>>
OK, welcome back.
So we will continue this morning session
.
My name is
Yuri and I will chair the next four talks
.
I'm going to start is often the fields of
astrophysics and nuclear physics here
.
Oh present this from the vending agencies.
As with the previous session, let's keep
argument a questions till the end.
First, I'm happy to present Professor Fiona
Harrison from
(unknown term) Tech.
She will tell us about the astrophysics
,
blending in particular the...
sorry.
(inaudible).
>>
OK, thank you.
So I'm going
to show
a few
(inaudible).
Which I think I should be
...
OK
, alright.
So is not visible?
-- Is that visible?
Hello?
>> Yes, perfect.
>> You can hear me, great.
Let me first say that currently
, there is very little
to nothing
I can say about our deliberations
.
The surveys across all fields in which they are
undertaken by the National academies
as charged
by agencies
go through a community input phase
and then
the panels
do their deliberations
and make decisions
on priorities
.
And while that's ongoing,
those deliberations
are of course entirely confidential.
So I can't answer any questions
about what's currently being considered.
But I can give you an overview
.
Imagining
that there's probably some students
and people not familiar with
Decadel
surveys.
I will start with a high level description of
what a Decadel
survey is.
NASA
, NSF and DOE undertake these surveys.
They are led by community members
who analyse and prioritize the science
questions for the next decade
.
And then
power ties
recommendations
for investment in research facilities
-- prioritize recommendations for
investment in research facilities.
For our department, Aster physics,
this includes development for our
space-based facilities and ground-based
activities.
The surveys are currently required by
Congress
and must include an evaluation
of the project risks
and budgets
for major missions
and facilities.
>> So, our survey
, Astro 2020
, includes a scope
that was decided
in consultation
between
the National academies
and
an advisory committee
with the agencies
, and in this case, the primary agencies
are NASA
, NSF
and DOE.
And what was decided
for the scope
was to cover
ground-based and space-based observations
through
(inaudible) and
lab physics.
In addition
, space-based solar physics and astrophysics
is covered through different survey.
Interesting probably for your group
is
the NSF in particular
really wanted to hear
what the astrophysics community
thought of facilities
that traditionally might be
thought of
as physics facilities
but that have
strong relevance
for astronomy and astrophysics.
This includes gravitational wave
observations
, technology development
for
future gravitational wave experiments
,
multi-messenger astronomy and
astrophysics.
So this would include
high-energy neutrinos
.
And then what you would
imagine
as more traditional astronomy
and astrophysics including excellent
planets at
the intersection
of planetary science and astrobiology.
Excluded is direct dark matter detection,
microgravity research, fundamental physics, so
B things like LHC
even though there may be relevance
consideration as part of this survey.
These part of the surveys are really
driven by community input
.
There was a period where white papers were
solicited for science determine what
the science opportunities are.
Tremendous community involvement, 573
submissions.
Every single one of the papers
was read.
There really is
some very interesting ideas
.
And then, activity
and project
and state of the profession consideration
, also very large interest.
294 of those
.
250 addressed
projects and activities
for the survey to consider
and another 70 addressed issues
of the state of profession
and social title
-- societal benefits.
These are all public and you can find them on
the website, looking under community input.
So the structure of the survey
, there's a steering committee of 20 members
that has been planning the overall process.
Science panels, there are six science panels.
These of all completed their works
and submitted
reports
to the steering committee
.
Program panels
that are divided up
into subject matter areas
, for example
electromagnetic observations from space
in different
wave bands
,
article astrophysics and gravitation
, radio
, optical infared
from the ground
.
These panels
all consider the projects
that were put forth
by the community
.
And importantly,
do a technical
readiness risk and cost assessment
which is part
of forwarding recommendations
for consideration
to the steering committee.
As of the panels have no now completed their
work and
where we are
as the steering committee
is now synthesizing and writing a report.
I will show you at the end where we are on the
schedule.
Interestingly, for the first time in this
survey, I personally feel this is
a big step forward for our community.
