120 GeV for Neutrino Science, … 100-200 kW at 8 GeV for Precision Physics, … ILC-like (0.6 – ~1.0 GeV) Vehicle for National & International Collaboration Project X Linac: 8 GeV H - Linac with ILC Beam Parameters (9 mA x 1 msec x 5 Hz)

28. Project X: Proton Beam Power Protons from Main Injector NuMI (NOvA) SNuMI NuMI (MINOS) 8 GeV protons available from Recycler with MI protons at 120 GeV Power and Flexibility 200 kW (Project X) 0* (SNuMI) 16 kW (NuMI-NOvA) 17 kW (NuMI-MINOS) 35-year-old injection (technical risk) * Protons could be made available at the expense of 120 GeV power.

29. Possible Physics Opportunities with Project X

30. Neutrino Science Ultimate goal –use neutrinos to find answers to big questions like “Did we all come from neutrinos?”, “What happened to the antimatter?” (leptogenesis) “Do all forces and masses become one?” (unification) Neutrinos are different! –They may be their own antiparticles or obey a different set of rules with respect to matter-antimatter (CP) asymmetry. –Their tiny masses suggest a “see-saw” with superheavy partner ’s not yet detected.

31. Neutrino Science Re-running the Big Bang with all these  properties gives leptogenesis –creation of matter from decay of superheavy ’s These properties may fit into a larger picture including the unification and supersymmetry This requires a broad ambitious program to detect CP violation in ’s, determine their mass hierarchy, the Majorana nature of mass, and how ’s mix.

32. Neutrino Science An upgrade of the Fermilab proton complex could greatly enhance FNAL’s current world-class program on neutrino science by strengthening Fermilab’s flagship program of long-baseline neutrino-oscillation experiments

33. Neutrino Oscillation Ability to resolve mass ordering at 95% CL (NOvA, NOvA + T2K) NOvA will be competitive with the Japanese experiment T2K. The ability of NOvA to determine the neutrino mass hierarchy makes the U.S. long-baseline neutrino program unique in the world. Neutrino mass hierarchy

34. Neutrino Oscillation Ability of NOvA experiment to observe sin 2 2  13 = 0 at 3  significance L = 810 km, 15 kT  m 32 2 = 2.4 x 10 -3 eV 2 3 years for each  and sin 2 2  13 10 -2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 CP-violating phase  (radians) NuMI SNuMI Project X -  m 2 > 0  m 2 < 0 (Courtesy of Gary Feldman)

35. Neutrino Oscillation Mass Ordering CP Violation 2 100kt LAr detectors at 1 st (700 km) & 2 nd (810 km) oscillation maxima w/ NuMI beamline One 100 kt LAr (or 300 kt water Cerenkov) at 1300 km using a wide-band  beam 95% CL (dotted) and 3  (solid) sensitivity with 3 years of each and A large  detector in DUSEL would also be a world-class proton decay detector, addressing “Do all the forces become one?” (Courtesy of Niki Saoulidou)

36. Neutrino Oscillation (Mass Ordering) 2 100kt LAr detectors at 1 st (700 km) and 2 nd (810 km) oscillation maxima using NuMI beamline 100 kt LAr (or 300 kt water Cerenkov) at 1300 km using a wide-band  beam 95% CL (dotted lines) and 3  (solid lines) sensitivity. 3 years of neutrino and 3 years of antineutrino running Project X J-PARC Upgrades 2  (thin lines) and 3  (thick lines) sensitivity. 4 years of neutrino and 4 years of antineutrino running 4 MW beam Phys. Rev. D72, 033003 (2005) (Courtesy of Niki Saoulidou)

37. Neutrino Ocillation (CP Violation) 2 100kt LAr detectors at 1 st (700 km) and 2 nd (810 km) oscillation maxima using NuMI beamline 100 kt LAr (or 300 kt water Cerenkov) at 1300 km using a wide-band  beam 3  sensitivity. 3 years of neutrino and 3 years of antineutrino running 2  (thin lines) and 3  (thick lines) sensitivity. 4 years of neutrino and 4 years of antineutrino running Project X J-PARC Upgrades 4 MW beam Phys. Rev. D72, 033003 (2005) (Courtesy of Niki Saoulidou)

38. Neutrino Oscillation Quite apart from their relative sensitivities, the Japanese and U.S. programs, when combined, would be much stronger than either one alone, because they would operate under different physical conditions. In the U.S. program, there could be a wide-energy-beam directed at a single large detector, possibly using liquid-argon technology, 1300 km away. In the Japanese program there would be a much lower-energy, and narrower-band beam directed at either a single large water-Cerenkov detector 300 km away, or possibly a split version of this detector, with part of it 300 km from the neutrino source and the rest in Korea, about 1000 km from the source. Thanks to these differences between the U.S. and Japanese programs, together they would provide a much better probe of the mysteries of the neutrino world than either one alone.

