YPP) Panel Physicists Young the Umte Otedenfsbae Nln Ag Planning Range Long on Subpanel DOE/NSF the to Submitted O ..Hg Nryphysics Energy High U.S

Home , Better than Us

arXiv:hep-ex/0108040v3 27 Aug 2001 eut fteSre nteFtr fHEP of Future the on Survey the of Results h on hscssPnl(YPP) Panel Physicists Young The umte oteDENFSbae nLn ag Planning Range Long on Subpanel DOE/NSF the to submitted http://ypp.hep.net o ..Hg nryPhysics Energy High U.S. for uut2,2001 23, August presents ABSTRACT

The Young Physicists Panel (YPP) summarizes results from their Survey on the Future of High Energy Physics, which was conducted from July 2 to July 15, 2001. Over 1500 physicists from around the world, both young and tenured, responded to the survey. We first describe the origin, design, and advertisement of the survey, and then present the demographics of the respondents. Following sections analyze the collected opinions on the desire for balance in the field, the impact of globalization, the necessity of outreach, how to build the field, the physics that drives the field, and the selection of the next big machine. Respondents’ comments follow the survey analysis in an appendix.

2 Contents

1 Introduction 6

2 Methodology 7

3 Demographics 9

4 Balance vs. Focus 13

5 The Impact of Globalization 16

6 Outreach 19

7 Building the Field 20

8 Physics 22

9 Finding Consensus and Picking a Plan 25

10 Conclusions 32

11 Acknowledgments 33

12 Survey 33

Bibliography 42

3 List of Figures

1 Current career stage of survey respondents...... 9 2 Continent where survey respondents grew up...... 10 3 On which continent do you currently work (greatest part of the year)?. . . . 11 4 What type of physics have you been working on this year? ...... 11 5 Where do you do your research (greatest part of year)? ...... 12 6 How large is your current collaboration (in number of people)? ...... 12 7 Placewhererespondentscurrentlywork...... 12 8 Should the “next machine” host diverse experiments and collaborations? . . 14 9 Isitimportanttohaveatleasttwodetectors? ...... 14 10 Is it important to balance the numbers of theorists and experimentalists? . . 15 11 Is it important that the HEP labs host astrophysics efforts? ...... 15 12 How frequently do you currently see or work on your detector? ...... 16 13 How do you rate being near your detector versus being near your supervisor? 16 14 How important do you feel it is to have hands-on hardware experience? . . . 17 15 Should we have “regional centers” in the U.S.? ...... 17 16 What should be the role of the U.S. national labs in the next 10-25 years? . 18 17 How frequently should these regional centers be distributed? ...... 18 18 Are we currently doing enough outreach to funding agencies? ...... 19 19 Are we currently doing enough outreach to the general public? ...... 19 20 What is it that most attractedyoutoHEP?...... 20 21 What is the main reason you have stayed in the field so far? ...... 20 22 Are we retaining adequate numbers of talented physicists in HEP? ...... 21 23 What most influences young people to leave the field? ...... 21 24 What physics would you personally find the most compelling in the future . 22 25 What do you think is the most important physics for the field in the future . 22 26 Does this science you selected require a major new facility? ...... 23 27 Do you think it is important that the next new facility be in the U.S.? . . . 24 28 Do you think it is important that the next new facility be in the U.S.? . . . 24 29 What most affected your current opinion on the future options? ...... 25 30 HowmuchdoyouknowaboutTESLA? ...... 26 31 How much do you know about LC non-TESLA versions (i.e. NLC, CLIC)? . 26 32 HowmuchdoyouknowabouttheVLHC? ...... 26 33 How much do you know about the Neutrino Factory? ...... 27 34 How much do you know about the Muon Collider? ...... 27 35 Doyouthinkyouknowenoughtodecide? ...... 28 36 Snowmass: Do you think you know enough to decide? ...... 28 37 Which of the following machine options would you select? ...... 30 38 Which would you select, after summing TESLA options...... 30 39 Which would you select, separated by where the respondent works...... 30 40 Selections of people claiming to know enough to make a decision...... 31 41 Selections of people who were unsure or claimed they do not know enough . 31

4 AUTHOR LIST

[email protected]

B. T. Fleming1, J. Krane2, G. P. Zeller3, F. Canelli4, B. Connolly5, R. Erbacher6, G. T. Fleming7, D. A. Harris6, E. Hawker8, M. Hildreth9, B. Kilminster4, S. Lammers10, D. Medoﬀ11, J. Monroe1, D. Toback12, M. Sorel1, A. Turcot13, M. Velasco3, M. O. Wascko14, G. Watts15, and E. D. Zimmerman16.

1Columbia University 2Iowa State University 3Northwestern University 4University of Rochester 5Florida State University 6Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 7The Ohio State University 8University of Cincinnati 9University of Notre Dame 10University of Wisconsin 11University of Maryland 12Texas A&M University 13Brookhaven National Laboratory 14Louisiana State University 15University of Washington 16University of Colorado at Boulder

5 1 Introduction

The Young Physicists’ Panel (YPP) was founded in May of 2000 by Bonnie Fleming, John Krane, and Sam Zeller to provide young particle physicists with a forum in which to discuss the future of our ﬁeld. Our ﬁrst goal was to directly involve young physicists in the planning of the future of HEP, and to act as their conduit to the DOE/NSF HEPAP Subpanel on Long Range Planning for U.S. High Energy Physics [1]. Originally, the YPP intended to present the subpanel with a simple and brief document that summarized our views. We found that the members of our group, and we think physicists in general, did not have a single opinion to convey. Our vision grew from the need to poll our own members for their opinions, and culminated in the creation of a Survey on the Future of HEP, a tool to quantify the opinions of all HEP physicists around the globe.

To be most useful to the HEPAP subpanel, we created a survey with several questions that were specific to the United States. In keeping with our mission, we also asked questions of particular relevance to young high energy physicists. Rather than limit the survey to a particular subsample of physicists, we opened it to all physicists to see if opinions differed by career stage, by laboratory, by nationality, or any other metric. We believe the final product provides a uniquely useful “snapshot” of the field.

What is a “young” physicist? We have defined a young physicist as any researcher who has neither tenure nor any other permanent position in the field. This classification includes undergraduates, graduate students, postdocs, untenured faculty, and term staff; thus, “young” refers to one’s sense of career security more than to one’s age.

6 2 Methodology

The survey questions were designed to extract maximum information with the minimum possible bias in as short a time as possible. Although essay questions might seem ideal, many people are daunted by the idea of spending hours on a well-constructed response. We believed that multiple choice questions would achieve a much higher yield of responses, and spark brief but useful essay responses as well.

The YPP survey questions suffered many months of invention, selection, modification, and rejection. Essential contributions were made by Dr. Deborah Medoff, a statistician from the University of Maryland’s School of Medicine, who specializes in the creation and review of surveys for psychiatric studies. She advised us to carefully identify our event sample and refine our question content, in particular helping us to remove bias from leading questions in the survey. Eventually the survey was released to external reviewers including several senior scientists and members of the HEPAP subpanel.

The survey opened on July 2, 2001 to coincide with the Snowmass workshop – as large a concentration of high energy physicists as one could hope for – and ran for two weeks. We oﬀered both a web-based version and an identical paper version. Advertisement at Snowmass consisted of ﬂyers posted in the common areas, mention in the pamphlets for young physicists (available outside the main conference room), and note cards distributed by hand and placed in front of the common PCs in the computing center. A single mass e-mail was sent to a list of young Snowmass participants compiled by the Young Physicists Forum steering committee [2]. Advertisement outside Snowmass was entirely electronic and targeted individual labs and the home institutions of YPP members. Notices were also placed in DØ news, CDF news, and mailed to collaboration lists at SLAC, BNL, DESY, KEK, and several university HEP groups.

More than 99% of the surveys were received via the web. The approximately 10 paper copies collected at Snowmass were entered into the web interface by hand. At two points during the course of the survey we refined our advertising focus after examining demographic data: the fraction of young respondents and the individual lab response rates. None of the other survey data were reviewed until three days before the close of the survey. This practice minimized the chances of accidentally biasing the survey’s sample pool and still allowed time to prepare plots and talks for presentation at the Snowmass Young Physicists’ Forum on July 17th, 2001 [3]. There were no additional advertisements after the full review. The results did not change to any significant degree in the final three days of the survey.

Responses were screened for possible duplicate submissions with a simple script that located identical responses received within minutes of each other from the same IP address. The script ﬂagged several occurrences, in which case only a single copy of the response was retained. With the exception of this ﬁlter, we relied on our colleagues to answer the survey only once.

