nuclear physics new underground laboratories in north america steve elliott los alamos national...
TRANSCRIPT
Nuclear Physics
New Underground Laboratories in North America
Steve Elliott
Los Alamos National Laboratory
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 2
Nuclear Physics
And the Winner is:
NUSEL at Homestake
Well maybe….I prepared this talk after the NSF decision to choose Homestake and before Barrick turned off the pumps on June 10.
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 3
Nuclear Physics
Outline
• Making the case for Science Underground
• Existing North American Facilities
• NUSEL at Homestake
I wish to thank Tom Bowles and John Wilkerson for their input to this presentation.
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 4
Nuclear Physics
A Remarkably Wide Range of Science andEngineering Issues Can Be Addressed
Underground
• Neutrino Physics*• Particle Physics*• Astrophysics*
• Geophysics+
• Geobiology+
• National Security*
• Education and Outreach
In order to fully exploit this potential requiresthe construction of a National Underground
Science and Engineering Laboratory (NUSEL)* Requires depth to eliminate radioactive backgrounds+ Requires underground environment
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 5
Nuclear Physics
Why Underground?
• Physics - measurements of extremely rare processes require shielding from the incessant cosmic ray flux incident at the earth’s surface.
• Earthscience - extreme conditions found only underground (temp, pressure, chemistry, genomic isolation); outstanding geophysics questions.
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 6
Nuclear Physics
Underground Research has had Great Success
• The field has made recent fundamental discoveries.
• These discoveries broadly impact physics, astronomy, cosmology.
• A new laboratory would build on this success and open up the potential for next generation experiments and future discoveries.
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 7
Nuclear Physics
Some Recent Successes.
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 8
Nuclear Physics
Underground Research has Produced Numerous Dramatic Results.
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 9
Nuclear Physics
Why a New Lab and Why inNorth America?
• The science is compelling.• There is a lack of deep sites for next generation expts.
Background requirements have typically increased by a factor of 100-1000 since Gran Sasso and Kamioka were built 20 years ago.– dark matter: ~4500 mwe– double beta decay: 2400 - 6000 mwe– solar neutrinos: ~6000 mwe– EarthLab: 7400 mwe
• There is a lack of space in existing laboratories• The lack of a US laboratory has inhibited the development
of underground science within the US.• NUSEL will encourage synergies that will advance
science.
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 10
Nuclear Physics
Making the Science Case for NUSEL
• Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC) Long Range Plan 2000 - 2001
• Committee on an Underground Scientific Laboratory 2000 - 2001 (Community committee, NSF & DOE, Chair: Bahcall)
• HEPAP Sub-panel on Long Range Planning 2000-2001
• NRC Committee on the Physics of the Universe (CPU) 2000-2002, Chair: Turner
• NRC - Neutrino Facilities Assessment Committee March - December 2002, Chair: Barish
• Orbach DOE 20-year Major Projects(NSAC and HEPAP sub-committees) Winter 2003
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 11
Nuclear Physics
Nuclear Science Advisory CommitteeLong Range Plan, March 2001
Recommendation #3“We strongly recommend immediate construction of the world's deepest underground science laboratory. This laboratory will provide a compelling opportunity for nuclear scientists to explore fundamental questions in neutrino physics and astrophysics.”“Recent evidence for neutrino mass has led to new insights into the fundamental nature of matter and energy. Future discoveries about the properties of neutrinos will have significant implications for our understanding of the structure of the universe. An outstanding new opportunity to create the world's deepest underground laboratory has emerged. This facility will position the U.S. nuclear science community to lead the next generation of solar neutrino and double beta-decay experiments.”
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 12
Nuclear Physics Connecting Quarks to the Cosmos Committee on the Physics of the Universe
(CPU), April 2002
A two year NRC study. Chair: Michael Turner, Univ of Chicago
• Identify science opportunities at the INTERSECTION (not union) of physics and astronomy.
• Recommend a strategy for achieving these opportunities.
Recommendation (one of only 3 new initiatives)“Determine the neutrino masses, the constituents of the dark matter and the lifetime of the proton. The Committee recommends that DOE and NSF work together to plan for and to fund a new generation of experiments to achieve these goals. We further recommend that an underground laboratory with sufficient infrastructure and depth be built to house and operate the needed experiments.”
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 13
Nuclear Physics Neutrinos and Beyond: New Windows on NatureNeutrino Facilities Assessment Committee, Dec. 2002
NRC study requested March 2002 by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Chair: Barry Barish, Caltech• Identify the major science problems that could be addressed by cubic- kilometer-class neutrino observatories;• Identify the major science problems that could be addressed with a deep underground science laboratory; and• Assess the scientific importance of the identified science and whether it could be addressed by other existing, soon-to-be-completed, or planned facilities.
Assessment“A deep underground laboratory can house a new generation of experiments that will advance our understanding of the fundamental properties of neutrinos and the forces that govern the elementary particles, as well as shedding light on the nature of the dark matter that holds the Universe together. Recent discoveries about neutrinos, new ideas and technologies, and the scientific leadership that exists in the U.S. make the time ripe to build such a unique facility.”
