Skip to main content
 
Focus on:  Hide Contributions
Login

Snowmass at LBNL

→ US/Pacific
Virtual Meeting
Description

The intent of this event is to have a set of discussions around a few specific topics to stimulate collaboration especially across divisions, and on topics that are not fully covered by current Snowmass groups.  We will not try to summarize the overall process or address all topics. There will be a follow up workshop to further develop these ideas.

Virtual meeting.

Join Zoom Meeting https://lbnl.zoom.us/j/99689727272?pwd=NXVZbHU3YVI3Z0FJQVJoY2JreVArZz09

Meeting ID: 996 8972 7272
Passcode: 568216

If joining by phone, find your local number: https://lbnl.zoom.us/u/avSrul7Qo
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)

For more information on upcoming events and contacts, see also the LBNL Snowmass page.

Registration
Participants
136
Register
Participants
    • 1
      Introduction

      Introduction to the event. Key organizational aspects of Snowmass 2021.

      Speakers: Benjamin Nachman, Cameron Geddes (LBNL), David Schlegel, Deborah Bard (NERSC / LBNL), Gabriel Orebi Gann (UC Berkeley / LBNL), GianLuca Sabbi, Kevin Lesko (LBNL), Maurice Garcia-Sciveres, Simone Pagan Griso, Zoltan Ligeti
      spagan_SnowmassLBNL_intro.pdf
    • Physical Sciences ML Strategy
      Conveners: Benjamin Nachman, Deborah Bard (NERSC / LBNL)
      • 2
        Computational Frontier and LBNL efforts
        Speaker: Wahid Bhimji
        Intro Slides
      • 3
        Panel discussion

        Questions to the panel:

        How can Berkeley Lab ensure AI/ML has a transformative impact on particle physics?

        Subquestions:

        • In what areas will methodological improvements in AI/ML techniques be needed (that LBL should focus in)
        • Will there be computing capabilities that LBL can develop?
        • What other capabilities will need to be built up at LBL or in the community? E.g. training and development?
        Speakers: Remi Lehe (LBNL), Dr Scott Kravitz (Lawrence Berkeley National Lab), Vanessa Boehm, Xiangyang Ju
    • Lepton collider physics opportunities and energy scales
      Conveners: Benjamin Nachman, Cameron Geddes (LBNL), GianLuca Sabbi, Maurice Garcia-Sciveres, Simone Pagan Griso, Zoltan Ligeti
      • 4
        Introduction
        Speakers: Cameron Geddes (LBNL), Simone Pagan Griso
        Lepton Collider Session Introduction (1).pdf
      • 5
        Panel discussion

        Questions to the panel:

        What are the key differences in the physics reach of very high-energy e+e-, gamma-gamma and muon colliders at the TeV to 14-TeV energy? Is the ability to produce polarized initial states (available for e+e- and gamma-gamma) a significant advantage in key physics observables?

        These options might pose different challenges in technological R&D to build a detector capable of extracting the physics output with the needed accuracy. What are, in your opinion, outstanding items that still need to be proven?

        How can LBNL-led technologies in plasma based accelerators for e+e- and gamma-gamma, or in muon systems, access each of these regimes? What are the R&D needs for each, distinct characteristics and potential showstoppers?

        Can we define a path that returns physics from near term machines? For example, what physics could we learn from near-term accelerators(and what are the differences) in the 30-60 GeV range?

        What would a near-term 40GeV-class machine look like (e.g. achievable luminosity, etc..) at LBNL that would be a technological stepping stone and demonstrator toward an energy frontier machine? How would that differ from already-built accelerators ~40 years ago in a similar energy range (e.g. PETRA, TRISTAN)

        What special expertise is available at LBNL that could help address the critical issues? Are there opportunities for new collaborations across groups and divisions that could be applied to these areas?

