Results for “physical” — Page 23

INL employee PhD Dissertation - The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) concept is a rapidly evolving Generation IV design that has recently attracted favorable attention due to the potential for reducing waste generation, realizing passive safety features, and seizing on the opportunity for cost effective economics. This thesis investigates the performance benefit of a new device invented by the doctoral candidate. The device is referred to as a Wrapped Helix around an Inclined Plane or WHIP. The WHIP is protected under a provisional patent filed with the USA Patent Office on 28 September 2021 under application number 63/261,776, BEA docket number BA-1254. The WHIP device can be located in-core or near-core to promoted enhanced thermal-hydraulics and neutronics performance. While the WHIP can be employed in a variety of solid or liquid fuel designs, this thesis investigates the device’s benefit in the application of a natural-circulation, micro-molten salt nuclear battery concept (MsNB). This thesis will specifically investigate the temperature coefficient of the MsNB fuel (FLiNaK) using novel temperature sensitivity techniques unique to Serpent particle transport code, evaluate the WHIP’s thermal-hydraulic and neutronic performance effects using both established (STAR-CCM+) and novel (Python code developed to estimate the circulation effective delayed neutron fraction, ßef f ) analytical and numerical methods, evaluate the neutron noise behavior of the MsNB and how the WHIP may alter the character of the MsNB’s transfer function, and how the WHIP affects the autonomous, load-following performance under transient power conditions using Python code developed by the candidate. The sum body of this work, in part, has been published in three journal articles as the timing of the provisional patent process has allowed. Results show that creative utilization of WHIP engineering design and function reduces reactor system volume, fuel loading, control/stability in the buoyant regime

buoyant flow↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-00: Medical Physics Workshop: An Update On the Journal’s Improvement Activities and Guidance On Writing and Reviewing Papers

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TH-C-204-01: Vision for Medical Physics and Status of Current Initiatives

In this presentation, the Editors will outline our vision for the future of Medical Physics and review recent work-in-progress initiatives to implement this vision. Finally, we will close with guidance to authors on how to write a good Medical Physics paper. A major focus will be the transition to a new publisher in 2017 following a more than 40-year association with American Institute of Physics Publishing (AIPP). Vision for Medical Physics and status of current initiatives: Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief The broad vision of Medical Physics is “to continue the Journal’s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care.” More concretely, the Journal should be the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science. We seek to identify the best contributions in (a) high impact clinical physics innovations; (b) clinical translation and validation of basic science innovations; and (c) cutting edge basic science developments with potential for patient care improvements. Among the challenges and opportunities, we face are: electronic-only and open access publishing; competition from new radiological science journals; trends towards more interactive, social-media based scientific communities; and diversification of the medical physics research, authorship, and readership domains, including clinical applications quite foreign to core ABR clinical competencies. Recently implemented and ongoing initiatives include: Revised Table of Contents (TOC) and more contemporary topical submission categories Structured review template in HTML format Comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy for identifying reviewer expertise Formal process for soliciting high quality and impact Review and Vision 20/20 Articles We have recruited four Review Article Co-editors: John Rowlands and Ingrid Reiser (imaging physics) and Joao Seco and Tim Zhu (therapy physics). The Co-Editors will identify timely topics and solicit high profile authors to submit review manuscripts. To submit an article, authors will need to work with an assigned Co-Editor to develop a mutually acceptable outline and abstract. 5) A new and exciting class of articles: Medical Physics Dataset Articles (MPDAs) MPDAs describe scientifically or clinically valuable open-access datasets with high potential for contributing to the research of medical physicists working on related problems. In contrast to Research Articles, MPDAs should not include hypothesis testing; or data analyses supporting generalizable conclusions. The publically accessible dataset must be permanently archived before the MPDA can be published. This initiative is being led by Joe Deasy. Update on new publisher transition: The transition of AAPM scientific publishing operations to a major publishing house is a major opportunity to expand Medical Physics readership and its scholarly impact. The advantages include: (a) common manuscript management and web hosting platforms for Medical Physics and its sister journal, JACMP; (b) greater than 4-fold expansion of subscribing institutions; and (c) resources to mount data-driven, highly targeted marketing campaigns to enhance citation and download rates. A transition update of this epochal development, which has only begun as of this writing (3/31/16), will be given. Improving manuscript quality via structured reviews, enhanced scientific category taxonomy, and outreach: Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor Medical Physics is committed to continuous improvement with the ultimate goal of improving the potential impact of accepted manuscripts. In order to do so, Medical Physics must be able to tap into important/emerging areas and be able to select high quality contributions consistently via discerning reviews. Improving the quality of reviews is crucial to selecting high quality manuscripts and also to improving manuscript impact via feedback in the review process. With this in mind, Medical Physics is in the process of: (a) fostering outreach to important areas that are currently underrepresented in Medical Physics; (b) implementing a structured template review form; and (c) implementing a comprehensive scientific category taxonomy to identify reviewers who are best suited to an article. Outreach efforts have begun to various scientific areas. Strategies to increase submissions from these areas will be discussed. As a consequence of this effort, a special issue on particle therapy is under development. A review template was implemented in late 2014 on a limited test basis. Based on reviewer feedback, the template was restructured and shortened to capture essential review elements. The restructured template is due to be released shortly. The new scientific category taxonomy is in the process of being deployed to reviewers and associate editors. Salient aspects of the structured review template and scientific category taxonomy will be discussed in this talk. Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques: Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor The essential components of the abstract, introduction, methods, discussion and conclusion sections of manuscripts, as well as the desired writing style and style of the figures and tables will be reviewed. Publishable Medical Physics manuscripts must include clear and concise statements of the novelty and clinical and/or scientific importance of the authors’ work. Examples of novelty include: new technical solution to an important clinical problem; new generalizable knowledge; and first demonstration that an existing engineering solution solves a clinical problem. Please note that we encourage authors of recently published conference proceedings (e.g., SPIE, IEEE) papers on novel medical physics related work to submit more substantial versions of that work to our journal. All submissions must include: sufficient background information and rationale; enough detail for others to reproduce the authors’ work; sufficient statistical analysis to refute or validate the authors’ hypotheses; a description of how the present work compares to, is distinct from, and improves upon others’ work; and sections devoted to the limitations of the study and future directions. Writing should be polished. Poor wording, grammar and composition frustrate the review process. Our journal does not have copyeditors for revising manuscripts. When authors receive critiques from the referees and associate editor, the authors should provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment. The authors’ rebuttal should include the text of the original criticism, the authors’ response, and a pasted copy of the modified text along with the line numbers in the revised article. The new text should be highlighted in a different font color in the revised submission. Following these recommendations will improve submissions and facilitate the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Requirements and Recommendations for a Physical Attack Characterization Framework