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 14
Nuclear Physics
Neutrinos and Dark Matter
• Atmospheric s
• Dark Matter• Double Decay• Nucleon Decay• Solar Neutrinos• Supernova s• Long & Very Long Baseline Oscillation Expts.
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 15
Nuclear Physics
Neutrino Properties
• What We Don’t Know– Are neutrinos their own antiparticles? (Majorana )– What is the absolute scale for neutrino mass?– Is the mass scale normal ordered or inverted hierarchy? – Are there sterile neutrinos?– What are the elements of the MNSP mixing matrix?– Is CP / CPT violated in the neutrino sector?– Why is the neutrino sector so different than the quark sector?
• What We Know– Neutrinos have mass and oscillate– Parameters (m2 and tan2) known but imprecisely – Neutrino masses are small
• 50 meV < m < 2.2 eV • Neutrinos account for at least as much mass in the Universe as the visible stars
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 16
Nuclear Physics Depth Issues at NUSEL
Experiment Requirements• Ultra-low level experiments
• decay, dark matter, reactor/SN/solar • Great depth, modest to large size
• High-energy experiments• Proton decay, long-baseline, atmospheric
• Moderate depth, large size
• Geophysics / Geomicrobiology• 3-D from surface to great depth• Heterogeneous, T, H2O
• National Security• Modest depth, small size
• Ultra low-level counting facility• Great depth, moderate size for R&D on experiments Nuclear Physics
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 17
Nuclear Physics
Why Deep?
101
102
103
104
105
106
Muon Intensity, m
-2 y
-1
5 6 7 8 9
1032 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
104
Depth, meters water equivalent
Soudan
Kamioka
Gran Sasso
Homestake (Chlorine)
BaksanMont Blanc
Sudbury
WIPP
Muon flux vs overburden
NUSL - Homestake
Proposed NUSL Homestake Current Laboratories
• SNO wouldn’t have worked at Gran Sasso or Kamioka because of cosmogenic bkgs.
• n’s from induced photonuclear production in rock
• n’s from DIS in rock
• n’s from Atm.NC reaction
Many next generation experimentsmust be deep to achieve theirultimate sensitivity
SNO concern relevant to DM --potential neutron backgrounds with no accompanying muon signal
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 18
Nuclear Physics
Existing North American UG
Labs
Sudbury(6010 mwe)
Soudan(2100 mwe)
WIPP(1700 mwe)
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 19
Nuclear Physics
WIPP
• DOE Facility• Impressive
infrastructure• Modest depth
(1600 mwe)• Science as
add-on toprimary mission
• Low backgroundcounting labbeing developedLANL-PNNL
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 20
Nuclear Physics
Experimental Operations
EXO Project
OMNISita supernovaExperiment
Majorana R&D Lab
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 21
Nuclear Physics
UG at WIPP
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 22
Nuclear Physics
Soudan
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 23
Nuclear Physics
UG at Soudan (MINOS construction)
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 24
Nuclear Physics Sudbury Neutrino Observatory
Existing SNO Cavity
New Hall (2005)
• INCO (commercial)Ni mine
• Restricted shaft size
• Deep (6010 mwe)
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 25
Nuclear PhysicsComparison of Underground Labs
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 26
Nuclear Physics
Proposed North American Deep
UG Labs
Homestake7400 mwe
Soudan7400 mwe
San Jancinto6000 mwe
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 27
Nuclear Physics Distance to American
Accelerator Labs
FNAL
BNL
FNAL BNL
Homestake 1280 2530
San Jacinto
2620 3860
Soudan 730 1710
WIPP 1770 2930
kilometers
One needs a large detector for VLBL experiments. The new SNOLab space isn’t large enough for something UNO-like.
Want 2000-3000 kmBaseline.
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 28
Nuclear Physics
The “Also Rans”?
San Jacinto, Palm Springs, CASobel et al., UC -Irvine
Soudan ExpansionMarshak et al., Univ. of Minn.
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 29
Nuclear Physics SNOLab: SNO Extension is FUNDED
Nuclear Physics
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 30
Nuclear Physics
NUSEL - Homestake (proposed)
• Deepest mine in US, existing shafts &drifts from 150’- 8000’, at 150’ intervals.
• Dual access all levels.• Well characterized and understood
rock dynamics.• Has been deactivated for
mining.• Extensive infrastructure.• Allows one to simultaneously
and immediately pursue an operational science program and laboratory construction
• Meets all key “Ideal” UGlab requirements.