        Speakers: Carl Schroeder, Derun Li, Hitoshi Murayama, Jeroen van Tilborg, Kevin Einsweiler (Lawrence Berkeley Lab), Marlene Turner (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), Nathaniel Craig (UC Santa Barbara), Tengming Shen
    • Future LBNL-led small/demonstrator experiments
      Conveners: Cameron Geddes (LBNL), Gabriel Orebi Gann (UC Berkeley / LBNL), Maurice Garcia-Sciveres
      • 6
        Introduction to Snowmass priorities and LBNL efforts
        Speaker: Maurice Garcia-Sciveres
        Overview of Future LBNL-led small experiments.pdf
      • 7
        Panel discussion

        Small LBNL-led experiments questions to panel:

        Is it better to carry out a small experiment completely in-house if possible, or do multi-institute collaborations have an advantage no matter how small the experiment?

        How much should the Snowmass process be used to develop new small experiments? What is the balance between making intentions public early on vs. keeping things confidential until fairly mature?

        What has the division / lab done (or what could they do in the future) to make it possible to go from concept to experimental results?
        For the cases in the intro, why should LBL invest in this?
        How to leverage these small experiments to further the lab’s programmatic priorities? How to maximize their potential to get some physics out, even for technological demonstrators?

        How can interested postdocs and students get involved in new development? Are you preparing a Snowmass white paper?

        Any thoughts for the November Workshop? What Format/preparation/discussion would be most helpful?

        Speakers: Daniel Carney (Berkeley National Lab), Dean Robinson (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL)), Gabriel Orebi Gann (UC Berkeley / LBNL), Holger Mueller, Jeroen van Tilborg, Matt Pyle (University of California Berkeley), Stepan Bulanov, Yuan Mei

        Small LBNL-led experiments Panel Notes:

        Is it better to carry out a small experiment completely in-house if possible, or do multi-institute collaborations have an advantage no matter how small the experiment?

        In the case of the BELLA center, this is one of the key facilities in the field worldwide. It makes sense to be in-house in this case. But collaboration with other institutes is needed for certain key components/elements. Keep integration here, but bring in expertise from collaborators.

        For Eos, LBNL is capable of doing it alone, but a demonstrator is also a rallying point for collaboration building. This is also a good opportunity to strengthen diversity. Want to encourage participation of people from multiple institutes. A small experiment/demonstrator also tends to have a small learning curve to integrate new people.

        LHC point of view: development is typically person power limited, so multi institute is required.

        It all cases to small experiments, co-location of people in one lab is the key to success. It Doesn’t matter what institute, but they have to be fully dedicated in one place. Need to spend as much time as possible with the hardware. Day and night difference in progress between remote work and having people back in the lab.
         

        How much should the Snowmass process be used to develop new small experiments? What is the balance between making intentions public early on vs. keeping things confidential until fairly mature?

        It’s a delicate balance. Experience shows people will scoop you if they can. But on the other hand need to bring people in and build support for new ideas. If you don’t publicize, you won’t get funded, but crazy new ideas can go through LDRD first before going public.

        Maximum openness and early communication has worked for Holger. You “just” have to do it faster than everyone else (Based on this panel Holger is now looking at writing a white paper for Snowmass). Lots technical development typically needed for new approaches, so it’s not trivial to scoop. A 40GeV plasma accelerator can’t be realistically scooped.

        Must use judgment about the right moment. A very raw idea may not be ready. A consensus seem to be to publish original research as papers and cite them in Snowmass white papers. An important part of snowmass is identifying what areas can be addressed by small experiments. Broad overview type data is important for funding. If you were not in Snowmass you may not get funding later. Socializing an idea is important.
         

        What has the division / lab done (or what could they do in the future) to make t possible to go from concept to experimental results?
        For the cases in the intro, why should LBL invest in this?
        How to leverage these small experiments to further the lab’s programmatic priorities? How to maximize their potential to get some physics out, even for technological demonstrators?

        CODEX-b seeks to extend LHC program, which is a programmatic priority. It was worthwhile for LBL to provide leadership in the field and LDRD was a good process for that.