This study seeks to identify existing frameworks or develop requirements and recommendations for a new framework that can consistently characterize physical attacks, analogous to MITRE ATT&CK®. MITRE ATT&CK is widely used across government, research organizations, and the cyber security community to characterize cyber attack tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) in a consistent and commonly understood manner. While physical attack taxonomies, methodologies, and other tools for evaluating physical security do exist, many are sector and/or facility-type specific—and therefore not able to provide comparable scenarios across sectors—or are more focused on security assessment instead of the characterization of attacks themselves. A MITRE ATT&CK analog for physical attacks on critical infrastructure would provide a common language and structure for analysis of physical attacks. Existing attack characterization methodologies do not robustly address cyber-physical security risks. To fully understand a facility’s security needs, it is important to understand the entire vulnerability landscape from both a physical and a cyber perspective. To underscore this need, organizations such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) are calling for a coordinated approach to cyber and physical security, which they refer to as cyber and physical security convergence. A physical attack characterization framework that could be used jointly with MITRE ATT&CK would help support a more robust analysis in support of convergence, enabling the consistent characterization of attacks that utilize both cyber and physical tactics and techniques. This could provide analysts and stakeholders with a clearer understanding of how security mitigations deployed in the physical realm impact security risks in the cyber realm, and vice versa. In this study, the project team evaluates existing physical security taxonomies and methodologies to assess whether an existing method can be used to create a “physical half” of MITRE ATT&CK. This study then provides requirements and recommendations for a framework that can leverage aspects of existing methodologies. The goal of the final framework is for it to be widely adopted and referenced, regardless of critical infrastructure sector, facility type, or facility components. This study also identifies applicable use cases for when and how a framework could be applied across the various critical infrastructure sectors for a variety of attack types or motivations. Through a literature review of existing security-focused methodologies and taxonomies, engagement with relative stakeholders, evaluation of potential physical attack framework use cases, and subsequent identification of requirements, this study identified the following key findings and recommendations: There is a need for a new physical attack characterization framework; A physical attack framework should be interoperable with the MITRE ATT&CK framework; A physical attack framework should be broadly applicable, but with detailed tactics, techniques, and procedures that encompass the entire attack path; A physical attack framework should be based on observed or feasible events; A physical attack framework should adapt features from existing methodologies, frameworks, and taxonomies; A physical attack framework should be owned, overseen, and maintained by one organization.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗

DOE OSTI2017

Center for Theoretical Underground Physics and Related Areas – CETUP*2016 Summer Program