The agencies asked the survey consider
the state of the profession
, review the health and demographics
of astronomy and astrophysics
and come up with
actionable
recommendations
for how we can do better
in terms
of making
our community and our research
inclusive
, removing barriers
to entry and also
considering
the advancement
of early career scientists.
So,
I've already mentioned the state of the
profession.
In addition, we had a panel this time
that really
recognizing the importance
of things like computation and
simulations
.
We are entering an era of big data
and you can already
--
you can argue we've already entered this era
in astronomy and astrophysics with the
Rubin telescope, the Deaconess
solar
online
, or soon to be online
, producing vast quantities of data
.
And in addition,
there are things like laboratory astrophysics
that crosscut
all areas of science.
So there was a dedicated panel
to consider these activities.
So,
I thought he would tell you
what the agencies told us
at a very high level.
So the agencies briefed us at the beginning of
the survey
and again,
updated their advice
as recently
as late August 2020
, post covert
-- COVID-19
to read is no
if any of
us back to let us know if any of that advice
had changed.
It's higher-level advice was to let us
know the survey had to be ambitious.
Here you want to
emphasize that we are considering projects
in AST,
but also
at the request
of the agencies
and those that are in physics that have
relevance for astronomy and astrophysics
and the directions
from NSF
is that the survey will be most effective
in its aspirational, inspirational
and transformative
.
From DOE
, so DOE would like advice from the survey
to inform HHE P
on
high-impact opportunities
that
align with DOE's science priorities
that make use
of
the
ATP communities capabilities.
These are all updated as of late August
.
The agencies still want us to be aggressive
and ambitious.
So here's the timeline
.
I think this was my last slide with content
.
COVID-19, we had initially
been intending
to release a report in January 2021.
That was pre-COVID-19.
That was a schedule we had no gauges
--
negotiated with agencies.
Of course COVID-19 had a big impact.
Several of the final meetings
for program panels have to go
virtual.
All the steering committees
meetings since March have been virtual
and of course that slows things down
, in addition to our community members
struggling with homeschooling
and all the other challenges
of COVID-19.
We are still however aiming
to release the survey
in spring
of 2021
.
It's important in particular to the NSF
to know what the recommendations are
for their budget cycle planning
.
So
, we are working very hard
to meet that
,
as you all know is a challenge
to make progress
under the current conditions.
But I think I will leave it there.
That's my overview
and I thought
we could spend a few minutes
on questions
with the notes that of course,
I can't say anything about where we are
in deliberating
on particular projects.
>> Thank you very much Fiona.
That was a very informative talk
.
We do have maybe a couple of minutes
, despite the fact that Virginia
hosted the Q&A session towards the end
(inaudible).
Would you address the question the Q&A about
the relation between
(inaudible) and (inaudible)?
And how they fit together
and benefit each other
?
This is a question from (inaudible).
>>
Sure.
I think from the point of view
of the astronomy and astrophysics
to Cadle
--
Decadel
, what the agencies really want to know is
where
facilities and projects
that might again normally be
largely in the purview of Snowmass
impact
astronomy
and astrophysics.
Obviously with the
advent of multi-messenger
astrophysics
,
there's a lot of overlap.
So I think our report, hopefully
, will provide
that perspective
for your planning process, which my
understanding is just getting underway.
>> OK, yeah.
Thank you Fiona.
There are a couple of more questions coming in
in the Q&A session.
I said just that we address them at the end
of the session.
This time I would like to move
to Professor
(unknown term)
from
Juke.
She has been active in
post nuclear particle physics
for most of her career, in particular
(inaudible) for nuclear science
stop that was in 2014/2015
.
Kate will also tell us about the planning
process in nuclear science.
>> Thank you.
Let me share this.
Can you see that?
>> Yeah.
It's not.
Yeah
, OK.
>> OK, thank you.
I like to first make a little bit of disclaimer
that I'm giving this talk
in no official capacity whatsoever.
I'm just
a member of both the
HEP
and GEORGIA BURCKEL: Communities and I have
occur alone to roll in planning
-- and I have a current role in planning
.
I want to thank (unknown term) and (unknown term)
for their input in this talk.