A combination of tcsh and awk scripts converted the web responses into raw data ﬁles. The raw data are available from http://ypp.hep.net in three formats: a .csv ﬁle for use with Excel, ntuples for Paw, and a Root-tuple for the Root analysis system. All histograms in

7 this document were generated with a standard macro ﬁle and the Paw program. This macro and its Root analogue are available with the aforementioned data. Our goal is to make these results as accessible as possible, so please contact us [4] if you have special needs.

Most of the histograms in this document are normalized to yield the fraction of physicists who selected a given response. When two lines appear in the same histogram, the solid line indicates responses from young physicists, the dotted line indicates responses from tenured physicists. Often, the samples are subdivided based on geography (see next section), yielding multiple-panel histograms. Several histograms are not normalized, in which case the scale at the left is absolute. In one instance, the sample size is dramatically reduced so we include the statistical error bars.

The ﬁgure captions contain the survey questions, either accurately reproduced or faithfully paraphrased. The response options, listed on the x-axis of the histograms, are accurately reproduced where space allows and paraphrased elsewhere. Please refer to the original survey (included as section 12 of this document) for the exact form of any questions or response options.

All comments from the survey are included in the long form of this document. They were edited for spelling and to remove names in some cases, but are otherwise intact. The comments, reordered into sections by topic, should provide a good complement to the numerical data provided by the survey.

8 3 Demographics

This section summarizes the personal information of the respondents to the YPP survey. It was not the intention of YPP to gather a representative sample of HEP physicists; rather, we wanted to gather suﬃcient statistics from each existing demographic. The interested analyst can re-weight the samples if desired.

A total of 1508 survey responses were received before the deadline. Another 30 responses came in after deadline, and were excluded from the sample. More than half of the respondents (857) met the YPP deﬁnition of a young physicist. Figure 1 shows the total number of responses from each of the career stage groups. More than 650 responses came from tenured physicists, compared to roughly 350 from graduate students.

Figure 1: Current career stage of survey respondents.

Because survey responses seemed to correlate more strongly with geography than with career stage, we subdivided the samples based on the respondents’ continent of origin. Respon- dents stating that they had “grown up” in North America were classified as Americans, while all others were classified as non-Americans (Figure 2). To illustrate these differences, the data sample is often divided into 4 subsets: young Americans, young non-Americans, tenured Americans, and tenured non-Americans. Separating the samples based on where one currently works yields similar results, except in questions that relate most specifically to the future of HEP in the United States. In these instances, separate histograms show the responses subdivided in both ways, first by continent of origin, and then by continent on which one works. The largest single subclass, young non-Americans, is approximately 50% larger than the three other subclasses (Table 1).

Young Tenured Total Americans 334 328 662 Non-Americans 523 323 846 Total 857 651 1508

Table 1: Number of survey respondents by career stage and continent of origin.

9 Figure 2: Continent where survey respondents grew up. Of the 662 respondents who grew up in North America, almost all of them still work in North America (Figure 3). In contrast, roughly half of the 676 European and 125 Asian respondents (including Russia and the Indian subcontinent) have traveled to North America to work (Figure 3).

Most responses came from experimentalists working in collider physics (Figure 4) at FNAL (404 responses), SLAC (168), DESY (192), CERN (102), or a university group (405), as depicted by Figure 5. Responses in the “Other” category in Figure 5 include 26 people from Cornell/LNS, 5 from LANL, 4 from JLAB, 3 from Kamland and the rest from a wide variety of institutes and research centers around the world. Most responses indicated work on large collaborations of more than 200 participants (Figure 6). In the survey analysis, the opinions of all respondents generally follow those speciﬁc to this major constituency of collider experimentalists on large collaborations.

Of the 1508 respondents, only 24% (356)1 reported that they attended the Snowmass 2001 workshop, for which 1162 scientists were registered. As a result, this survey is predominantly representative of those who were not in attendance at Snowmass, and hence reﬂects a slightly wider global distribution of physicists (Figure 7).

1In the presentation at Snowmass, the fractions of responses from inside and outside Snowmass were inadvertently reversed.

10 Figure 3: On which continent do you currently Figure 4: What type of physics have you been work (greatest part of the year)? working on this year?

11 Figure 5: Where do you do your research Figure 6: How large is your current collabora- (greatest part of year)? tion (in number of people)?

Figure 7: Place where respondents currently work separated by those who attended Snow- mass (top) versus those who did not (bottom).

12 4 Balance vs. Focus

A balanced physics program at a laboratory can be achieved through several mechanisms; the YPP survey explores four of them. First, an accelerator complex could host a range of accelerator experiments, including fixed-target experiments, specialized collider experiments, and large multi-purpose collider detectors. Second, two or more redundant detectors at one facility can be built to allow several measurements of the same quantities. Third, more attempts could be made to balance the number of experimentalists, theorists, and phenomenologists in the field. Finally, facilities and resources can be shared with astrophysics experiments. This section of the survey attempts to determine what HEP physicists are willing to sacrifice if diversity cannot be maintained in the face of major new construction and a finite budget.

As indicated in Figure 8, a majority of all scientists believe diversity is very important in terms of the diﬀerent types of physics results they expect from the next facility. A ﬁxed- target program has been a natural way to achieve this diversity at a pp machine. A linear collider might achieve this by having a low-energy interaction point and/or an x-ray facility, and a muon collider by having a neutrino factory.

In terms of redundancy, very few physicists seem willing to rely on a single large detector for any given analysis (Figure 9). Despite the presumed high cost of a second multi-purpose detector, it seems we believe the ability to verify experimental measurements is worth the additional expense.

Some believe that few permanent positions exist for phenomenologists relative to experimentalists. Comments from the survey and town meeting [3] suggest a perception that undue resources are going to particular branches of theory (e.g. string theory) at the cost of other theoretical research. One could imagine trying to “correct” each perceived imbalance, or to continue the current free-market policy. Figure 10 shows that most Americans, both young and tenured, believe it is somewhat important to promote a particular mix; non-Americans appear to favor incentives more strongly.

HEP laboratories host several astrophysics eﬀorts, including the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, GLAST, and the Pierre Auger project. Scientists feel it is somewhat important for this to continue, as shown in Figure 11.

One might have expected a willingness to sacriﬁce redundant detectors and small experiments in the quest for ever higher energies. In this section, high energy physicists have clearly stated the importance of a full physics program at the site of the next major facility, not just the bare minimum required to operate the lab with a single detector at the frontier energy.

13 Figure 8: Is it important that the “next Figure 9: If the “next machine” is a collider machine” host a diverse (multi-physics) range − − (e+e ,pp,µ+µ ), is it important to have at of experiments and collaborations? Recall least two large, multipurpose detectors versus that the solid lines indicate young physicists, a single detector? and dashed lines indicates tenured physicists.

14 Figure 10: Is it important to promote a bal- Figure 11: Is it important that the HEP labs ance between the numbers of theorists, phe- host astrophysics eﬀorts? nomenologists, and experimentalists?

15 5 The Impact of Globalization

This section of the survey asked questions that become most relevant if an experiment and accelerator are located far from the home institution. For many respondents, the questions asked here might not draw from direct experience. To minimize responses drawn from con- jecture, several of the questions focus on the respondents’ current situation.

The first question asked how frequently the respondent saw or worked on their detector (Figure 12). Is it, in fact, important to see your detector? The frequency people reported in this first question seems quite high and might have been more informative had we asked, “How often do you see or work on your detector for more than two hours at a time?” In the complementary question on the importance of being near the detector versus near their supervisor, most selected the detector as having the primary importance (Figure 13). We conclude that, given the choice, few physicists would prefer to work exclusively at their home institution if they could instead work at the lab for a significant fraction of their time.

Figure 13: In your current situation, given the Figure 12: How frequently do you currently choice, how do you rate being near your detec- see or work on your detector? tor versus being near your advisor/supervisor? The prevailing opinion is that hands-on hardware experience is very important (Figure 14). In a future survey, it might be interesting to learn how much hardware work is enough to satisfy the need. Likewise, one could ask how much analysis work is suﬃcient to make a well-rounded physicist.

16 The next three questions dealt, directly or indirectly, with the concept of regional centers. These proposed structures consist of a facility with remote control rooms, excellent (perhaps permanent) video conferencing, and data processing ability. The concept of a regional center is very new and complicated; the survey questions were not able to explore the idea as deeply as the town meeting [3] at Snowmass 2001. Although most physicists appear to be interested in the concept of regional centers (Figure 15), they need to see the concept demonstrated before they can evaluate it. The majority of physicists want to see national labs keep their strong roles; so if a single new frontier facility is built, a regional center could be placed at each national lab in the countries that do not host the facility (Figures 17 and 16).