For last six years Center for Theoretical Underground Physics and Related Areas (CETUP*) successfully provided a stimulating environment for creative thinking and open communication between researches of varying ages and nationalities in dynamic atmosphere of intense scientific interactions. Ongoing and proposed Neutrino and Dark Matter experiments are expected to unveil the answers to fundamental questions about the Universe. CETUP*2016 was focused exactly on these subjects bringing together experts in dark matter, neutrino physics, particle and nuclear physics, astrophysics and cosmology from around the world. Scientists invited to participate in the program not only provided theoretical support to the underground science, but they also examined core questions including: What is the nature of dark matter?, What is the origin of the neutrino masses?, How well do we know the neutrino parameters?, How have neutrinos shaped the evolution of the universe?, , What are the fundamental underlying symmetries of the Universe? Is there a Grand Unified Theory of the Universe? and many others. The 2016 CETUP* summer program consisted of three sessions (June 6 – July 16, 2016) covering various aspects of theoretical and experimental neutrino physics, unification and dark matter. The two week long session on Physics and Instrumentation of the Near Detector for the Long-Baseline Neutrino Experiments (June 6 – June 16) was followed by the two week long Neutrino Physics/Unification session: “From Grand Unification to String Theory and Back” (June 20 – July 2). The program ended with two week long session on Dark Matter Physics (July 4 – July 16). This six-week long program allowed for thorough discussions and an effective and comprehensive analysis of topics related to Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Neutrino Physics including astrophysical neutrinos, near and far detector physics, neutrino interactions, Higgs Boson, Inflation, Leptogenesis and many others that will advance the knowledge in particle and nuclear physics, astrophysics and cosmology. The scientific program usually consisted of 2-3 hour-long talks on selected subjects in dark matter and neutrino physics from both theoretical and experimental perspective and followed by extended in depth discussions. The format of the program accommodated separate discussion sessions where the outstanding issues of the disciplines were explored, for example: The Future of Large Physics Projects in the US, and the Role of Theory in the Future of US Physics. 2016 CETUP* summer program was attended by over 70 national and international scientists (including 17 graduate students, 16 postdocs and 39 senior scientists) from over 48 different universities and laboratories. CETUP* participants were very active senior and junior members of the community in order to make the discussions informative and productive. CETUP* 2016 provided a stimulating venue for the exchange of scientific ideas among experts in dark matter, neutrino physics, particle physics, astrophysics and cosmology. During Dark Matter session thirty-seven scientific talks and extended discussions were presented. Twenty-nine talks and discussions were conducted during the Neutrino Physics sessions by international Neutrino Physics experts. The power point presentations for the talks and discussions can be found on the CETUP* website: http://research.dsu.edu/cetup/agenda.aspx. Based on the collaborations established during CETUP* already ten preprints were published and many more are in preparation: https://research.dsu.edu/cetup/preprints.aspx?cetupYear=2016. The proceedings from CETUP*2016 are in preparation to be published by American Institute of Physics in summer 2017. Multiple outreach efforts aimed to share the excitement of the research with K-12, teachers, undergraduate and graduate students as well as the general public.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗

DOE OSTI2016

Topics in Theoretical Physics

This award supported a broadly based research effort in theoretical particle physics, including research aimed at uncovering the laws of nature at short (subatomic) and long (cosmological) distances. These theoretical developments apply to experiments in laboratories such as CERN, the facility that operates the Large Hadron Collider outside Geneva, as well as to cosmological investigations done using telescopes and satellites. The results reported here apply to physics beyond the so-called Standard Model of particle physics; physics of high energy collisions such as those observed at the Large Hadron Collider; theoretical and mathematical tools and frameworks for describing the laws of nature at short distances; cosmology and astrophysics; and analytic and computational methods to solve theories of short distance physics. Some specific research accomplishments include + Theories of the electroweak interactions, the forces that give rise to many forms of radioactive decay; + Physics of the recently discovered Higgs boson. + Models and phenomenology of dark matter, the mysterious component of the universe, that has so far been detected only by its gravitational effects. + High energy particles in astrophysics and cosmology. + Algorithmic research and Computational methods for physics of and beyond the Standard Model. + Theory and applications of relativity and its possible limitations. + Topological effects in field theory and cosmology. + Conformally invariant systems and AdS/CFT. This award also supported significant training of students and postdoctoral fellows to lead the research effort in particle theory for the coming decades. These students and fellows worked closely with other members of the group as well as theoretical and experimental colleagues throughout the physics community. Many of the research projects funded by this grant arose in response to recently obtained experimental results in the areas of particle physics and cosmology. We describe a few of these below. Relativity is founded on a symmetry property of nature called "Lorentz Invariance". Like all symmetry properties, it is essential to determine precisely how symmetric nature actually is; that is, do the laws of nature fully respect the symmetry or is there room for tiny symmetry violating effects? An important consequence of Lorentz invariance is the existence of a universal limiting velocity for all physical particles. Light travels at this limiting velocity so it is frequently referred to as simply "the speed of light", but relativity requires that ALL particles travel more slowly than this speed. Once the Higgs particle was discovered in 2012 a natural question was whether or not this particle's speed was consistent with relativity. Although the speed of the Higgs particle is not measurable directly, Cohen has shown that, if the maximal speed of the Higgs particle was not precisely the same as the speed of light, then the Higgs would have some unusual properties. In some cases the Higgs would be unstable to some unusual decay modes; in other cases the interactions of the Higgs with other particles would change the properties of these other particles in ways that could be observed in so-called cosmic rays, very energetic particles (such as photons, protons and other atomic nuclei) coming from space. Once these particles hit the upper atmosphere they produce a "shower" of particles that can be seen by ground-based instruments. If the Higgs has a maximal speed that differs even a tiny bit from the speed of light these showers would look quite different from what is observed. In this way Cohen was able to establish that the Higgs travels with a maximal speed that cannot differ from the speed of light by more than one part in a thousand-trillion. This is by far the most precisely determined property of the Higgs particle. Cohen and Schmaltz reviewed evidence from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a particle physics experiment operating at the CERN laboratory near Geneva, for a new particle sometimes called a W'. This evidence included certain unexpected by-products in collisions of protons at very high energy. While the evidence was not significant enough to claim a discovery, it was sufficiently intriguing that many particle theorists worked to construct explanations for this signal. Cohen and Schmaltz were able to determine that such explanations are highly constrained by previous experiments involving collisions of very energetic particles. Nevertheless they were able to construct a theory that adequately explains the LHC data and remain consistent with prior experiments. Their explanation predicts the existence of yet another new particle, called a Z', with a mass slightly greater than that of the W'. This additional particle, if it exists, should be seen as more data is collected from the LHC. Amusingly, there is one collision by-product that has already been seen by the CMS experiment at the LHC that supports the existence of this new particle; however, it is not unlikely that this single event is a so-called "background" event, that is a somewhat atypical by-product of a conventional Standard Model process. This theory for the anomalous LHC data will either be confirmed or excluded with further data-taking at the LHC. The ratio of the number of electrons produced in bottom quark decays over the number of muons produced has been measured at the LHC. This ratio is interesting because it can be predicted very precisely from a basic property of the Standard Model: lepton universality. If lepton universality is correct, the ratio of electrons to muons is predicted to be equal to 1. The first measurements of this ratio find a value different from 1 with a statistical significance of about 3 standard deviations. Schmaltz and collaborator proposed a new extension of the Standard Model which can explain the new data. In addition, Schmaltz and collaborators proposed several new measurements of ratios of decay rates which can confirm or rule out the surprising results from the earlier LHC data. The most recent and precise measurements of the cosmic microwave background from the Planck satellite, from a combination of measurements of the dark matter distribution in the universe, and from a measurement of the expansion rate of the universe today show some disagreement when interpreted in terms of the so-called LambdaCDM model. Schmaltz and collaborators proposed an alternative model to LambdaCDM in which the usual cold dark matter is replaced by a new ``dark sector". This sector consists of a cold dark matter particle which interacts with a newly postulated dark radiation component of the universe. The dark radiation can help explain the discrepancy in measurements of the expansion rate, and the dark matter interactions subtly modify the clumping of dark matter at large scales, thus potentially explaining both kinds of tensions in the data. In two publications Schmaltz described the new model and then performed a precision comparison of the predictions of the model with all currently available cosmological data. The results favor the new model at the level of three standard deviations with current data. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the language we use to describe quantum systems which are consistent with Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity. In particular, the requirement of Einstein’s theory that signals not travel faster than the speed of light constrains the types of interactions which particles can engage in. One consequence of relativity is that these interactions cannot preserve particle number. The stronger the interactions, the more severe the particle number violation in a given Relativistic QFT. When particle number violation is strong, it becomes very difficult to adequately parameterize the quantum wave function (which characterizes the state of a quantum system). For example, though we can formulate the QFT which describes the strong force as a set of interactions between quark and gluon particles, we have no clear idea how to express the proton state in terms of these quarks and gluons. This is because the proton, though a bound state of quarks and gluons, is not a state of a fixed number of particles due to strong interactions. Yet, understanding the proton state is very important in order to theoretically predict the reaction rates observed at the LHC in Geneva, which is a proton-proton collider. Katz has formulated a new approach to QFT, which among other things offers a way to adequately approximate the quantum wave function of a bound state at strong coupling. The approximation scheme is related to the fact that any sensible QFT (including that of the strong interactions) is at short distances approximately self-similar upon rescaling of space and time. It turns out that keeping track of the response upon this rescaling is important in efficiently parameterizing the state. Katz and collaborators have used this observation to approximate the state of the proton in toy versions of the strong force. In the late 60s Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam and Steven Weinberg (1979 Nobel Prize awardees) proposed a theory unifying weak and electromagnetic interaction which assumed the existence of new particles, the W and Z bosons. The W and Z bosons were eventually detected in high-energy collision in a particle accelerator at CERN, and the recent discovery of the Higgs meson at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), always at CERN, completed the picture. However, deep theoretical considerations indicate that the theory by Glashow, Weinberg and Salam, often referred to as "the standard model" cannot be the whole story: the existence of new particles and new interactions at yet higher energies is widely anticipated. The experiments at the LHC are looking for these, while theorists, like Brower, Rebbi and collaborators, are investigating models for these new interactions. Working in a large national collaboration with access to the most powerful DOE computers Brower, Rebbi and colleagues have been using calculational techniques, similar to those successfully employed for many years to investigate the interactions among quarks in nucleons, to study theories that can describe the expected "beyond the standard model" (BSM) interactions. Their results, which include also a model for dark matter, have been published in several refereed papers in prestigious journals. Various ideas in topologically interesting field theories predict hypothetical objects such as fractional charges and Majorana excitations. However, such fascinating objects have not been seen in particle physics. Nevertheless, these objects demonstrate possible phenomena that quantum field theory can support. Pi used condensed matter physics as a laboratory to study possible realizations and observable effects of these objects predicted by quantum field theory. In recent times there has developed considerable interest among condensed matter field theorists in precisely the same geometrical and topological structures, which were first discovered in particle physics field theories. From particle physicists' point of view, this is an interesting development, since condensed matter provides an arena in which one can concretely realize particle physics ideas. Moreover, particle physicists can learn new ideas from condensed matter physics. Higgs phenomenon is precisely an important particle physics realization of condensed matter ideas. In contrast to the small distance characterizing condensed matter systems, field theory also describes large distance physics characterizing cosmology. Pi worked on various geometrical effects in the standard theory of cosmology, viz general relativity.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-A-BRA-03: Creative Stimulation: A Flexible Hands-On Approach to Building a Deeper Understanding of Critical Concepts in Radiation Physics