So I will start with the driver for the planning
, for
(unknown term), which is equivalent to he pop,
which is the national community
for their science research, a backup
committee.
There is some difference between the
Snowmass and (inaudible).
It has been much more coupled to
(unknown term), on much
much like the process in ATP which is a
community driven effort
unlike the agency
effort....
So it's maybe
a little bit more
compact in that way.
This is a slide from John
(unknown term)
describing
all of the aspects
of nuclear physics.
There are many overlaps with what we are
considering in the Snowmass close us – my
process.
Particle physics or subatomic physics as it
is called in Canada.
There are many overlaps.
I made this diagram here
showing different connections to different
aspects of science, astrophysics
, asked her physical objects, cosmology,
properties of
fundamental attractions,
nuclei where there is many connections
and things
here will help the others in any
-- many ways.
This diagram may be thick of this but I have
to emphasize that it's not like
rock, paper scissors
, lizard, Spock
in that (inaudible)
each of these aspects of
part two physical
physics are helping each other.
This happens about every five years or so.
NSAC charge the committee ways coming of
the long-range plan
.
Sometimes it's as short as four years or as long
as seven.
It depends on the conditions of the era I
think.
In the last one was in 2015,
Reaching for the Rising
-- horizon.
This is how the planning process works.
It's a little bit more complicated than this
P5 thing.
It's a smaller community than ATP.
The working group actually has about 60
members from different sectors of the committee
plus some international observers.
There is a phase
over several months
of community input
.
There are what are called 10 meetings
.
This happened over the summer of 2014
where there were four different sectors
, education,
innovation
, (inaudible) and nuclear after physics.
And fundamentals is the trees, neutrinos
and relevant astrophysics.
In all of these, I would say there is
overlap with topics
under consideration in Snowmass.
There was a solicitation for white
papers that were submitted in January
2015.
The different parts of the working group wrote
text and there was what was called a resolution
meeting of the entire group in April
and the report was finalized in October.
These are the recommendations
from the
(inaudible)
2015 LRP.
Again it's a bit more
precise
than P5 which had a large number of
recommendations that were really only
for big recommendations in this report.
The first was to capitalize on
investments already made.
Second one was to develop and deploy
the US-led timescale (Reads).
The third one was to construct a high-energy
(Reads).
In the fourth one was to
increase investment in small-scale and (Reads).
Let me go through
the progress since 2015
on accomplishing
the recommendations.
Starting with one in four
, which is maybe a collection of different
things.
This is just a set of highlights
from the most recent talks
by Tim
Holman and Elayna
Opera at the most recent
NSAC meeting in March before all the chaos
started.
So just listing these things.
F rib is almost complete and the
transition from an SCL
to F rib is in progress.
This thing smaller scale happening there.
There is the list, which is different to
the other one.
This is a facility in Oregon.
The (unknown term) lab is a
part
-- program underway.
And upgrades to the
Phoenix
upgrade is continuing.
These are just the examples.
This is not the conference of list of
everything that is going on that will be covered
by regulations one.
There are many many smaller things.
Let me know says in the lead recommendation
three
which is of interest to the Snowmass
committee.
This is the
ion collider.
There has been a long period of reports that
have been exploring the science that can be done
the USC culminating in (inaudible) with the
national
academies report.
This was 30 influential I think.
These are milestones.
These are all taken from
Tim Hallman's slides
at MSAC.
It was a mission
needs statement approved
and total project cost is one to 2.5 billion.
Independent cost review was completed.
There is a site assessment
and CD zero was approved by December
and the fairly major recent news is that the
site selection for Brookhaven
was announced.
Here's another slide from Tim Hallman for
really the prime directive
states here is that the project will be carried
out as a fully sexual partnership between
the BNL and J lab
with major participations by all
.
I won't go through
these bullet points on
the nature
of the partnership.
It's a fairly large ticket.
Clearly this is going to be a major
activity
of nuclear physics
in the next coming cycle.
The project team is working
on being prepared for the CD one
review in 2021.
Here's another one.
This is recommendation to, of great interest to
my own community in neutrino physics
.