Figure 15: If the next machine is not located in Figure 14: How important do you feel it is to the U.S., will the quality of beams and physics have hands-on hardware experience? results improve if we have “regional centers” in the U.S.?

17 Figure 17: How frequently should these Figure 16: What should be the role of the U.S. regional centers be distributed relative to the national labs in the next 10-25 years? current national labs?

18 6 Outreach

In the survey results, a clear majority believe we are currently not doing enough outreach to either the funding agencies (Figure 18) or the general public (Figure 19). In fact, physicists believe we are doing a slightly worse job with the general public than with Congress. These opinions on outreach hold whether you are a young or tenured physicist, an American or a non-American.

Figure 18: Are we currently doing enough out- Figure 19: Are we currently doing enough outreach to funding agencies? reach to the general public?

In the survey, the options should have read, “more than enough, adequate, not enough, or far too little.” The third option came out as “not nearly enough,” a phrase which is not easily distinguishable from the fourth option. From the observed results, we believe that most respondents interpreted the third option to lie somewhere in between options 2 and 4.

The survey contained a third question in the section, asking if the respondent would be willing to commit more time to outreach than they are currently. Due to a technical error, the second and third response options were accidentally combined, rendering the results less meaningful. Nonetheless, 49% (743) of all respondents said “yes”, they would personally be willing to dedicate more time to outreach; the rest replied “maybe” or “no”.

19 7 Building the Field

For purposes of the survey, “building the ﬁeld” refers to increasing the numbers and quality of physicists in HEP. This can be accomplished by attracting larger numbers of talented graduate students, by retaining larger numbers of talented graduates, or both. In this section, we explore the reasons people come to physics, why they might feel compelled to leave and if we are retaining enough talent to accomplish the goals of the ﬁeld.

In answer to the question of what most attracted them to the ﬁeld, most respondents selected “interest in physics/science/nature” as their reason (Figure 20). This was also the most popular reason people have stayed (Figure 21). The intellectual atmosphere and academic freedom options placed a distant second and third, respectively. Only a few percent were attracted because it was “good experience for any career path” (i.e. fewer than the number that joined because they simply “thought it was cool”), so this seems to be a weak selling point.

Figure 20: What is it that most attracted you Figure 21: What is the main reason you have to HEP? stayed in the ﬁeld so far?

As shown in Figure 22, less than 20% of all respondents are certain that we are retaining adequate numbers of talented physicists. If we do indeed need to build the ﬁeld, then we must address the outward pressures that are causing HEP physicists to leave their posts. As shown in Figure 23, most physicists believe that people leave primarily because of the lack of permanent positions. Because universities employ approximately two-thirds of tenured scientists in the ﬁeld, increased funding for university HEP might place them in a better position to address this shortfall than the labs.

20 Figure 22: Do you think we are currently Figure 23: What feature of the field do you retaining adequate numbers of talented physi- think might most influence young people to cists in HEP? leave the field?

We emphasize that Figure 1 in the Demographics section indicates ample numbers of graduate students answering the survey; if we retain them all there certainly would be no lack of scientists for our work. If it is believed that the ﬁeld will face a talent shortage in the future, then the survey results and many of the comments support one particular solution: create more permanent positions.

21 8 Physics

This section attempts to identify the physics that is driving HEP today. The answer to this question should shape our decisions not only on the next big facility but also on smaller programs, on our theoretical focus, and on our strategies for the next 20 years.

Along with the clear preference for studies of Higgs and electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB), Figure 24 also shows a broad interest in many other areas of physics. Interestingly, younger scientists find exotic searches to be more compelling than do tenured scientists. There are no significant variations in this plot as a function of geography. In comparing Figures 24 and 25, it is clear that despite their varied personal interests, the majority of physicists believe Higgs/EWSB is the most important physics for the field to study in the coming years.

Figure 24: What physics would you person- Figure 25: What do you think is the most ally ﬁnd the most compelling in the next 10-25 important physics for the ﬁeld over the next years? 10-25 years?

Most respondents believe the most important physics does indeed require a major new facility (Figure 26). Tenured scientists appear to believe this more strongly than their younger colleagues. Despite this perceived need, only 5% of all respondents listed accelerator physics as the most important physics for the ﬁeld in the future.

22 Figure 26: Does this science you selected require a major new facility?

Proposals for future frontier facilities exist in a number of countries around the world. Given the high cost to build and operate any of the proposed large-scale machines, only one such facility (of a given kind) is likely to be built. So how does one select a host country? We speciﬁcally asked how important it is that the next new facility be in the U.S. (Figure 27). While young American scientists appear to be more divided, most tenured American scientists think it is important to have a new facility in the U.S. The overwhelming majority of non-Americans believe it is not important that a new facility be in the U.S. These results change slightly if they are subdivided based on where the respondent currently works rather than where they grew up (Figure 28). In light of these responses, the HEP community must take great care to select the location of the next machine in a way that results in global cooperation and shared funding, rather than in duplicate, separate eﬀorts.

23 Figure 28: Do you think it is important Figure 27: Do you think it is important that that the next new facility be in the U.S.? the next new facility be in the U.S.? Responses are now separated based on where the respondent currently works and not where they grew up. Top plot are those currently working in North America, bottom plot are those currently not working in North Amer- ica.

24 9 Finding Consensus and Picking a Plan

This section attempted to determine if the HEP community should commit to a particular course within the next few years or wait for more information. In addition to plainly asking for a favored machine plan, this section tried to gauge the respondents’ knowledge of each of the proposed machines, and to identify the most eﬀective learning media.

Figure 29 shows that a number of factors influenced people’s current opinions. Conversations with colleagues ranked first, followed by current work, and workshop attendance. Young physicists are much less likely than tenured ones to report “sitting and thinking” as their major influence.

Figure 29: What has most aﬀected your current opinion(s) on the options for the future of HEP?

We asked respondents to rate their knowledge of each of the various machine options, including TESLA (Figure 30), NLC and CLIC (Figure 31), the VLHC (Figure 32), the neutrino factory (Figure 33), and the muon collider (Figure 34). Non-American physicists are more knowledgeable about TESLA than their American counterparts, and signiﬁcantly less knowledgeable about the VLHC.

We also asked respondents if they felt they currently knew enough to form a decision. Fig- ure 35 shows tenured physicists are slightly more confident in their ability to decide than young physicists. The physicists who attended Snowmass were far more confident that they had sufficient information to decide (Figure 36).

25 Figure 30: How much do you know about Figure 31: How much do you know about LC TESLA? non-TESLA versions (i.e. NLC, CLIC)?

Figure 32: How much do you know about the VLHC?

26 Figure 33: How much do you know about the Figure 34: How much do you know about the Neutrino Factory? Muon Collider?

27 Figure 36: Respondents at Snowmass: “Do Figure 35: Do you think you know enough to you think you know enough to form a decision form a decision and choose from the various and chose from the various options”. Errors options? are statistical only; here, the total number of responses is 356 for all four histograms combined.

28 Finally, the respondents were asked to choose between several options for a future flagship facility. Using the online materials provided by the proponents of each of the machine efforts, we identified the time-scales of the proposals and determined that only a few options could begin construction within three to five years.2 We reasoned that “committing” to a plan that didn’t begin construction within that time was ostensibly the same as waiting and continuing research along the many branches. The survey asked, “if you had to choose from the following options, which one would you pick:

• A new e+e− collider (TESLA,NLC,CLIC) in the U.S. soon, with continued research in VLHC, and muon storage ring/muon collider technologies.

• TESLA in Germany soon, with the goal of a post-LHC higher energy VLHC in the U.S.

• TESLA in Germany soon, with the goal of an eventual muon storage ring/muon collider in the U.S.

• Reserve judgment for several years, continue research.

• Other (specify in the comments section).”

The first option was intended to denote a linear collider that used unspecified technology 3. The TESLA option was split in an attempt to glean additional information about machines in the U.S., resulting in options 2 and 3. We only listed options that precluded all other options. For instance, a ∼$150M proton driver effort could exist concurrently with a multi- billion dollar flagship machine initiative.

Figure 37 shows the results. To directly compare the location options, the two responses to build TESLA in Germany were summed and the result shown in Figure 38. Note the striking diﬀerence between the viewpoints of Americans and non-Americans. This diﬀerence becomes slightly more pronounced if we subdivide the responses based on where one currently works (Figure 39). In the American responses, tenured scientists favor a linear collider in the U.S., while younger scientists are split on whether to build a linear collider here or TESLA in Germany.