        Lab does realizes that intermediate steps in BELLA are critical and has supported Bella very much.

        LDRD is the primary way to support new ideas. QIS funding has provided a boost for small experiments- but that was not a lab program. LDRD is small, but there are also lab emphasis on priorities. There is a need to bridge the gap between LDRD and project with support well beyond LDRD scale. Space and engineering support require a big funding jump. <10M does not rise to DOE’s attention so need something else. For example LXe started with NSF because too small for DOE.

        Technical support from engineering could be improved. It’s hard to get small injections of technical support. We train students and postdocs to do something that an expert could do very fast (program an FPGA, etc) because we can’t get access to experts for small jobs.

        Needing space at underground facilities. Shallow underground lab space and also clean and vibration quiet would be broadly useful. General experimental space also in need. An End Station for BELLA accelerator would be great.

        LBL was created because you need a large organization for big science. Must define the right relationship of the lab to small experiments that could in principle be done by a university group. It was noted that it’s hard to get a project going at universities by themselves. Thre is an opportunity for lab to play a role in getting small experiments going. Can be strategic. Some small experiments like Alfa sometimes can see a big improvement from a smart update of a subsystem. These insights come from experience. Continuity of personnel accumulates such experience, but the ability to fund research scientists at universities has decreased a lot. The tech expertise needed is, therefore, at the labs. Has to be made available for small scale efforts. .

         

        How can interested postdocs and students get involved in new development? Are you preparing a Snowmass white paper?

        Start by reaching out to project leads. Arrange to work for a day or week in the group to get a meaningful picture. Small experiments need really motivated people. There is a balance between supervision and getting something out of part time students/postdocs. A “diversity of interests” modest funding pool could be very helpful.

        On LBL web site it’s not easy to know that these small things exist. Very hard for grads and postdocs to find out. Need a web presence for small experiments. Need a network. Ideas floated were: a yearly open house and more seminars. There is a clear opportunity to set something up here.
         

        Any thoughts for the November Workshop? What Format/preparation/discussion would be most helpful?

        Ideas for physics opportunities with individual discussion. Can we come up with new ideas for physics?

        Questions would profit about setting up some brainstorming sessions with a few people per topic. Define boundary conditions. Connect with presenters and/or workshop organizers to engage in followup on next workshop. BELLA center on-site beams is a natural candidate.

        Other:

        It was noted there were no axion experiments on the examples list. There is interest and work in axions in Berkeley. I know Karl van Bibber and Danielle Speller are in Haystac and also developing new metamaterial antennas: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/54z411jb.

        The Nonlinear QED topic was brought up. Is Snowmass interested in it? It’s hard to gauge interest in Berkeley on NQED experiments. Tools are there at BELLA, what’s missing is a strong experimental drive.

    • 12:00
      Lunch Break
    • Cosmic Frontier
      Conveners: Akito Kusaka, David Schlegel, Saul Perlmutter
    • Neutrinos for fundamental and applied particle and nuclear physics
    • Future of large-scale DM experiments
      Convener: Kevin Lesko (LBNL)
      • 20
        LZ goals and prospects
        Speaker: Scott Haselschwardt (Lawrence Berkeley National Lab)
      • 21
        Crystalize
        Speaker: Peter Sorensen
      • 22
        HydroX
        Speaker: Aaron Manalaysay (LBNL)
      • 23
        Discussion
    • 24
      Closing Remarks
      Speakers: Benjamin Nachman, Cameron Geddes (LBNL), David Schlegel, Deborah Bard (NERSC / LBNL), Gabriel Orebi Gann (UC Berkeley / LBNL), GianLuca Sabbi, Kevin Lesko (LBNL), Maurice Garcia-Sciveres, Simone Pagan Griso, Zoltan Ligeti
      2021-09-17 SnowmassLBNL Closing Remarks (2).pdf
Powered by Indico v3.3.6