(Reads)
.
This is
in the US and this is not the same in other
countries, but in the US,
neutrinos double beta decay experiments are
facilitated by
(Reads).
Most of this is the kind of thing where the
physics is really crossing the boundaries
between particle physics and nuclear physics
and it involves nuclei but also really things
that are very dear to the hearts of the
community
of the ATP people.
– Mike ATP people.
Here's something for my last meeting with Tim
Hallman discussing this double beta decay.
There's really
free front-runner candidates.
There is the
(unknown term) detector legend, Cupid and
(unknown term).
Three candidate site locations
and this community
has made a lot of progress
in R&D
for next-generation experiments and ongoing
experiments are also
improving
the limits.
There has also been a great
progress on theory and there has been a
downselect which is still under discussion.
There is no word
on when and how it will take place.
It will depend when we have the site and the
technology.
OK, so I think this is far really the summary
and the future, the key points
.
So the 2015
long-range plan for NSAC
is really
...
the recommendations have really been followed.
If that are really advanced stage of
employment and is coming to the advanced
cycle.
It's coming around time for the next one.
One kind of...
and the
EIC is a major function collapsed.
(inaudible) downselect process are not yet
determined.
But presumably that's coming soon.
Since it really seems to be time for the next
one, there is
one in the works.
I can't speak to when it will be.
It's not yet determined.
But I'm guessing it will be soon.
I can't really say more.
OK, and so let me just end with a final note
for me
.
I mean, there are so many internet apps,
overlaps and interconnections
with nuclear physics and ATP and beyond, also
including astrophysics.
And I think it's really important for the
Snowmass process to pay
good attention to not exploit these overlaps
and very beautiful things can grow in the
cracks between the interfaces.
And I think I will stop there.
Grosbeak thanks a lot Kate.
-- Thanks a lot Kate.
Thanks for keeping on time.
Let's reserve the questions for the end of
the session if you don't mind.
We can also answer questions over slack
.
In the meantime,
let me switchover and tell you
some
-- introduce you to (inaudible), who I'm
sure all of us know
is an (inaudible) for physics
and my formal
faculty colleague at Berkeley
where he is still head of (inaudible).
Hi Jim.
He will give us the perspective
from
the DOE.
Thank you.
>>
Thanks theory.
Y
ur
i
.
I think everyone is aware that the last
round of planning process was a huge
success.
And I think part of that was because of the heavy
involvement of the entire community
in developing
the range of opportunities that we
have in front of us.
So, I wanted to remind you
that you have the flexibility
within your university
programs to devote
some fraction of your time
to the community planning efforts
and no special authorization is needed
for that.
So please participate, because it's a big deal.
So,
I have a few slogans for you today
from the last planning process.
So, one of the slogans is
that bickering scientists get nothing.
So we hope that at the end of this process,
after the P5 deliberations,
that people will be able to stand behind the
plan in the same way
that they've unified
behind the current P5 plan.
But it's important at this stage
to let 1000 flowers bloom
and
bring as many ideas as we can to the table.
That's very important
to be able to
give the P5 panel
options
to choose from
.
So of course, at the next P5, will have to
call make the physical and financial reality
for the field.
So as some guidelines
, most of our projects are up the
-- at the upper limits of what
we can afford.
The last P5
emphasized
budget scenarios
that we should concentrate
on the ILC
and the FCC
and that guidance
still guides our current efforts
on future (inaudible).
So there's work ongoing
and trying to realize the ILC
and discussions
have started between DOE
and the CERN
management concerning US involvement
in the SCC R&D.
So those things are kind of moving ahead
based on the last P5 plan.
50 tell us how much
emphasis is where.
I think there should be a lot of emphasis on
midscale projects,
saying parity to the hundred million dollar
rage that has a conception to physics
timescale that's less than say eight years to
provide more opportunity for students and
postdocs career development.
So those sort of less expensive projects
I think should get
a lot of attention
from Snowmass.
Also, another slogan is, reuse, repurpose,
recycle and up cycle.