Finally, we present the selections of the people that claimed to know enough to make a decision (Figure 40) and those who were unsure or claimed not to know enough to make a decision (Figure 41). It is interesting that many people who claimed they did not know enough to make a decision still selected an option other than “reserve judgment”.

This section summarized respondents’ opinions of the current machine choices. Most physicists knew a “fair amount” about the current options, and most selected a linear collider somewhere in the world if the alternative was waiting for several more years to decide. Amer- icans tended to prefer a U.S. option and non-Americans strongly favored the German option.

2If one of the listed options requires more than “several” years to begin construction, or if an unlisted option becomes viable in that time-frame, then the results would have to be interpreted diﬀerently. 3In hindsight, we wish we had listed JLC instead of CLIC, which is a longer-term project.

29 Figure 37: Which of the following machine options would you select?

Figure 39: Which would you select, with Figure 38: Which would you select, after sum- responses separated by where the respondent ming TESLA options. currently works instead of where they grew up.

30 Figure 41: Selections of people who were Figure 40: Selections of people claiming to unsure or claimed they do not know enough know enough to make a decision. to make a decision.

31 10 Conclusions

First and foremost, both young and tenured physicists appear to have similar opinions on the future course of high energy physics. There are, however, strong correlations depending on geography.

The survey results indicate accelerator based science is the driving force in HEP. Maintaining diversity and balance in their work is seen as very important, but support for astrophysics at HEP labs is only somewhat supported. Higgs and electroweak symmetry breaking are clear priorities, and this science requires a new facility.

Physicists indicated that they value the kind of hands-on experience that comes from being stationed at a laboratory. If lab proximity becomes diﬃcult, regional centers might become a necessary alternative.

An overwhelming majority of physicists believe we are not doing enough outreach to the funding agencies or to the general public. At least half of these physicists would be willing to dedicate more of their time to this eﬀort.

There is some agreement that we are currently not retaining enough young talent in the ﬁeld. The primary reason for this is the lack of permanent positions, indicating that a lack of career security is the perceived force driving away young physicists.

Given the choice of building a linear collider (TESLA, NLC, or CLIC), reserving judgement for several years, or creating their own option, 80% of Americans and non-Americans prefer a linear collider. Site location does not exhibit the same clear agreement:

• Non-Americans clearly do not think it is important that the next machine be built in the U.S., and they selected the German option three to one over a U.S. option

• Young Americans are almost equally divided on whether there should be a new linear collider in the U.S. or TESLA in Germany

• Tenured Americans select the U.S. option over the German option in a ratio of three to two

The results cannot determine how acceptable the respondents would ﬁnd their second choice to be.

Given current construction and operation cost estimates, many countries will have to coop- erate to build a new flagship facility, and support of high energy physicists within these countries will need to be strong. The differences in opinion regarding the location of the future machine might make this necessary collaboration difficult. More work is needed to forge a truly global consensus on the next machine.

32 11 Acknowledgments

We thank all who have helped us in the preparation and advertisement of the YPP survey, including Jonathan Bagger, Ken Bloom, Liubo Borissov, Janet Conrad, Kevin McFarland, Paul Nienaber, Marv Goldberg, and Chris Quigg; special thanks to Diana Canzone and Fred Ullrich of Fermilab Visual Media Services.

12 Survey

The following is a complete listing of the survey questions and possible responses as it appeared on the web. As a guide for the PAW ntuple and ROOT-tree (available on the web at http://ypp.hep.net), variable names are listed in brackets at the end of each survey question.

33 Survey on the Future of HEP

This survey is geared toward members of the high energy physics community. Please give us your opinions on the future direction of high energy physics. Please answer honestly, as many questions as you can.

The survey consists of only 36 questions, mostly multiple choice. We ask that you ﬁrst ﬁll out a brief demographics section to help us correlate responses. All entries will remain strictly anonymous.

We kindly ask that you ﬁll out either the web-based version of this survey (available at http://ypp.hep.net/survey.html) or the following paper version, but not both. You can place your completed survey in any of the orange “YPP Survey” boxes located around Snowmass.

This survey was prepared by the Young Physicists Panel (YPP). More information can be found at the following website: http://ypp.hep.net

34 4. What type of physics have you been Demographic working on this year [worktype]?

Information (i) theory (ii) ﬁxed target experiment + − 1. At what stage are you currently in your (iii) collider experiment (pp, e e , etc.) career [career]? (iv) beam research/accelerator physics

(i) Undergraduate (v) astrophysics (ii) Graduate student (vi) other (please specify below) (iii) Postdoc 5. Where do you do your research (iv) Untenured faculty or term staﬀ greatest part of year [labwork]? (v) Tenured faculty or permanent staﬀ (i) Argonne

2. On which continent did you grow up (ii) BNL [contrais]? (iii) CERN

(i) Africa (iv) DESY (ii) Asia (v) FNAL (iii) Australia (vi) KEK (iv) Europe (vii) LBL (v) North America (viii) SLAC (vi) South America (ix) University (x) Other (please specify in comment 3. On which continent do you currently section below) work greatest part of year [contwork]? 6. How large is your current collaboration (i) Africa [collsize]? (ii) Antarctica (i) 1-5 people (iii) Asia (ii) 5-20 people (iv) Australia (iii) 20-50 people (v) Europe (iv) 50-200 people (vi) North America (v) 200-500 people (vii) South America (vi) 500-1000 people (vii) more than 1000 people

7. Are you attending Snowmass [atsmass]?

(i) yes (ii) no

8. Additional comments:

35 12. Is it important to promote a balance Balance vs. Focus between the numbers of theorists, phenomenologists, and experimentalists For the following questions, we deﬁne [prombal]? ”next machine” as the next energy frontier or ﬂagship machine. Please (i) very important/mandate the mix- circle one response for each of the ture following questions. (ii) somewhat important/encourage a particular mixture 9. Is it important that the ”next machine” (iii) not important/let the market decide host a diverse (multi-physics) range of (iv) don’t know/no opinion experiments and collaborations [divnext]?

(i) very important 13. Additional comments on this section (ii) somewhat important including what HEP can support given (iii) not important a limited budget: (iv) don’t know/no opinion

10. Is it important that the HEP labs host astrophysics eﬀorts [astrnext]?

(i) very important (ii) somewhat important (iii) not important (iv) don’t know/no opinion

11. If the ”next machine” is a collider (e+e−, pp, µ+µ−), is it important to have at least two large, multi-purpose detectors versus a single detector [multnext]?

(i) redundancy is very important (ii) redundancy is somewhat important (iii) redundancy is not important (iv) don’t know/no opinion

36 16. It may be the case that your supervisor The Impact of is in a diﬀerent location than your detector. In your current situation, given Globalization the choice, how do you rate being near your detector versus being near your In order to best understand your advisor/supervisor [advisdet]? responses, we ask that you answer a number of questions on your present (i) detector proximity more important situation. By ”regional centers” we mean (ii) advisor proximity more important facilities that function as remote virtual control rooms with experts present (iii) roughly equal in importance (monitoring, data acquisition, voltages, (iv) N/A - don’t have a detector setting parameters, etc), with exceedingly good video conferencing and 17. If the next machine is not located in data processing capability. Please circle the U.S., will the quality of beams and one response for each of the following physics results improve if we have questions. ”regional centers” in the U.S. [rceasy]? (i) yes 14. How frequently do you currently see or (ii) no work on your detector [seedet]? (iii) maybe (i) daily/weekly (iv) don’t know/no opinion (ii) monthly 18. How frequently should these regional (iii) yearly centers be distributed [rclocate]? (iv) every few years (i) less frequently distributed than the (v) N/A - don’t have a detector national labs (ii) as numerous as the national labs 15. How important do you feel it is to have hands-on hardware experience [handsdet]? (iii) more frequently than the national labs (i) very important (iv) don’t need them (ii) somewhat important 19. What should be the importance of the (iii) not at all important U.S. national labs in 10-25 years [uslabs]? (iv) N/A - don’t have a detector (i) reduced role/some labs should close (ii) much the same role/current labs should persist (iii) strong role/additional labs should open

20. Your comments on this section, including thoughts on how you might envision global collaboration working:

37 Outreach to Inﬂuence Funding Agencies and/or the Public

How important is outreach to continued support of our work? Please circle one response for each of the following questions.