Vic Montemayor - No one has been more passionate about improving the quality and effectiveness of the teaching of Medical Physics than Bill Hendee. It was in August of 2008 that the first AAPM Workshop on Becoming a Better Teacher of Medical Physics was held, organized and run by Bill Hendee. This was followed up in July of 2010 with a summer school on the same topic, again organized by Bill. There has been continued interest in alternate approaches to teaching medical physics since those initial gatherings. The momentum established by these workshops is made clear each year in the annual Innovation in Medical Physics Education session, which highlights work being done in all forms of medical physics education, from one-on-one residencies or classroom presentations to large-scale program revisions and on-line resources for international audiences. This symposium, presented on behalf of the Education Council, highlights the work of three finalists from past Innovation in Education sessions. Each will be presenting their approaches to and innovations in teaching medical physics. It is hoped that audience members interested in trying something new in their teaching of medical physics will find some of these ideas and approaches readily applicable to their own classrooms. Rebecca Howell - The presentation will discuss ways to maximize classroom learning, i.e., increasing the amount of material covered while also enhancing students’ understanding of the broader implications of the course topics. Specifically, the presentation will focus on two teaching methodologies, project based learning and flip learning. These teaching methods will be illustrated using an example of graduate medical physics course where both are used in conjunction with traditional lectures. Additionally, the presentation will focus on our experience implementing these methods including challenges that were overcome. Jay Burmeister - My presentation will discuss the incorporation of active learning techniques into a traditional medical physics classroom course. I will describe these techniques and how they were implemented as well as student performance before and after implementation. Student feedback indicated that these course changes improved their ability to actively assimilate the course content, thus improving their understanding of the material. Shahid Naqvi - My talk will focus on ways to help students visualize crucial concepts that lie at the core of radiation physics. Although particle tracks generated by Monte Carlo simulations have served as an indispensable visualization tool, students often struggle to resolve the underlying physics from a simultaneous jumble of tracks. We can clarify the physics by “coding” the tracks, e.g., by coloring the tracks according to their “starting” or “crossing” regions. The regionally-coded tracks when overlaid with dose distributions help the students see the elusive connection between dose, kerma and electronic disequilibrium. Tracks coded according to local energy or energy-loss rate can illustrate the need for stopping power corrections in electron beams and explain the Bragg peak in a proton beam. Coding tracks according to parent interaction type and order can clarify the often misunderstood distinction between primary and scatter dose. The students can thus see the “whole” simultaneously with the “sum of the parts,” which enhances their physical insight and creates a sustainable foundation for further learning. After the presentations the speakers and moderator will be open to questions and discussion with the audience members. Learning Objectives: Be able to explain Project-Based Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain Flipped Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain active-learning strategies for the teaching of Medical Physics. Be able to explain how Monte Carlo simulations can be used to deepen a student’s understanding of radiation physics and dosimetry.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-A-BRA-04: Incorporating Active Learning Into Medical Physics Education