Haxton et al., Univ. of Washington
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 31
Nuclear Physics
Homestake (cross-section)
Oro HondoExhaust Ellison Exhaust No.5 Shaft
Air Intake
No. 4 Shaft
No. 3 Shaft
No. 7 Shaft
Service Shaft
8000’
7400’
6800’
6200’
4850’
No. 6Shaft
Ross Shaft and ComplexScience Operations
Yates Shaft and ComplexMining and Operations
7400’ Labs
4850’ Labs
MegaDet
8000’ EarthLab Not to scale
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 32
Nuclear Physics
Homestake Flooding
Homestake is a proto-typical Laboratory site.I’ll describe its specifics, keeping in mind that its features define a great site.
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 33
Nuclear Physics
Homestake Science Access
Ross Shaft access to 5000’ level• Capacity 7 tons
• 1.5 m x 4m x 2.5 m
• Timbered, requireswater lubrication
Winze No. 6 access to
4850’ - 8000’ level
8.44 m
4.66 mSouthCage
NorthCage
SouthSkip
NorthSkip
Proposed• Modernize hoists• Refurbish both shafts• Capacity 8 tons routine• 3.3 m x 3.6 m x 6 m
• High speed personnel “auto-lift”
11’ x 12 ‘HighSpeed
lift
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 34
Nuclear Physics
7400’ Science Level
Access via Ross and Winze #6.• Centralized utilities
• Clean lab conditions
• Rn removal (1 Bq/m3)
• Isolated separate exhaustsystem
• Ultra low-level backgroundlaboratory
• General purpose hall andsmaller dedicated labs.
• Ability to expand and buildfuture custom cavities
SouthSkip
HighSpeed
lift
Example 7400’ layout
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 35
Nuclear Physics
Ultra Low Background Counting Facility
Envisioned laboratory (Hamer, Bowles LANL)
Level 1
Level 3• State of the art , , , and Rn counting• Provide central infrastructure• Novel, high-sensitivity counters
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 36
Nuclear Physics
• 600 km of existing drifts down to great depths (8000’)
• A tremendous amount of existing infrastructure
• Large hoisting capabilities
• Extremely strong rock
• Dedicated operation of a deep u/g science laboratory
• Ability to take sea-containers directly u/g• Ability to excavate UNO-size cavity in 2-3 years
• Ability to excavate large chambers at depth
• 15 MVA of power substations, 860,000 cfm HVAC, …
• Complex geology throughout site• Provides ideal conditions for geoscience / geomicrobiology
• Minimal risk in excavation (109 yrs of experience)
• Location appropriate for long-baseline experiments
The Homestake Site
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 37
Nuclear Physics
Many Steps Forward…..
WIPP6/00
DNP Fall 2000
WIPP Meeting: June 2000DNP town meetings, Fall 2000NSAC LRP 2000-2001
NSAC 2000-01
UG sci 2000-01
HEPAP 2000-01
CPU 2000-02
NFAC 2002
Interim Funding
11/01
Indemnity Bill, 12/01
SD Elections stallTransfer negotiations
Planned Flooding Averted
4/03
Barrick UnhappyWith Bill
6/2/03 Barrick announces Flood Date of June 10
NSF Site decision
5/30/03
Nov. 2001- Interim funding bill passesDec. 2001- Homestake Mining Corp. merges with Barrick.Dec. 2001 - Federal indemnity bill passesBarrick has serious problems with final House version2002 election politics in SD stall transfer negotiations.April 2003 - planned flooding avertedNSF selects Homestake as favored site - not a guarentee of funding.June 2003 - New schedule for flooding!Committee on Underground Science LaboratoryHigh Energy Physics Advisory Panel, sub-panel on Long Range PlanQuarks to Cosmos ReportNeutrino Facilities Assessment Committee Report
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 38
Nuclear Physics
Consequences of Flooding• NSF site panel: "Important reasons to continue pumping include
the maintenance of mine stability, avoidance of equipment replacement or damage, consistency with existing operating approvals, and preservation of the rock mass environment.”
• Homestake Collaboration: “If the mine is flooded next week, we will submit our current Reference Design Project Book, the engineering plan for NUSEL-Homestake, to NSF, explaining that our group plans no further work on this project. The Project Book shows, for the first time, that a world-leading facility could have been built. With great regret we will then turn our attention and energy to developing the plans for an alternative site. Our commitment to the science demands that we do so.”
• Barrick Response: Vincent Borg, a spokesman for Barrick, called the scientists' threats an "11th hour red herring" and "regrettable gamesmanship." “more economical to allow the mine to flood now and empty it later”
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 39
Nuclear Physics
Summary
Compelling forefront science with a broad impact– the nature of neutrinos, astrophysics, supernova,
dark matter, nucleon decay, nuclear astrophysics, origin of elements, Earthlab, Geomicrobiolgy...
– Resounding endorsement from review committees.
Unique opportunity to establish the world’s deepest and most extensive science laboratory within the United States aimed at the future generations of underground science experiments.– The concept of such a laboratory has a wide base of
support.– Not everyone agrees on implementation.
Flooding of Homestake confuses the situation - June 03
June 12, 2003 Steve Elliott 40
Nuclear PhysicsI wish to congratulate the organizers for a great meeting.
I especially thank them for inviting me.