21. Are we doing enough outreach to funding agencies, i.e. Congress [congoutr]?

(i) more than enough (ii) adequate (iii) not nearly enough (iv) far too little

22. Are we doing enough outreach to the general public [puboutr]?

(i) more than enough (ii) adequate (iii) not nearly enough (iv) far too little

23. Would you personally be willing to dedicate more of your time to outreach [persoutr]?

(i) yes (ii) no (iii) maybe

24. Your brief comments on this section and thoughts on what we might do diﬀerently. What we might do better:

38 Building the Field (xii) lifestyle/travel/hours (xiii) gain valuable experience for any Your personal experience can be insight- career choice ful. Please circle one response for each (xiv) spiritual/religious reasons question. 27. Do you think we are currently retaining adequate numbers of talented physicists 25. What is it that most attracted you to in HEP [talenhep]? HEP [attrhep]? (i) yes (i) interest in physics/science/nature (ii) somewhat (ii) strong mentor in the field (iii) no (iii) allure of working at a HEP lab (iv) don’t know/no opinion (iv) intellectual atmosphere 28. What feature of the field do you think (v) whim/it was cool might most influence young physicists (vi) nothing else is interesting to leave the field [neghep]? (vii) salary and benefits (i) lack of competitive salary (viii) possibility of fame (ii) large collaboration sizes (ix) enjoy hardware work (iii) length of time spent in grad school (x) enjoy software work (iv) amount of travel required (xi) academic freedom (v) lack of permanent job (xii) lifestyle/travel/hours opportunities (xiii) gain valuable experience for any (vi) lack of professional environment career choice (vii) weak or unstructured management (xiv) spiritual/religious reasons (viii) other (please specify in comments) 26. What is main reason you have stayed in (ix) not an issue (don’t think many will the field so far [stayhep]? leave)

(i) interest in physics/science/nature (ii) strong mentor in the field 29. Additional comments are welcome. How do we encourage talented young people (iii) allure of working at a HEP lab to do graduate work in HEP, and then (iv) intellectual atmosphere stay in the field? What issues facing (v) whim/it was cool young physicists in the future concern you the most? (vi) nothing else is interesting (vii) salary and benefits (viii) possibility of fame (ix) enjoy hardware work (x) enjoy software work (xi) academic freedom

39 32. Does the science you selected above Physics require a major new facility [facphy]?

The direction you select for the ﬁeld is (i) yes largely driven by the fundamental (ii) no questions you ﬁnd most compelling. Please circle one response for each of (iii) maybe the following questions. (iv) don’t know/no opinion

33. If so, do you think it is important that 30. What physics would you personally ﬁnd the new facility be in the U.S. [facusphy]? most compelling in the next 10-25 years (i) yes [persphys]? (ii) no (i) QCD/strong interactions (iii) maybe (ii) Higgs physics/EW symmetry (iv) don’t know/no opinion breaking (iii) CP violation 34. Your additional comments on this (iv) neutrino physics section are welcome: (v) exotic particle searches (vi) accelerator physics (vii) cosmological constant/dark matter (viii) cosmic ray physics (ix) quark gluon plasma/hadronic physics (x) other (please specify below)

31. What do you think is the most important physics for the ﬁeld over the next 10-25 years [fieldphy]?

(i) QCD/strong interactions (ii) Higgs physics/EW symmetry breaking (iii) CP violation (iv) neutrino physics (v) exotic particle searches (vi) accelerator physics (vii) cosmological constant/dark matter (viii) cosmic ray physics (ix) quark gluon plasma/hadronic physics (x) other (please specify below)

40 39. How much do you know about the Finding Consensus, Neutrino Factory [knownfac]? Picking a Plan (i) enough or alot (ii) fair amount, but need to know more Please circle one response for each. (iii) very little or nothing 40. How much do you know about the Muon 35. What has most affected your current Collider [knowmumu]? opinion(s) on the options for the future of HEP [affopin]? (i) enough or alot (i) your advisor (ii) fair amount, but need to know more (ii) your current work (iii) very little or nothing (iii) reading 41. Do you think you know enough to form (iv) talking to colleagues a decision and chose from the various options [knowenou]? (v) attending workshops/conferences (vi) attending talks (i) definitely yes (vii) joining working groups/ (ii) probably yes performing studies (iii) unsure (viii) sitting and thinking (iv) probably no (ix) other (v) definitely no

36. How much do you know about TESLA 42. If you had to choose from the follow- [knowtes]? ing options, which one would you pick [choose1]? (i) enough or alot (ii) fair amount, but need to know more (i) a new e+e- collider (TESLA,NLC,CLIC) in the U.S. soon, with continued (iii) very little or nothing research in VLHC and muon stor- 37. How much do you know about LC non- age ring/muon collider technologies TESLA versions, i.e. NLC, CLIC [knowolc]? (ii) TESLA in Germany soon, with the goal of a post-LHC higher energy (i) enough or alot VLHC in the U.S. (ii) fair amount, but need to know more (iii) TESLA in Germany soon, with the (iii) very little or nothing goal of an eventual muon storage ring/ muon collider in the U.S. 38. How much do you know about the VLHC [knowvlhc]? (iv) reserve judgment for several years, continue research (i) enough or alot (v) other (please specify in comment (ii) fair amount, but need to know more section below) (iii) very little or nothing 43. Your comments here, please amplify on your response to the above:

41 References

[1] The DOE/NSF High Energy Physics Advisory Panel created a subpanel to develop a long range plan for the U.S. High Energy Physics Program (http://hepserve.fnal.gov:8080/doe-hep/lrp_panel/index.html). Subpanel chairs: Jonathan Bagger and Barry Barish.

[2] The Young Physicists Forum (YPF) Snowmass Steering Committee (http://portia.fnal.gov/~bfleming/steeringcommittee.html).

[3] The Young Physicists Forum (YPF) Town Meeting occured at Snowmass, Tuesday, July 10, 2001 (http://portia.fnal.gov/~bfleming/calendar.html).

[4] The Young Physicists Panel (YPP) contact information is available on our website, http://ypp.hep.net, also email can be sent to [email protected].

42 arXiv:hep-ex/0108040v3 27 Aug 2001 eut fteSre nteFtr fHEP of Future the on Survey the of Results h on hscssPnl(YPP) Panel Physicists Young The umte oteDENFSbae nLn ag Planning Range Long on Subpanel DOE/NSF the to submitted http://ypp.hep.net o ..Hg nryPhysics Energy High U.S. for uut2,2001 23, August presents ABSTRACT

2 Contents

1 Introduction 7

2 Methodology 8

3 Demographics 10

4 Balance vs. Focus 14

5 The Impact of Globalization 17

6 Outreach 20

7 Building the Field 21

8 Physics 23

9 Finding Consensus and Picking a Plan 26

10 Conclusions 33

11 Acknowledgments 34

12 Survey 34

Bibliography 43

13 Sound Bites 44 13.1 SeparateLettersSenttoYPP ...... 44 13.2Demographics...... 48 13.3Balancevs.Focus...... 49 13.3.1 Timelines:...... 49 13.3.2 BudgetandFundingIssues: ...... 49 13.3.3 Universities:...... 52 13.3.4 Importance of Using Existing Resources: ...... 52 13.3.5 ImportanceofRedundacy: ...... 53 13.3.6 Maintaining Diversity: ...... 56 13.3.7 BalanceofTheoryandPhenomenology: ...... 60 13.3.8 Balance with Astrophysics: ...... 63 13.3.9 Survey-Speciﬁc Comments on Balance: ...... 64 13.4 Impact of Globalization ...... 66 13.4.1 Global Collaboration: ...... 66 13.4.2 ProximitytoDetector: ...... 71 13.4.3 RegionalCenters: ...... 75 13.4.4 TheRoleofNationalLabs:...... 84 13.4.5 Survey-Speciﬁc Comments on Globalization: ...... 87 13.5Outreach...... 91 13.5.1 HowtoDoBetter: ...... 91 13.5.2 OutreachOrganization:...... 102