39. Other Possible Neutrino Programs Using 8 GeV protons –An experiment to study low-energy neutrino interactions for neutrino- oscillation expt.s such as MiniBooNE, NOvA, and T2K to develop liquid-argon detector technology –An experiment to measure strange quark contribution to nucleon spin. Using 800 GeV protons –An experiment to precisely measure the weak mixing angle.

40. Precision Physics Ultraprecise experiments with high intensity sources of muons and quarks provide unique discovery potential. –The discovery of Lepton Flavor Violation (muon to electron conversion) could probe unification physics complementary to neutrinos and LHC/ILC programs. –Precise measurements of quark flavor violation with kaons could complement LHC and probe even higher energy scales.

41. Charged Lepton Flavor Violation (CLFV) Discovery of masses and oscillations –Neutral lepton flavor quantum #’s are violated in nature. “Does lepton flavor violation also occur at an appreciable rate with charged leptons?” –SM predict negligible rates. Many new physics models predict appreciable and potentially observable rates. –CLFV searches are powerful and promising probes for new physics at and above the TeV scale. Compositeness 10 3 – 10 4 TeV scale Supersymmetric models predict R μe ~ 10 -15 for weak scale SUSY

42. Muon-to-Electron Conversion Rare muon processes provide the deepest CLFV probes.   e conversion: Estimating the new physics expectations for different CLFV processes in a model independent way.  sets the scale of new physics.  interpolates between models. CLFV effective Lagrangian: MEG experiment ~ 10 -13 Potential FNAL   e conv. expt. 10 -17 ~ 10 -18 (Project X)   (Courtesy of Andre de Gouvea)

43. Precision Physics with Kaons Theories of Terascale physics typically predict new contributions to flavor violating processes involving quarks If LHC discovers SUSY particles, kaon experiments could distinguish SUSY breaking mechanisms. CERN NA48 (2012): ~200 K +   +  events J-PARC I (2012): ~20 K L   0  events J-PARC II upgrade (~2016) ~100 K L   0  events Potential Fermilab experiment K +   +  events ~800 (w/o Project X), ~2400 (w/ Project X) K L   0 events ~80 (w/o Project X), ~800 (w/ Project X) K   Rare Decay: SM prediction: 10 -10 ~ 10 -11 Future experiments: assuming SM rates with a 4 year run:

44. Project X – Alignment with ILC and Future Accelerators

45. Aligned to ILC Identical to ILC: –~263 Cavities –~33 Cryomodules –~13 Klystrons –Cryogenic distribution –Beam parameters ILC-like –~42 Cavities –~6 Cryomodules ILC Beam parameters (9mA x 1msec x 5Hz) Cryomodule Industrialization –ILC RDR Regional Profile Doubling time = ~1 year Year 1: 3 cryomodules / year Year 4: 25 cryomodules / year –Advancing technology Find cheaper ways to produce in large quantities ILC-identical Linac (~1 – 8 GeV) ILC-like Linac (0.6 – ~1.0 GeV)

46. ILC LINAC 6 Klystrons (JPARC 2.5 MW) 66 Triple Spoke Resonators 11 Cryomodules 325 MHz 0.12-0.6 GeV 6 Cavites / Cryomodule Project X 360 kW 8GeV Linac 19 Klystrons (2 types) 422 SC Cavities 55 Cryomodules H-H- Multi-Cavity Fanout Phase and Amplitude Control 2.5 MW JPARC Klystron Modulator SSR2 SSR1SSR2 ILC Modulator 8  /9 Modulator 1300 MHz 1.0-8.0 GeV 11 Klystrons (ILC 10 MW MBK) 263 ILC-identical Cavities 33 ILC-identical Cryomodules 1300 MHz 0.6-1.0 GeV 2 Klystrons (ILC 10 MW MBK) 42 ILC-like Cavities (  =1, 8  /9 mode) 6 ILC-like Cryomodules 8 or 9 Cavites / Cryomodule 9 or 11 Cavites / Cryomodule RFQRTSSR1 Modulator Front End Linac TSR Modulator ILC 7 Cavites / Cryomodule 325 MHz 0-10 MeV 1 Klystron (JPARC 2.5 MW) 16 RT Cavities 325 MHz 10-120 MeV 1 Klystron (JPARC 2.5 MW) 51 Single Spoke Resonators 5 Cryomodules TSR