Vic Montemayor - No one has been more passionate about improving the quality and effectiveness of the teaching of Medical Physics than Bill Hendee. It was in August of 2008 that the first AAPM Workshop on Becoming a Better Teacher of Medical Physics was held, organized and run by Bill Hendee. This was followed up in July of 2010 with a summer school on the same topic, again organized by Bill. There has been continued interest in alternate approaches to teaching medical physics since those initial gatherings. The momentum established by these workshops is made clear each year in the annual Innovation in Medical Physics Education session, which highlights work being done in all forms of medical physics education, from one-on-one residencies or classroom presentations to large-scale program revisions and on-line resources for international audiences. This symposium, presented on behalf of the Education Council, highlights the work of three finalists from past Innovation in Education sessions. Each will be presenting their approaches to and innovations in teaching medical physics. It is hoped that audience members interested in trying something new in their teaching of medical physics will find some of these ideas and approaches readily applicable to their own classrooms. Rebecca Howell - The presentation will discuss ways to maximize classroom learning, i.e., increasing the amount of material covered while also enhancing students’ understanding of the broader implications of the course topics. Specifically, the presentation will focus on two teaching methodologies, project based learning and flip learning. These teaching methods will be illustrated using an example of graduate medical physics course where both are used in conjunction with traditional lectures. Additionally, the presentation will focus on our experience implementing these methods including challenges that were overcome. Jay Burmeister - My presentation will discuss the incorporation of active learning techniques into a traditional medical physics classroom course. I will describe these techniques and how they were implemented as well as student performance before and after implementation. Student feedback indicated that these course changes improved their ability to actively assimilate the course content, thus improving their understanding of the material. Shahid Naqvi - My talk will focus on ways to help students visualize crucial concepts that lie at the core of radiation physics. Although particle tracks generated by Monte Carlo simulations have served as an indispensable visualization tool, students often struggle to resolve the underlying physics from a simultaneous jumble of tracks. We can clarify the physics by “coding” the tracks, e.g., by coloring the tracks according to their “starting” or “crossing” regions. The regionally-coded tracks when overlaid with dose distributions help the students see the elusive connection between dose, kerma and electronic disequilibrium. Tracks coded according to local energy or energy-loss rate can illustrate the need for stopping power corrections in electron beams and explain the Bragg peak in a proton beam. Coding tracks according to parent interaction type and order can clarify the often misunderstood distinction between primary and scatter dose. The students can thus see the “whole” simultaneously with the “sum of the parts,” which enhances their physical insight and creates a sustainable foundation for further learning. After the presentations the speakers and moderator will be open to questions and discussion with the audience members. Learning Objectives: Be able to explain Project-Based Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain Flipped Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain active-learning strategies for the teaching of Medical Physics. Be able to explain how Monte Carlo simulations can be used to deepen a student’s understanding of radiation physics and dosimetry.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-A-BRA-00: Education Council Symposium: Revitalizing Your Medical Physics Classroom: Some Examples and Thoughts from the Trenches