So ideas that leverage existing or integrated
into future facilities at DOE labs and generate
unique capabilities, we need to keep an eye out
for those.
This been a lot of investment under the
current P5.
How do we maximally exploit that in the next
period?
So generating unique capabilities worldwide
is important for us
to help move the global program along.
So something else you think about
, infrastructure products and
(unknown term) test facilities should also
be part of the discussion.
What we need to keep the research moving?
And some of those test facilities get to be
expensive
and is probably some info structure projects
at the labs that are needed.
So those are for game for discussions.
An issue we face is that expectations of
brilliance and unity for us
are even higher than last time.
So we are going to have to uncover the best ideas
.
So my comment on where that was.
We went into the last planning process, most
of the stakeholders,
eating congressional appropriators and
officials
inside the DOE at high levels
considered
the
six community to basically be rebels
or like the toggle Bob
-- Taliban or something.
So I think
what we
are recovering from that in the last period.
So it's expected that we will be unified
in whatever plan we come up with.
So now the time during the Snowmass
process to get all the ideas on the table so
they get heard by P5 and your idea gets to have a
chance to bottle up to the top of the pile.
So then we can unify behind that.
So keep in mind that partnering
with other agencies can help leisure Ridge
-- leverage our research and we can do
more research faster.
As an example,
NASA
is intent
on establishing a main base
and eventually going to Mars.
I don't think
those notions
inside NASA
are going to change
from one administration to the next.
It's a sort of long-range plan for NASA
that involves a permanent installation
on the moon.
So can we exploit that
to do some kind of science
?
And
there you, you know,
obviously
launching things into space
causes
-- calls a lot more money, but maybe NASA
has that so we just need to get some science on
that.
The DOE at the secondary level,
it has been realized again if you are can
establish a moon base, you gotta get power from
start and who better to help you than the
department to get you some energy.
What kind of power that will be, I don't low,
maybe it is solar powers,-- panels may be
to small reactors, it is not clear how this is
going to work.
There is no plans for that but there is
involvement of DOE that is inevitable and
exploiting cheaper access to space
that everybody
is hoping to get a companies like space X.
The last P5 science questions are still
compelling
but one of the big questions is what
answers are we going to get in the next decade
and how do we increase the risk of discovery?
I think, thinking about
what the questions are, but which ones are we
going to get answers to, some questions
like dark matter are just difficult, we have
to figure out how to spread
our resources to cover as much
of the possible
face base as we can
and see if we can actually move ahead
in that space.
There was a lot of activity on that
for P5, some of which is just now happening
many of us hope we would see evidence for
dark matter and see that evidently was naïve.
That's
as Joanne mentioned this morning,
that is an area that's gone a lot of attention
from the community and the attention as well
deserved.
We have to think about how we are going to move
ahead to get answers to some of the compelling
questions that we have gotten.
I think I will stop there we just those few
remarks and good luck to the community in this
process and I hope a lot of good ideas will come
up with this,
there ought to be
there is at least one good idea in there
somewhere.
Okay, thank you for your time.
Back to you.
>
Thank you Jim, I hope you can stay
for the last 10 or 15 minutes or so
,
>
I will stay for the Q&A session, maybe someone
has a question for me.
>>Thanks.
In which case, I would like to introduce
the program director
for
UNICEF and he will give us
some perspective
from the science foundation.
>
Let me see.
Hopefully this is coming up.
I will give you the perspective
of the natural science foundation
---
National Science Foundation process
for physics.
I think personally, to go back to basics,
because this will form our evolvement
.
Why are we involved in particle physics
question mark it goes back
to the first part of it which is really to
promote the progress of science but the other
part
is also important.
Why are we doing this question mark
?
Particle physics is clearly a frontier
science, how do we do it?
We basically do it by
funding academic based researchers
and our people of the universities, focusing
on education and training,
over the next generation of workforce.
We also tried to add
in everything we do, try to add value to
exercising partnerships and broadening
participation and inclusion of different
communities in science.