3 13.5.3 ValueofOutreach: ...... 104 13.5.4 Schools: ...... 106 13.5.5 Reaching Funding Agencies: ...... 108 13.5.6 TheNASAModel: ...... 113 13.5.7 Survey-Specific Comments on Outreach: ...... 114 13.6 Building the Field ...... 116 13.6.1 TimescaleforProjects: ...... 116 13.6.2 Leadership and Large Collaborations: ...... 118 13.6.3 SalaryandBenefits: ...... 122 13.6.4 AttractingStudentstoHEP:...... 124 13.6.5 Availability of Permanent Jobs: ...... 127 13.6.6 LeavingtheField:...... 129 13.6.7 Survey-Specific Comments on Building: ...... 148 13.7Physics...... 150 13.7.1 Most Compelling Physics: ...... 150 13.7.2 Does the Physics Require a New Machine?: ...... 163 13.7.3 Location of a Frontier Facility: ...... 165 13.7.4 Survey-Specific Comments on Physics: ...... 173 13.8 Picking a Plan and FindingConsensus ...... 175 13.8.1 Selecting the Next Machine: ...... 175 13.8.2 DecidetoWait: ...... 201 13.8.3 Survey-Specific Comments on Picking a Plan: ...... 205

4 List of Figures

1 Current career stage of survey respondents...... 10 2 Continent where survey respondents grew up...... 11 3 On which continent do you currently work (greatest part of the year)?. . . . 12 4 What type of physics have you been working on this year? ...... 12 5 Where do you do your research (greatest part of year)? ...... 13 6 How large is your current collaboration (in number of people)? ...... 13 7 Placewhererespondentscurrentlywork...... 13 8 Should the “next machine” host diverse experiments and collaborations? . . 15 9 Isitimportanttohaveatleasttwodetectors? ...... 15 10 Is it important to balance the numbers of theorists and experimentalists? . . 16 11 Is it important that the HEP labs host astrophysics efforts? ...... 16 12 How frequently do you currently see or work on your detector? ...... 17 13 How do you rate being near your detector versus being near your supervisor? 17 14 How important do you feel it is to have hands-on hardware experience? . . . 18 15 Should we have “regional centers” in the U.S.? ...... 18 16 What should be the role of the U.S. national labs in the next 10-25 years? . 19 17 How frequently should these regional centers be distributed? ...... 19 18 Are we currently doing enough outreach to funding agencies? ...... 20 19 Are we currently doing enough outreach to the general public? ...... 20 20 What is it that most attractedyoutoHEP?...... 21 21 What is the main reason you have stayed in the field so far? ...... 21 22 Are we retaining adequate numbers of talented physicists in HEP? ...... 22 23 What most influences young people to leave the field? ...... 22 24 What physics would you personally find the most compelling in the future . 23 25 What do you think is the most important physics for the field in the future . 23 26 Does this science you selected require a major new facility? ...... 24 27 Do you think it is important that the next new facility be in the U.S.? . . . 25 28 Do you think it is important that the next new facility be in the U.S.? . . . 25 29 What most affected your current opinion on the future options? ...... 26 30 HowmuchdoyouknowaboutTESLA? ...... 27 31 How much do you know about LC non-TESLA versions (i.e. NLC, CLIC)? . 27 32 HowmuchdoyouknowabouttheVLHC? ...... 27 33 How much do you know about the Neutrino Factory? ...... 28 34 How much do you know about the Muon Collider? ...... 28 35 Doyouthinkyouknowenoughtodecide? ...... 29 36 Snowmass: Do you think you know enough to decide? ...... 29 37 Which of the following machine options would you select? ...... 31 38 Which would you select, after summing TESLA options...... 31 39 Which would you select, separated by where the respondent works...... 31 40 Selections of people claiming to know enough to make a decision...... 32 41 Selections of people who were unsure or claimed they do not know enough . 32

5 AUTHOR LIST

[email protected]

6 1 Introduction

7 2 Methodology

8 this document were generated with a standard macro ﬁle and the Paw program. This macro and its Root analogue are available with the aforementioned data. Our goal is to make these results as accessible as possible, so please contact us [4] if you have special needs.

9 3 Demographics

Figure 1: Current career stage of survey respondents.

Young Tenured Total Americans 334 328 662 Non-Americans 523 323 846 Total 857 651 1508

Table 1: Number of survey respondents by career stage and continent of origin.

10 Figure 2: Continent where survey respondents grew up. Of the 662 respondents who grew up in North America, almost all of them still work in North America (Figure 3). In contrast, roughly half of the 676 European and 125 Asian respondents (including Russia and the Indian subcontinent) have traveled to North America to work (Figure 3).

1In the presentation at Snowmass, the fractions of responses from inside and outside Snowmass were inadvertently reversed.

11 Figure 3: On which continent do you currently Figure 4: What type of physics have you been work (greatest part of the year)? working on this year?

12 Figure 5: Where do you do your research Figure 6: How large is your current collabora- (greatest part of year)? tion (in number of people)?

Figure 7: Place where respondents currently work separated by those who attended Snow- mass (top) versus those who did not (bottom).

13 4 Balance vs. Focus

14 Figure 8: Is it important that the “next Figure 9: If the “next machine” is a collider machine” host a diverse (multi-physics) range − − (e+e ,pp,µ+µ ), is it important to have at of experiments and collaborations? Recall least two large, multipurpose detectors versus that the solid lines indicate young physicists, a single detector? and dashed lines indicates tenured physicists.

15 Figure 10: Is it important to promote a bal- Figure 11: Is it important that the HEP labs ance between the numbers of theorists, phe- host astrophysics eﬀorts? nomenologists, and experimentalists?

16 5 The Impact of Globalization

17 The next three questions dealt, directly or indirectly, with the concept of regional centers. These proposed structures consist of a facility with remote control rooms, excellent (perhaps permanent) video conferencing, and data processing ability. The concept of a regional center is very new and complicated; the survey questions were not able to explore the idea as deeply as the town meeting [3] at Snowmass 2001. Although most physicists appear to be interested in the concept of regional centers (Figure 15), they need to see the concept demonstrated before they can evaluate it. The majority of physicists want to see national labs keep their strong roles; so if a single new frontier facility is built, a regional center could be placed at each national lab in the countries that do not host the facility (Figures 17 and 16).

18 Figure 17: How frequently should these Figure 16: What should be the role of the U.S. regional centers be distributed relative to the national labs in the next 10-25 years? current national labs?

19 6 Outreach

Figure 18: Are we currently doing enough out- Figure 19: Are we currently doing enough outreach to funding agencies? reach to the general public?

20 7 Building the Field

Figure 20: What is it that most attracted you Figure 21: What is the main reason you have to HEP? stayed in the ﬁeld so far?

21 Figure 22: Do you think we are currently Figure 23: What feature of the field do you retaining adequate numbers of talented physi- think might most influence young people to cists in HEP? leave the field?

22 8 Physics

Figure 24: What physics would you person- Figure 25: What do you think is the most ally ﬁnd the most compelling in the next 10-25 important physics for the ﬁeld over the next years? 10-25 years?

23 Figure 26: Does this science you selected require a major new facility?

24 Figure 28: Do you think it is important Figure 27: Do you think it is important that that the next new facility be in the U.S.? the next new facility be in the U.S.? Responses are now separated based on where the respondent currently works and not where they grew up. Top plot are those currently working in North America, bottom plot are those currently not working in North Amer- ica.

25 9 Finding Consensus and Picking a Plan

Figure 29: What has most aﬀected your current opinion(s) on the options for the future of HEP?

26 Figure 30: How much do you know about Figure 31: How much do you know about LC TESLA? non-TESLA versions (i.e. NLC, CLIC)?

Figure 32: How much do you know about the VLHC?

27 Figure 33: How much do you know about the Figure 34: How much do you know about the Neutrino Factory? Muon Collider?

28 Figure 36: Respondents at Snowmass: “Do Figure 35: Do you think you know enough to you think you know enough to form a decision form a decision and choose from the various and chose from the various options”. Errors options? are statistical only; here, the total number of responses is 356 for all four histograms combined.

29 Finally, the respondents were asked to choose between several options for a future flagship facility. Using the online materials provided by the proponents of each of the machine efforts, we identified the time-scales of the proposals and determined that only a few options could begin construction within three to five years.2 We reasoned that “committing” to a plan that didn’t begin construction within that time was ostensibly the same as waiting and continuing research along the many branches. The survey asked, “if you had to choose from the following options, which one would you pick:

• A new e+e− collider (TESLA,NLC,CLIC) in the U.S. soon, with continued research in VLHC, and muon storage ring/muon collider technologies.

• TESLA in Germany soon, with the goal of a post-LHC higher energy VLHC in the U.S.

• TESLA in Germany soon, with the goal of an eventual muon storage ring/muon collider in the U.S.

• Reserve judgment for several years, continue research.

• Other (specify in the comments section).”

30 Figure 37: Which of the following machine options would you select?

Figure 39: Which would you select, with Figure 38: Which would you select, after sum- responses separated by where the respondent ming TESLA options. currently works instead of where they grew up.