Vic Montemayor - No one has been more passionate about improving the quality and effectiveness of the teaching of Medical Physics than Bill Hendee. It was in August of 2008 that the first AAPM Workshop on Becoming a Better Teacher of Medical Physics was held, organized and run by Bill Hendee. This was followed up in July of 2010 with a summer school on the same topic, again organized by Bill. There has been continued interest in alternate approaches to teaching medical physics since those initial gatherings. The momentum established by these workshops is made clear each year in the annual Innovation in Medical Physics Education session, which highlights work being done in all forms of medical physics education, from one-on-one residencies or classroom presentations to large-scale program revisions and on-line resources for international audiences. This symposium, presented on behalf of the Education Council, highlights the work of three finalists from past Innovation in Education sessions. Each will be presenting their approaches to and innovations in teaching medical physics. It is hoped that audience members interested in trying something new in their teaching of medical physics will find some of these ideas and approaches readily applicable to their own classrooms. Rebecca Howell - The presentation will discuss ways to maximize classroom learning, i.e., increasing the amount of material covered while also enhancing students’ understanding of the broader implications of the course topics. Specifically, the presentation will focus on two teaching methodologies, project based learning and flip learning. These teaching methods will be illustrated using an example of graduate medical physics course where both are used in conjunction with traditional lectures. Additionally, the presentation will focus on our experience implementing these methods including challenges that were overcome. Jay Burmeister - My presentation will discuss the incorporation of active learning techniques into a traditional medical physics classroom course. I will describe these techniques and how they were implemented as well as student performance before and after implementation. Student feedback indicated that these course changes improved their ability to actively assimilate the course content, thus improving their understanding of the material. Shahid Naqvi - My talk will focus on ways to help students visualize crucial concepts that lie at the core of radiation physics. Although particle tracks generated by Monte Carlo simulations have served as an indispensable visualization tool, students often struggle to resolve the underlying physics from a simultaneous jumble of tracks. We can clarify the physics by “coding” the tracks, e.g., by coloring the tracks according to their “starting” or “crossing” regions. The regionally-coded tracks when overlaid with dose distributions help the students see the elusive connection between dose, kerma and electronic disequilibrium. Tracks coded according to local energy or energy-loss rate can illustrate the need for stopping power corrections in electron beams and explain the Bragg peak in a proton beam. Coding tracks according to parent interaction type and order can clarify the often misunderstood distinction between primary and scatter dose. The students can thus see the “whole” simultaneously with the “sum of the parts,” which enhances their physical insight and creates a sustainable foundation for further learning. After the presentations the speakers and moderator will be open to questions and discussion with the audience members. Learning Objectives: Be able to explain Project-Based Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain Flipped Learning and how can it be incorporated into a Medical Physics classroom. Be able to explain active-learning strategies for the teaching of Medical Physics. Be able to explain how Monte Carlo simulations can be used to deepen a student’s understanding of radiation physics and dosimetry.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

The effectiveness of pretreatment physics plan review for detecting errors in radiation therapy

Purpose: The pretreatment physics plan review is a standard tool for ensuring treatment quality. Studies have shown that the majority of errors in radiation oncology originate in treatment planning, which underscores the importance of the pretreatment physics plan review. This quality assurance measure is fundamentally important and central to the safety of patients and the quality of care that they receive. However, little is known about its effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to analyze reported incidents to quantify the effectiveness of the pretreatment physics plan review with the goal of improving it. Methods: This study analyzed 522 potentially severe or critical near-miss events within an institutional incident learning system collected over a three-year period. Of these 522 events, 356 originated at a workflow point that was prior to the pretreatment physics plan review. The remaining 166 events originated after the pretreatment physics plan review and were not considered in the study. The applicable 356 events were classified into one of the three categories: (1) events detected by the pretreatment physics plan review, (2) events not detected but “potentially detectable” by the physics review, and (3) events “not detectable” by the physics review. Potentially detectable events were further classified by which specific checks performed during the pretreatment physics plan review detected or could have detected the event. For these events, the associated specific check was also evaluated as to the possibility of automating that check given current data structures. For comparison, a similar analysis was carried out on 81 events from the international SAFRON radiation oncology incident learning system. Results: Of the 356 applicable events from the institutional database, 180/356 (51%) were detected or could have been detected by the pretreatment physics plan review. Of these events, 125 actually passed through the physics review; however, only 38% (47/125) were actually detected at the review. Of the 81 events from the SAFRON database, 66/81 (81%) were potentially detectable by the pretreatment physics plan review. From the institutional database, three specific physics checks were particularly effective at detecting events (combined effectiveness of 38%): verifying the isocenter (39/180), verifying DRRs (17/180), and verifying that the plan matched the prescription (12/180). The most effective checks from the SAFRON database were verifying that the plan matched the prescription (13/66) and verifying the field parameters in the record and verify system against those in the plan (23/66). Software-based plan checking systems, if available, would have potential effectiveness of 29% and 64% at detecting events from the institutional and SAFRON databases, respectively. Conclusions: Pretreatment physics plan review is a key safety measure and can detect a high percentage of errors. However, the majority of errors that potentially could have been detected were not detected in this study, indicating the need to improve the pretreatment physics plan review performance. Suggestions for improvement include the automation of specific physics checks performed during the pretreatment physics plan review and the standardization of the review process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2014

Center for Theoretical Underground Physics and Related Areas - CETUP*2013 Summer Program