When do we get involved, what is the
trigger point
for our project question mark and I
think we can say in
relevant news process when something comes to
us that is aligned
to the community and driven needs of the
science, which also align to the agency
goals and the national priorities, and of
course, it is, with excellent international
merit
because the competition is quite fierce.
Which are to
review criteria, basically.
What we do with physics with respect
to particle physics?
Here, this gives a review of some of the
science that we covered in the physics division
and covered everything from
physics,
plus my nuclear
elementary particle
and these problems
-
all these programs have
both an experiment
and theory component
will stop will have
physics of the symptoms,
quantum information science,
and astrophysics that we have a number
of programs
related to software data and physics
information and frontier,
other activities related to
product participation and
physics from peer centres.
These are investigator
multi-investigator small
programs
from basic research
we also have larger programs, Centre
and Institute scale efforts
that range from
$2-$5 million per year.
These are generally multidisciplinary
, they also involve a lot of partnerships
a few examples related to particle physics.
An institute for software for
the next
philosophy
-
Centre for bright beings of science,
which is science of technology Centre
based at Cornell
and 2 very recent works
then network from physics and symmetries
which is a new physics frontier Centre
based
work fully and
also
very new Institute for
artificial intelligence on implementable
interactions based on IT.
And one common characteristic of these
is we actually they have partnerships within
in some cases also outside and
cofounding from different directors,
like the incident has cofounded from
the colleagues
size
and
science and engineering director and
cofounding
.
The other morality
of how we support a community
of course with the infrastructure and
facilities and here we have
CMS
and the recent
project
over 150 million
over $150 million that has just started last
April.
We have ice cube and we also have
LAC B which is a smaller
institute but it is still
essential.
These are the things related
to
particle physics.
Here, of course,
we can't support anything without an
actual budget and
hear the message I want to send, I don't want to
go into too many details, The Charter I
have a sort of the budget for the director
of mathematical and physical sciences where
we sit as physics this is actually the budget
request what I'm showing you are the different
colours and they actually show in the
stars, we only have
2 fiscal 19 but the message here I want to
send is twofold that the actual budget request in
the actual
actual actual budget we get has not been
matching very well in the last few years,
and that causes some challenges for planning.
But the other trend I want to show you is and
you have seen the multidisciplinary's
separate offices within that captures things
that are more directed like
quantum leap, all of the things that are
directed.
You have seen sort of an increase and the 3rd
message is on the physics budget that
tracked the overall budgets
.
What is our perspective
on this process?
I think
for us,
it's really
a survey on the state of the science of
particle physics and
a community view or whatever compelling
physics
.
I think this is one of the first pillars of
building a program, what is the community
and I think we think this is a unique
opportunity for the community to number one,
think big, but also think small.
Think about the big opportunities of the
next accelerators but also think about
the small efforts that could be
may be answering some of the same questions.
Thinking inside the box but also specially else
think outside the box and be creative but it's
also important to think inside the box.
Try to make connections to other fields, Kate
mentioned that in reference to nuclear
physics.
And actually, also for us it is important to
really broaden participation we think,
we are convinced that would make the field of
particle physics better.
We also, as Jim mentioned, we hope the
next generation of folks, the students
are fully engaged in this process because
it is your future
and so we are looking to you
to really take ownership of this.
This is your voice
and eventually we are going have to sort out
what we want
from what we need.
What we need from what we want, and in order to
really address the questions.
We will have academies and surveys feedback but
I think for now, it is important in the
community really thinks
of what you really need, and what are
important questions.
Another pillar of building a program
our national priorities and here you have heard
their priorities
,
the congressional priorities
in the priorities of the executive branch,
for example, from Congress,
and from the Pres.,
of artificial intelligence, these
things, they really take
they have an impact on how we shape our
programs.
That is a 2nd pillar.
The 3rd pillar of building a program
are the actual agency mission priorities
and goals.
And even the program priorities.
Here, as an example, in 2016,
the tenant big ideas which have a lot of
overlap with particle physics, for example,
multi messenger astronomy has come up
out of it harnessing the data evolution,
midscale infrastructure and quantum leap which
we do have some corrections to that.