31 Figure 41: Selections of people who were Figure 40: Selections of people claiming to unsure or claimed they do not know enough know enough to make a decision. to make a decision.

32 10 Conclusions

First and foremost, both young and tenured physicists appear to have similar opinions on the future course of high energy physics. There are, however, strong correlations depending on geography.

• Non-Americans clearly do not think it is important that the next machine be built in the U.S., and they selected the German option three to one over a U.S. option

• Young Americans are almost equally divided on whether there should be a new linear collider in the U.S. or TESLA in Germany

• Tenured Americans select the U.S. option over the German option in a ratio of three to two

The results cannot determine how acceptable the respondents would ﬁnd their second choice to be.

33 11 Acknowledgments

12 Survey

34 Survey on the Future of HEP

This survey was prepared by the Young Physicists Panel (YPP). More information can be found at the following website: http://ypp.hep.net

35 4. What type of physics have you been Demographic working on this year [worktype]?

2. On which continent did you grow up (ii) BNL [contrais]? (iii) CERN

7. Are you attending Snowmass [atsmass]?

(i) yes (ii) no

8. Additional comments:

36 12. Is it important to promote a balance Balance vs. Focus between the numbers of theorists, phenomenologists, and experimentalists For the following questions, we deﬁne [prombal]? ”next machine” as the next energy frontier or ﬂagship machine. Please (i) very important/mandate the mix- circle one response for each of the ture following questions. (ii) somewhat important/encourage a particular mixture 9. Is it important that the ”next machine” (iii) not important/let the market decide host a diverse (multi-physics) range of (iv) don’t know/no opinion experiments and collaborations [divnext]?

(i) very important 13. Additional comments on this section (ii) somewhat important including what HEP can support given (iii) not important a limited budget: (iv) don’t know/no opinion

10. Is it important that the HEP labs host astrophysics eﬀorts [astrnext]?

(i) very important (ii) somewhat important (iii) not important (iv) don’t know/no opinion

11. If the ”next machine” is a collider (e+e−, pp, µ+µ−), is it important to have at least two large, multi-purpose detectors versus a single detector [multnext]?

(i) redundancy is very important (ii) redundancy is somewhat important (iii) redundancy is not important (iv) don’t know/no opinion

37 16. It may be the case that your supervisor The Impact of is in a diﬀerent location than your detector. In your current situation, given Globalization the choice, how do you rate being near your detector versus being near your In order to best understand your advisor/supervisor [advisdet]? responses, we ask that you answer a number of questions on your present (i) detector proximity more important situation. By ”regional centers” we mean (ii) advisor proximity more important facilities that function as remote virtual control rooms with experts present (iii) roughly equal in importance (monitoring, data acquisition, voltages, (iv) N/A - don’t have a detector setting parameters, etc), with exceedingly good video conferencing and 17. If the next machine is not located in data processing capability. Please circle the U.S., will the quality of beams and one response for each of the following physics results improve if we have questions. ”regional centers” in the U.S. [rceasy]? (i) yes 14. How frequently do you currently see or (ii) no work on your detector [seedet]? (iii) maybe (i) daily/weekly (iv) don’t know/no opinion (ii) monthly 18. How frequently should these regional (iii) yearly centers be distributed [rclocate]? (iv) every few years (i) less frequently distributed than the (v) N/A - don’t have a detector national labs (ii) as numerous as the national labs 15. How important do you feel it is to have hands-on hardware experience [handsdet]? (iii) more frequently than the national labs (i) very important (iv) don’t need them (ii) somewhat important 19. What should be the importance of the (iii) not at all important U.S. national labs in 10-25 years [uslabs]? (iv) N/A - don’t have a detector (i) reduced role/some labs should close (ii) much the same role/current labs should persist (iii) strong role/additional labs should open

20. Your comments on this section, including thoughts on how you might envision global collaboration working:

38 Outreach to Inﬂuence Funding Agencies and/or the Public

How important is outreach to continued support of our work? Please circle one response for each of the following questions.

21. Are we doing enough outreach to funding agencies, i.e. Congress [congoutr]?

(i) more than enough (ii) adequate (iii) not nearly enough (iv) far too little

22. Are we doing enough outreach to the general public [puboutr]?

(i) more than enough (ii) adequate (iii) not nearly enough (iv) far too little

23. Would you personally be willing to dedicate more of your time to outreach [persoutr]?

(i) yes (ii) no (iii) maybe

24. Your brief comments on this section and thoughts on what we might do diﬀerently. What we might do better:

39 Building the Field (xii) lifestyle/travel/hours (xiii) gain valuable experience for any Your personal experience can be insight- career choice ful. Please circle one response for each (xiv) spiritual/religious reasons question. 27. Do you think we are currently retaining adequate numbers of talented physicists 25. What is it that most attracted you to in HEP [talenhep]? HEP [attrhep]? (i) yes (i) interest in physics/science/nature (ii) somewhat (ii) strong mentor in the field (iii) no (iii) allure of working at a HEP lab (iv) don’t know/no opinion (iv) intellectual atmosphere 28. What feature of the field do you think (v) whim/it was cool might most influence young physicists (vi) nothing else is interesting to leave the field [neghep]? (vii) salary and benefits (i) lack of competitive salary (viii) possibility of fame (ii) large collaboration sizes (ix) enjoy hardware work (iii) length of time spent in grad school (x) enjoy software work (iv) amount of travel required (xi) academic freedom (v) lack of permanent job (xii) lifestyle/travel/hours opportunities (xiii) gain valuable experience for any (vi) lack of professional environment career choice (vii) weak or unstructured management (xiv) spiritual/religious reasons (viii) other (please specify in comments) 26. What is main reason you have stayed in (ix) not an issue (don’t think many will the field so far [stayhep]? leave)

40 32. Does the science you selected above Physics require a major new facility [facphy]?

31. What do you think is the most important physics for the ﬁeld over the next 10-25 years [fieldphy]?

41 39. How much do you know about the Finding Consensus, Neutrino Factory [knownfac]? Picking a Plan (i) enough or alot (ii) fair amount, but need to know more Please circle one response for each. (iii) very little or nothing 40. How much do you know about the Muon 35. What has most affected your current Collider [knowmumu]? opinion(s) on the options for the future of HEP [affopin]? (i) enough or alot (i) your advisor (ii) fair amount, but need to know more (ii) your current work (iii) very little or nothing (iii) reading 41. Do you think you know enough to form (iv) talking to colleagues a decision and chose from the various options [knowenou]? (v) attending workshops/conferences (vi) attending talks (i) definitely yes (vii) joining working groups/ (ii) probably yes performing studies (iii) unsure (viii) sitting and thinking (iv) probably no (ix) other (v) definitely no

42 References

[2] The Young Physicists Forum (YPF) Snowmass Steering Committee (http://portia.fnal.gov/~bfleming/steeringcommittee.html).

[3] The Young Physicists Forum (YPF) Town Meeting occured at Snowmass, Tuesday, July 10, 2001 (http://portia.fnal.gov/~bfleming/calendar.html).

[4] The Young Physicists Panel (YPP) contact information is available on our website, http://ypp.hep.net, also email can be sent to [email protected].

43 Letters to YPP 44

13 Sound Bites

The following is a complete listing of all of the comments received with the survey responses as well as letters addressed to YPP. The comments are categorized into the six survey subsections.

