The EPP2010 is released at 11:30 today. Here are my notes and thoughts.
“EPP2010 Homepage”:http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bpa/EPP2010.html
*11:30* Prompt beginning. Appearing: Harold Shapiro (chair), Sally Dawson (vice-chair), John Bagger, Takaaki Kajita.
*11:31*: Opening remarks by Shapiro. This report lays otu the future of U.S. particle physics. The committee is 1/3 particle physicists, 1/3 related disciplines, and 1/3 outside of physics, including non-scientists (Shapiro included). Shapiro explained the “journey” of the committee in reaching their conclusions. He wants this to be a press conference, not a lecture (too bad!).
Is this a field running out of steam, or building toward a big future? Important to all committee members to understand this. Conclusion: *this is the most exiciting moment in particle physics in a generation*. Dark energy, dark matter, the terascale, and particle physics – all very important. *Public policy – science policy – ought to continue to care about it.*
What is the state of the U.S. program? Its it vital and moving ahead, or are there “other terms that describe it”. They were “sobered”. Currently experiments coming to the end of their lives, and the country had no compelling follow-on program. Shapiro then “talked in exaggerations”. It was as if we are “executing an exit strategy” or “folding our cards” (to an outside observer. No shortage of ideas, but no compelling initiatives. Great scientific opportunities, with no program to support them.
Is the science important enough for public policy? Should we sustain leadership in th U.S., or not? Committee wanted to maintain leadership in an area that we helped invent.
What is the strategy? Two components: should it be accelerator-based (big, expensive, but necessary), or let others do it? The answer was that they are important, but that the U.S. has no program to sustain that need. Shapiro pointed to the “brain-drain” to Europe with the LHC. Don’t reverse it, but try to affect the balance. We need to get to the Terascale. So, the strategy has priorities.
What are the priorities? *Continue to support American scientists and students at the LHC*. Very important to participate fully. What else? We need a next-generation experiment. *Can the U.S. host a next generation experiment?* Tough question, with no real consensus. It depends what the LHC finds. But the committee felt that five years from now, we need to feel that the U.S. is the premiere place to develop research in and after the LHC. *We should make a compelling bid to host it, if in 5 years we seem to be on the right path.* It’s risky, but there is not riskless path. The most risky thing to do is NOTHING. We must do something.
Shapiro felt the committee had identified the project that outlines the best future of this important field. It’s necessary to have the accelerator component to interpret the cosmological measurements. The committee also has recommendations on cosmology. These will come later. We need to work together to internationally optimize the particle physics investments nation by nation, so that a particle physicist anywhere can work somewhere on what excites them.
Summary: LHC is top priority, followed by the ILC (the right path, Shapiro says). Failure to act in the short run will be like folding our cards. Doing nothing is a sure way to cut the size of the field in half, which is a detriment to this country (a “tragedy”, Shapiro called it) to not be among the leaders.
*11:45*: Questions are then taken. Copies of the report can be found on the web.
*11:46*: Univ. of Georgia Emeritus asked question about history. IN 1992, Dr. Bromley promoted the idea of international megaprojects. Around that time, we had the “issue with the SSC”. This ILC sounds exicting – a way to pick up what we lost in the 90s. The SSC didn’t have enough support internationally, and there appeared to be conflicts amongst physicists. Can the committee address this?
Shapiro says there is a comparison of the SSC and ILC experiences. The current ILC project has already learned heavily from the SSC experience, though it was both difficult and traumatic. The driving the ILC forward in the U.S. never really recovered from the SSC.
*11:49*: Question: Art Chimes from Voice of America. This is expensive. We are in fiscal straits, they tell us. How you convince the public of the worth (Congress and the taxpayers)?
Response: there is a silver lining to having major programs ending soon. This frees up money to make the compelling bid for the ILC. They are modest investments to make that bid. How do you ever talk someone into doing basic research in these budget times? Shapiro said that in conversations with people on the Hill, the economic and cultural vitality is not won in a day, it’s won in a generation. Basic research is ESSENTIAL to growing the whole scientific enterprise. Without these basic investments now, there cannot ever be a payoff for our “nation life” in the next generation. The committee would take enormous pride in recommending this investment for the future.
**11:52**: Ken Olson, Linear Collider Forum for America. We want to form an EARLY joint venture between U.S. industry and the ILC. This was something that wasn’t done for the SSC, and hurt it. This forum will be at SLAC in a week. Having these partnerships is important for maintaining the cost schedule.
Shapiro and Dawson: just adding up the magnets points to this being a fully industrial enterprise (17000 magnets!). The best industrial work for such things is not currently in the U.S., and that needs work. The ILC itself has been a model for international cooperation, very different from the SSC. It is a challenge to move to the head of the pack, but we need the will and desire.
**11:55**: George Hockburger (former Congressman, and engineer). He works with the ILC Forum for Amerca. They have already done heavy lobbying to get additional funds. Future allocations need to be rotected. His colleagues in the House and Senate do recognize the importance of investing in the future. There will be support from the Congress. It’s important for our future. We have to work together on this to realize it.
Shapiro thanked him for his long service to the country. Shapiro also wanted to point out what the other sciences will do in the meantime. We have to hang together on a compelling initiative, or it won’t happen. The committee will speak to all sciences. It’s not so big as to destroy all other programs, but it can be destroyed without wide support.
**11:56**: Bertram Schwarzsield – Physics Today: Is it helpful to have a committee with a non-physicist as its chair?
Shapiro: it was a challenge for the particle physicists to convince the rest of the committee that it was important for the future of science. Everyone came out of these discussions with a much sharper notion of why it was important, and how to talk to others about it.
Bagger: as a particle physicist, we saw a cross-roads. Would we cede our field to the world, or seize the future? This was not a decision that could be made by just particle physicists. We needed outside perspectives.
Dawson: it was a tremendous intellectual challenges for the PP to communicate with the non-PP. It was not a trivial job! Arguments were honed.
**12:00**: no more questions. Briefing concluded.