And, right now,
the National science Board is looking at what
they call division 2030, one is the agency what
are the priorities going to be, 10 years from
now, all of these things put together shape
our priorities.
Of course,
I have to mention, for example,
even at the program level, the physics
division level, we have expressed an interest in
this is just a recent colleague letter we put
out which is basically about searching beyond
physics using
AI, we want to bring the particle physics
and the communities together
to see what can be done.
These are sort of
the 3rd priority agency groups.
And then, we have to put it all together and for
that, it is quite difficult because there
are many
constraints, and of course budgets.
There is also tension between fundamental
research, particle physics, and more
directed
are more immediate societal impact but I
think there is room to play within both and
I think our message to you to the community is
that
the more opportunities, scientific opportunities
of community puts under
the menu on the science menu,
big, small, inside and outside,
they higher the chance
that they can order from that
menu
for things for us to do.
And I think that is really important, to
cover the whole spectrum.
The really most effective when
confronted with really well articulated
priorities and I point to the success we have
in the past with the phase 1
and the high velocity upgrades
which we have delivered on.
Just to end, I think budgets have been
challenging for us since the last but we had
a number
,
and the centres
that we will be able to spin up
the future
,
mostly to partnerships and this is really
important because that way we are able to
leverage our relatively small investment, both
within
and outside.
Connections to other disciplines
is important, societal Riverton's
relevance and I think it is essential
we be inclusive
and that goes without saying.
I repeat what I said, from our perspective, we
divide the community to think big and think
small also, thank inside and outside the box and
try to make corrections to other fields and
broaden the participation of
particle physics to really honestly make it
better.
We really hope for a full engagement from the
>>
Thank you
all
,
all our speakers.
We will now transition to the Q&A sessions,
a number of questions
came in
in the Q&A interface
.
In order
...
And in the meantime
the questions will be copied to Slack
.
The first question
is for Fiona Harrison,
perhaps it is a more general
question
, this is from
Marcel santos
– can you
comment on prospects for inter agency projects?
Maybe it is a broader question.
FIONA:
I can comment
that
there were
a number of important interagency projects put forward
to Astro 2020.
Including of course the MBS 4,
joint
with NSF and
DoE
,
properly also polar programs I think.
Projects like that
, that
have strong relevance for
astronomy and astrophysics,
but also where
DoE
is to take an important role
are absolutely being
considered.
I mentioned
that one, you can find the White Paper
that was submitted
on the public website,
but there were others as well.
I think
there is no
...
What the community
puts forward
to us
that is relevant
for the survey,
we consider
, independent of the split
between funding agencies or international participation
is also, of course, important.
>>
Thank you, Fiona.
If Jim
or
Saul
wants to add anything on interagency cooperation?
>>
We are all for interagency cooperation
and we've done it, it's important for us, it's part of our DNA.
>>
Thank you.
I will
not necessarily go through the questions in order, if you don't
mind.
A question for
Saul
and Jim
,
the next
generation of wave detectors will be expensive,
any advice on cooperation between
the NSF and
QE
on
funding
?
>>
Jim, why don't you take that one?
>>
Community input
is important, to figure out
how
that makes sense.
I think of the gravitational wave detectors get big enough,
you will eventually have to put them out in space to get the
low-frequency
and that becomes a NASA issue as well.
It depends on community feeling
about where gravity wave detectors fit into the program.
There may be some new techniques coming along
to give us additional
ground
-based sensitivity, that could be interesting.
I will toss that
back to Saul
with that nonanswer.
>>
I will reply with partly another nonanswer,
cooperation will happen when it makes sense.
Astro
2020,
and it was mentioned earlier
that it
has a component of this, in particular the R&D
that needs to be done.
Clearly we are reaching the limit
of what we can do.
We have done very well
, NSF has with our international partners and the next iteration
would be a different ball game.
We need to
take our cue from the community.
>>
Also,
in
a similar vein,
a question from
Antonio Hubbard,
moving away from finding
(inaudible), is that correct
,
and if so, how does that
affect
the future
partnerships?
>>
I think we are waiting
to hear the Snowmass
process before figuring
out what we're doing.