In response to an increasing interest in experiments conducted at deep underground facilities around the world, in 2010 the theory community has proposed a new initiative - a Center for Theoretical Underground Physics and Related Areas (CETUP*). The main goal of CETUP* is to bring together people with different talents and skills to address the most exciting questions in particle and nuclear physics, astrophysics, geosciences, and geomicrobiology. Scientists invited to participate in the program do not only provide theoretical support to the underground science, they also examine underlying universal questions of the 21 st century including: What is dark matter?, What are the masses of neutrinos?, How have neutrinos shaped the evolution of the universe?, How were the elements from iron to uranium made?, What is the origin and thermal history of the Earth? The mission of the CETUP* is to promote an organized research in physics, astrophysics, geoscience, geomicrobiology and other fields related to the underground science via individual and collaborative research in dynamic atmosphere of intense scientific interactions. Our main goal is to bring together scientists scattered around the world, promote the deep underground science and provide a stimulating environment for creative thinking and open communication between researches of varying ages and nationalities. CETUP*2014 included 5 week long program (June 24 – July 26, 2013) covering various theoretical and experimental aspects of Dark Matter, Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics. Two week long session focused on Dark Matter (June 24-July 6) was followed by two week long program on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics (July 15-26). The VII th International Conference on Interconnections between Particle Physics and Cosmology (PPC) was sandwiched between these sessions (July 8-13) covering the subjects of dark matter, neutrino physics, gravitational waves, collider physics and other from both theoretical end experimental aspects. PPC was initiated at Texas A&M University in 2007 and travelled to many places which include Geneva, Turin, Seoul (S. Korea) etc. during the last 5 years before coming back to USA. The objectives of CETUP* and PPC were to analyze the connection between dark matter and particle physics models, discuss the connections among dark matter, grand unification models and recent neutrino results and predictions for possible experiments, develop a theoretical understanding of the three-neutrino oscillation parameters, provide a stimulating venue for exchange of scientific ideas among experts in neutrino physics and unification, connect with venues for public education outreach to communicate the importance of dark matter, neutrino research, and support of investment in science education, support mission of the Snowmass meeting and allow for extensive discussions of the ideas crucial for the future of high energy physics. The selected subjects represented the forefront of research topics in particle and nuclear physics, for example: recent precise measurements of all the neutrino mixing angles (that necessitate a theoretical roadmap for future experiments) or understanding of the nature of dark matter (that allows us to comprehend the composition of the cosmos better). All the covered topics are considered as a base for new physics beyond the Standard Model of particle physics.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Leveraging graph clustering techniques for cyber‐physical system analysis to enhance disturbance characterisation

Abstract Cyber‐physical systems have behaviour that crosses domain boundaries during events such as planned operational changes and malicious disturbances. Traditionally, the cyber and physical systems are monitored separately and use very different toolsets and analysis paradigms. The security and privacy of these cyber‐physical systems requires improved understanding of the combined cyber‐physical system behaviour and methods for holistic analysis. Therefore, the authors propose leveraging clustering techniques on cyber‐physical data from smart grid systems to analyse differences and similarities in behaviour during cyber‐, physical‐, and cyber‐physical disturbances. Since clustering methods are commonly used in data science to examine statistical similarities in order to sort large datasets, these algorithms can assist in identifying useful relationships in cyber‐physical systems. Through this analysis, deeper insights can be shared with decision‐makers on what cyber and physical components are strongly or weakly linked, what cyber‐physical pathways are most traversed, and the criticality of certain cyber‐physical nodes or edges. This paper presents several types of clustering methods for cyber‐physical graphs of smart grid systems and their application in assessing different types of disturbances for informing cyber‐physical situational awareness. The collection of these clustering techniques provide a foundational basis for cyber‐physical graph interdependency analysis.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2014

SU-E-E-05: Initial Experience On Physics Rotation of Radiological Residents

Purpose: The new ABR core exam integrates physics into clinical teaching, with an emphasis on understanding image quality, image artifacts, radiation dose and patient safety for each modality and/or sub-specialty. Accordingly, physics training of radiological residents faces a challenge. A traditional teaching of physics through didactic lectures may not fully fulfill this goal. It is also difficult to incorporate physics teaching in clinical practice due to time constraints. A dedicated physics rotation may be a solution. This study is to evaluate a full week physics workshop developed for the first year radiological residents. Methods: The physics rotation took a full week. It included three major parts, introduction lectures, hand-on experiences and observation of technologist operation. An introduction of basic concepts was given to each modality at the beginning. Hand-on experiments were emphasized and took most of time. During hand-on experiments, residents performed radiation measurements, studied the relationship between patient dose and practice (i.e., fluoroscopy), investigated influence of acquisition parameters (i.g., kV, mAs) on image quality, and evaluated image quality using phantoms A physics test before and after the workshop was also given but not for comparison purpose. Results: The evaluation shows that the physics rotation during the first week of residency in radiology is preferred by all residents. The length of a full week of physics workshop is appropriate. All residents think that the intensive workshop can significantly benefit their coming clinical rotations. Residents become more comfortable regarding the use of radiation and counseling relevant questions such as a pregnant patient risk from a CE PE examination. Conclusion: A dedicated physics rotation, assisting with didactic lectures, may fulfill the requirements of physics of the new ABR core exam. It helps radiologists deeply understand the physics concepts and more efficiently use the medical physics in practice.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