47. ILC-2: 12 cryomodules, 96 cavities, 12 quads2.4 – 5.2 GeV ILC : 12 cryomodules, 104 cavities, 4 quads5.2 – 8.0 GeV + + ILC- 8  /9: 6 cryomodules, 42 cavities, 12 quads0.6 – 1.0 GeV ILC-1 : 9 cryomodules, 63 cavities, 18 quads1.0 – 2.4 GeV

48. ILC Damping Ring In Tevatron Tunnel Aligned to ILC Preassemble and test the ILC Damping Ring e - Linac with ILC Beam parameters (9mA x 1msec x 5Hz) ILC Linac

49. Muon Storage Ring First Stage of Future World Facilities DUSEL neutrino beam  Capture / Cooling

50. First Stage of Future World Facilities Muon Collider Muon Acceleration  Capture / Cooling 4 km

51. Draft “Internal” Report submitted to Pier Oddone on August 7, 2007

52. Final Report September 18, 2007

53. Steering Group’s Internal Report Reviewed by Accelerator Advisory Committee Accelerator part of the Report August 8-10, 2007 Presented by John Corlett today

54. Next Steps Jul 2007 Aug 2007 Sep 2007 Oct 2007 Nov 2007 Dec 2007 Jan 2008 Feb 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008 Jun 2008 Jul 2008 Jun 2007 P5 Review FNAL AAC Review SG Report to P5 FNAL PAC Review SG Report to HEPAP Steering Group (SG) Report to Pier Oddone FY10 Budget Preparation SG Report PAC P5 Report to HEPAP SG Report to HEPAP Public Report We are here!

55. Communication with the community about the Report FNAL staff and users –Aug. 24: FNAL All Hands meeting – Oddone/YKK –Sep. 14: Meeting with FNAL Users’ Executive members – Oddone/YKK –Sep. 27: Town-Hall meeting with FNAL Users - YKK Seminars, Town-Hall meetings –Seminars (Abroad): Imperial College, RAL, Oxford Univ. (Oct. 1), … –Seminars (US): U.Florida, U.Chicago, UIUC (Oct.), Maryland (Nov.), … –Town-Hall meeting: American Linear Collider Physics + GDE (Oct. 22) Workshops at FNAL –Accelerator: November, organized by McGinnis, Holmes, et al –Physics: Fall 2007, in discussion with FNAL UEC DPF, DPB –We will send a message to DPF and DPB members. Thanking them for their input/ideas to the Steering Group process Announcing workshops

56. Workforce Planning Workforce Planning exercise (FY08 – FY12) –1 st iteration complete. –Large uncertainties e.g. LHC/CMS upgrades, Tevatron decommissioning, increase in ILC R&D, Project X R&D, … –This process will be re-iterated for more accurate results. Project X: Nation-wide efforts –Various models Council Central Design Group … –Possible discussion item at the “November” workshop

57. Conclusions The Steering Group plan gives the highest priority to energy- frontier physics with the LHC and the ILC, where experiments will search directly for the physics of the Terascale, addressing the most compelling questions of 21 st -century particle physics. If the ILC is delayed, the Steering Group’s plan keeps Fermilab and U.S. particle physics on the pathway to discovery in the domain of neutrinos and precision physics, while advancing the technology of the ILC. The field of neutrino science and precision physics offer promising pathways to physics breakthroughs not accessible to the LHC, the ILC or nonaccelerator physics. If the ILC start is postponed significantly, the Steering Group proposes Project X, an intense proton-beam facility: a linear accelerator with the planned characteristics of the ILC at ~1% of the ILC’s length, combined with existing Fermilab accelerator rings.

58. Conclusions (cont.) An intensity-frontier program, Project X, that provides unique experiments to address these profound questions would serve many scientific users. Project X would prepare future generations of U.S. particle physicists to exploit the potential of accelerator-based scientific opportunities in the U.S. and worldwide. Project X would help pave the way to the extremely powerful energy- and intensity-frontier facilities of the long-term future beyond the ILC (a neutrino factory and a muon collider). What are neutrinos telling us? How did the universe come to be? Are there undiscovered principles of nature? What happened to the antimatter? Do all the forces become one?