The current dark matter
program was covered by Joanne this morning
pretty well.
Right now
we appear to be moving out
in all directions.
I think
that may
continue
and we will get community input to see where people want to go
and respond to that.
Nothing is set in stone is the answer to that question.
It remains to be seen.
People should think
broadly about where is the best place to do
the science
and in the case of dark matter
it's really a question of
is it possible for
us to look under certain rocks for dark Pat
matter
and where we don't look for it,
are we missing something?
That is a wide-open
space at the moment, people should think hard about that.
>>
Thank you.
While we're on the topic of dark matter,
I will throw in another question,
this one for
Saul
.
Is it possible
to make dark matter searches and other particle physics topics
part of the mission of
NSF possible national
(inaudible)
laboratory
?
I am assuming
this applies to
specific
...
>> I would say
, just
talk to us.
We are open to all sorts of ideas.
Make sure that makes it to the Snowmass
process.
To approach us, yes.
>>
Thank you.
There is a question
from
Maria
for the panel.
Five or six years ago,
what are the thoughts
on engagement ILC goes forward
and for FCC and more broadly
what is the US agency's stands on the
traditional mega projects especially given our own
(inaudible)
...
That is attracting important international engagement.
>>
For the big mega projects there is a US government
position that goes beyond just DOA and NSF,
the big important international infrastructure,
we would like to have them installed
in friendly countries that are friendly to our way of doing science
, where our way is broadly defined,
how Europe and the US have grown up
doing science, along with our Asian colleagues.
Those big investments
draw international attention
and
become
almost instantly
politicised.
The US policy
is to try to collaborate effectively
with our like-minded
partners.
Automatically, Japanese attempt
's to
establish an ILC in Japan get sympathy from the
US government and likewise at FCC at
sern
C
E
R
N
get sympathy.
Those projects are so large,
they really need
interregional
partnerships to realize those machines.
Exploration is already
underway
to see what special expertise the US brings to the table to help
CERN
with the FCC for example and can we work with our Japanese friends to
realize and ILC in Japan.
Based on the previous P 5,
those were high priorities in the community
and then expanded budgets scenarios,
we appear to be
in NX mandate budget scenario, those discussions are ongoing,
we are hoping before the next P5
we can
determine whether the Japanese are interested in
hosting and ILC.
I don't know if that can be achieved,
but there is work
going on in that area
and as I said,
the FCC
discussions have started with the CERN
management to see
where the US
sets.
I don't know that answers the question
or not.
>>
I don't know if Saul
wants to
add anything?
We have a couple of minutes
,
I'll pick a couple of questions from the list.
It may be a difficult question for Jim
– what is the impact of
LB NF June
funding challenges in the budget for
(unknown term)
going forward
?
>>
Hopefully,
the kind treatment we've been getting from congressional
supporters will continue for a while longer.
It would be helpful to the project if the funding
could go up a little bit more.
We won't know whether that is happening
, thundering is a year by year thing and we don't
know where we are in fiscal 21 yet
except we are on a continuing resolution,
we are thrilled with
did not have a government
shutdown, that's a good thing.
But
the project, all of our projects,
plan for interruptions in the funding
and continuing resolutions on a regular basis.
community in the process and especially from our
next generation of leaders.
That is all I have, thank you.
There were already built in the project plan, I
think now our project team
projects are sufficiently
sophisticated
that nobody tries to buy anything
in the first quarter of the fiscal year because
you can expect there to be any one.
So I don't think
there's that kind of immediate impact from
the current certainty.
>
Okay, thanks.
I think
this gets us
2:30 PM central time.
I would like to thank
all of the
morning and afternoon speakers and panelists.
You have a 15 minute break, and after that we
have an exciting town hall session
, a number of talks from the community members
and so
hope you join.
For this morning and afternoon speakers and
number of questions
if you are not
on slack, forward the question amoeba.
>>
Yes send me your email because I'm not on slack
.
>>
Okay, think very much everyone, and we will
reconvene atOkay, think very much everyone, and
we will reconvene at 2:45 PM Central.
(Break)