The 2002 Long Range Plan
• The DOE/NSF Nuclear Science
Advisory Committee of the Department
of Energy and the National Science
Foundation is charged with providing
advice on a continuing basis regarding
the management of the national basic
nuclear science research program. In
July 2000, the Committee was asked to
study the opportunities and priorities for
U.S. nuclear physics research, and to
develop a long-range plan that will
serve as a framework for the
coordinated advancement of the field
for the next decade.
• This Plan has emerged from a process
in which more than a thousand
members of the nuclear science
community participated. A smaller
working group then prioritized the
resulting recommendations. This Plan
addresses the charge to NSAC to
develop a “framework for the
coordinated advancement of the field.”
The opportunities for such
advancement are extraordinary, and
addressing them will ensure the
continuing vigor of nuclear science.
Jim Thomas 1
The Long Range Plan
• What is the DOE/NSF Long Range Plan?
– A document to describe the road ahead for Nuclear Physics
– Typically re-written about ~5 years
– The document tries to look ahead 10 years to set new directions and
it becomes the basis for funding large projects (even beyond 10 yrs)
• The Process
– A sub-committee of the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee
(NSAC) will write the document. It is an ‘invitation only’ process.
– The Division of Nuclear Physics at the APS will have input to the
LRP through a series of town meetings that will be organized by the
DNP executive committee.
– Finalize the design of the town meetings – June
– Three Town Meetings – November
– White Paper – January-March 07
– Super Town Meeting at Spring APS meeting – April 07
– NSAC writing group – May 07
– Final LRP document – End of Year 07
Jim Thomas 2
NSAC & DNP Executive Committee Members
• Susan J. Seestrom, LANL,
• Richard G. Milner, MIT,
Chair Elect (2006)
• Richard F. Casten, Vice
• Bradley M. Sherrill, MSU,
Past Chair (2006)
• Benjamin F. Gibson, LANL,
• A. Baha Balantekin , Univ.
of Wisconsin - Divisional
Councilor (December 2009)
• Ani Aprahamian, Univ.
Notre Dame (2006)
• Jolie A. Cizewski, Rutgers
• Anna C. Hayes, LANL
• David Hertzog, Univ. Illinois
• Cynthia E. Keppel,
Hampton Univ., (2007)
• Steven E. Vigdor, Indiana
Jim Thomas 3
The Town Meetings (as proposed by the DNP Chair)
• Nuclear Degrees of Freedom
– Nuclei, Nuclear Astrophysics, Nuclear Structure
• Quark Degrees of Freedom
– QCD Physics
• Neutrinos and Fundamental Symmetries
– Physics beyond the standard model
Tentatively Scheduled for November
Jim Thomas 4
Preliminary Discussion within NSD
• James Symons has requested that we hold discussions within NSD
to identify areas that are vital to our interests and where we must
ensure that our interests appear in the Long Range Plan
– In some areas, we can take the lead in preparing for the LRP
– In some areas, there are others who can and will take the lead
and that is OK
– In the areas of greatest importance to us, our goal is to make significant
contributions to the discussions at the November Town Meetings
– Only a very select group of people will actually write the LRP.
– What does it take to do this? Calculations? mini-White Papers?
• NSD Planning Meeting
– Meet on May 13th (Saturday morning) for a few hours to discuss the LRP
– Contributions are expected from each program in the division
– We will give an approximately 30 minute talk (30 slides)
– Identify the areas of science that are of interest to our program
– Briefly, demonstrate our expertise
– Identify areas of particular importance or sensitivity to our program
– Identify open questions in areas where we may not yet be expert
– Identify areas where we have sufficient expertise to take the lead
Jim Thomas 5
Questions to stimulate thought (from James)
• What are the principal scientific goals for QCD physics in
the coming decade?
• What initiatives are under way?
• What initiatives are currently under consideration?
• How well aligned is NSD/RNC/Theory with these goals and
• Are there new ideas that we can add to the mix?
• What are our highest priorities for the Town Meetings?
• Can we identify likely areas of controversy? Where is our
• What resources will be needed from the Division to reach
• What special challenges do we face?
Jim Thomas 6
The Experimental Landscape
• A-A physics at RHIC
• Spin physics at RHIC
• A-A physics at the LHC
• e-A physics at RHIC or JLAB
• Low energy AA physics at RHIC and GSI
• QCD physics at low x (eRHIC)
• Nuclear physics at the quark level using electron beams
Are there other bullets to add to the list?
Jim Thomas 7
An Intimate Example (for experimentalists)
Fiscal Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
FEE & DAQ Upgrade
Heavy Flavor Tracker
End Cap Tracker
Forward Meson Spect.
Key R&D Construction First Physics Full System
• The Ultimate HFT detector is ready to take data in 2011
• We would like to run the HFT in a Au-Au beam, a d-Au beam,
a p-p beam, and perhaps a low energy or low mass beam
Ten years is gone in the blink of an eye!
Jim Thomas 8
The Road Ahead
• Rank order and identify topics of interest to us as shown (for
example) on the previous page
– Identify areas where we have expertise but progress is certain
– Identify areas where we have expertise but progress is uncertain
– Identify areas where we are not experts but issues are still important
• The next step is to reduce our activities to a small group of
authors who will write the division talk to be given on May 13
– Grazyna has kindly agreed to lead this group and record our
observations and comments at today’s meeting
– Goal is to finish the talk by the end of next week
• I would like to request 5 slides and 1 page of text from the
principal proponents of each key research area that we identify in
Jim Thomas 9