13.1 Separate Letters Sent to YPP • I must first applaud your efforts to actively involve the community and provide many opportunities for individuals and groups to voice their opinions. Thank you. I am nearing completion of the graduate student life cycle on the BaBar experiment at SLAC, and want to share a few thoughts on the U.S. high energy physics (HEP) community. Our spokesperson, Stewart Smith, recently introduced BaBar (before the announcement of a new result) with the words, ”Our experiment has two products: new science, and highly trained people.” This is, I think, the key issue. The field of high energy physics, be it experimental or theoretical (or perhaps not even high energy), has TWO products, two purposes: discoveries about our Universe and the relationships that govern it (exciting enough to be pretty heady); and the rigorous training of individuals in the skills of critical thinking, clear communication, and objective observation (a rewarding and necessary challenge). This duality is not divisive, rather it is inclusive – it asserts that there is more to HEP than merely a derived understanding of the Universe; there is a practice, a paradigm, a set of skills that are part of high energy physics. Some argue that the educational aspect of HEP training is most well carried out by having a machine here in the U.S. Though I might be inclined to agree, having lived through the SSC experience, and not seeing currently a much better political climate for science (if not a worse one) I personally worry about whether we as a community will be able to make our leaders understand why building a large-scale machine such as an ILC is important for so many reasons. So for now – I am completely willing to support all efforts for getting Congress to fund a machine within the U.S. However – before working on it myself, I personally would like more assurance if it ever began that the project was going to be carried through to completion. Also, having recently seen a talk by Albrecht Wagner, I am very impressed with how far DESY has progressed on the TESLA concept, and if we as a nation decide *against* funding such a machine here in the U.S., I would be *most* happy to support them and send funds over in the model of how we have for LHC. I think it would be another grievous blow for science in this country, but again – HEP is always becoming more global (we did invent the Web, after all), and I would be quite content to live abroad for many years to do the necessary research. I do like the idea of regional educational centers, akin to the National Labs, but serving the primary purpose of disseminating the culture, knowledge, and excitement inherent in the HEP quest. Further, Wagner has stated that he expects future generation experiments will have *much* higher maintainability and operability from afar. (Clearly not the hardware, but the software he’s envisioning would be much superior to EPICS in how well the machine can be run remotely, from what I gather). Given the limited resources in the world, and the many other pressing problems society needs to address, I do feel that there should only be Letters to YPP 45

*one* large world lab doing e+e- at the 500 GeV range, and I would offer arguments similar to those of Shelly Glashow’s who said much the same thing many years ago while the LHC and SSC were both being built. Further, the emphasis of high energy physics on education is critical to the fitness, indeed, even the existence, of a successful U.S. HEP future. The strong attitude of elitism within our field is, I think, contrary to that purpose (and contributed strongly to the demise of the SSC). Many high energy physicists consider HEP as self-evident, the only fundamental science; other fields are devalued as mere large statistic studies of ensemble behavior. Additionally, the physics institution still maintains that most HEP-trained physicists should be doing research in academia; failure to do so is considered an admission of inadequate talent. These messages are all utterly ridiculous; high energy physics is no more fundamental than psychology, which studies the perceptive apparatus by which we make all of our observations. These pervasive attitudes have two consequences: they alienate practioners of other sciences, and they prevent open dialogue between those in the community and those that have left it. I point again to the two ”products” of HEP: we’re producing new science, and we’re producing highly trained individuals; we should welcome customers of the latter. Having HEP ”graduates” dispersed across the professional world is clearly advantageous to the field. As HEP ”alumni,” these people not only bring the strength of cross-disciplinary training to other fields, but they also enthusiastically share and teach what they have learned from the high energy community. They are an under-utilized resource, an inactive alumni network that still has passion for the ”alma mater.” We don’t need to ”keep young people in the field;” we need to send more trained high energy physicists out into the world! I feel this very strongly, and feel that the Young Physicists Panel questionnaire is fundamentally slanted towards the more common view mentioned above when it talks about ”how can we keep more HEP researchers in the field?”. I strongly feel that the HEP community is not sufficiently focused on outreach and education efforts. It is clear that the dividends of our work need to go back to the general public, again in terms of our two products: new knowledge and trained individuals. But the difficulty in organizing outreach efforts is in defining the target audiences and the principal actors. I think this is where we need more focus. At present, the formula seems to involve press releases which are then distilled into exciting narratives by trained journalists. Is this the most appropriate interaction? Should we instead encourage more of the principal researchers to work on the front lines? But we cannot expect all successful researchers to be renaissance-persons, capable of submitting a PRL draft and a New York Times science article in the same evening. We can, however, ask a greater number of active HEP researchers to engage the public in workshops and tours, rather than retreating behind the cloak of traditional media. Lastly, I feel that there is a large sector of the general public that is greatly dissatisfied with (overlooked by?) HEP outreach – the well-educated, middle-class professional. Some are business professionals, some are scientists in other fields, some are motivated amateurs; they are capable and enthusiastic, and want something between Scientific American and physics graduate school. HEP education often targets children, because these teaching situations are often easier and more successful because the material can be correctly represented and controlled. I say that we must tackle the harder audiences as well, the ones with intellectual training and critical thinking skills; they can become Letters to YPP 46

our best customers, and our strongest advocates. I think it’s quite reasonable that we should spend say even 1% of our budget on educational outreach. Currently, it’s probably about ... 1%, if *that* – at least at SLAC, I’m not sure how FNAL compares, I know CERN does a better job and, as many have observed, on the whole, NASA puts us all to shame with their incredible public outreach machine, and I think it’s very short-sighted for us to continue in the mode of not reaching out to the public more. As far as a few vague ideas (some a little more SLAC-specific) that would need filling out much more before being serious proposals, how about: making IMAX movies, multimedia CD’s, traveling roadshows with demos, art + science exhibitions (CERN does these well), more fun knick-knack merchandise we can give away/sell on the web for cheap, open houses for all neighbors at the Venture Capital firms to come see what we do, giving all lab users/employees a half day seminar on occasion to educate them on all the amazing things that have come out of HEP (e.g. first U.S. website, medical technologies from SSRL, Silicon Valley connections etc.), some kind of economic estimational analysis of the contribution of SLAC per year to the U.S. economy through these things (similar to what environmental economists do when they estimate the economic impact of externalizing things like pollution) etc. • I would like to add some extra comments to the survey form I just submitted. Just to let you put my comments in context I include at the end of the message my answers to the form. I share the general concern for the future of HEP, and I think it may be useful to look at how the whole thing started. Until the 40s, nuclear physics was ”small science”, done in University labs with very little funding. The amount of new discoveries done in the early part of the century was amazing, although still with relatively little impact on society. The bomb changed it all, showing how this abstruse research field could change the world, forever. It created a strong political consensus to fund the HEP field, which really started in the 50s. The discoveries of the 60s and 70s showed rapid, albeit not truly understood, advancement in knowledge, with an acceptable increase in funding, especially considering the level of economic expansion that all developed countries where then experiencing. But the mood changed in the 80s, for a number of reasons. Discoveries have become rare, advancement slow and increasingly obscure, funding enormous, the economy has been slowing down making it harder and harder to defend this kind of pure science project. In the U.S. this culminated with the termination of the SSC project; in Europe the larger continental inertia allowed LHC, but with delays and enormous and still lingering funding problems (Atlas alone lacks 45MCHF at this day). Looking at this from a distance, I can’t help wondering whether the ”next big machine” is real necessity for the advancement of science, or instead is dictated by the sociological need of keeping the HEP community together, of preventing the accumulated knowledge from vanishing into retirement. I’m not a small science champion, I’ve always been working in big experiments and I appreciate what a big project can do. Still ... How can we attract young brilliant scientists, when the prospect is to work for years to give a small specialized contribution to a huge experiment one may not be able to see running? There is something wrong in the model. Of course I have no magic solution. The direction I think we should be moving on, though, is to violently promote the unity of science. What I mean by this is that not only we should foster a much higher level of communication between theoreticians, Letters to YPP 47

phenomenologists and experimentalists, but also increase our knowledge of, and outreach to other physics fields. As a field, we know very little of what happens in solid state physics, or material physics, or even in astrophysics. The example of the relatively recent astroparticle physics field is illuminating. Studying subtle effects at low energies (say ”Higgs boson corrections to Cooper pairs energy levels”, just to invent one) may be more effective, more rapid and in the end more rewarding than walking the relatively clear road of the next energy frontier. Thanks for the effort of taking this survey, I think it can be very useful.

• HEP has not and is not losing its vitality and will remain the most ”noble” and defining field of physics and other natural sciences for decades to come. My primary concerns are the erosion for the public’s respect and support for science as a whole and dismal job security for young people in the field. Follow Europe and give a permanent job to every Ph.D. who get any job in the field upon getting a degree!

• I just sent in my answers and comments. You all are doing a very important job. To get to a sensible policy for the future will take a great deal of prodding – your group can be a major factor. Comments on Demographics 48

13.2 Demographics • Previously in neutrino physics. Biggest shock for me was the very limited (and • ”Graduate students” are fictional char- narrow-minded) focus of the ”big physics” acters invented by the American sys- community; re: other HEP subfields. tem of higher education. Once past the For CDF people, if you’re not at LEP, M.S. level, they are mature researchers CLEO, SLAC, FNAL or DESY, you’re who are paid below the federal mini- nowhere. This close-mindedness is bad mum salary levels. for the field as a whole. • I am working in the field of nucleon • 1) I grew up on an island, not a con- nucleon interactions at the Research Cen- tinent! (and not even near one!!) 2) ter Juelich, Cooler Synchrotron 3.2 GeV/c. Need to allow for people who work in A few of your questions can also be pre- more than one category of physics (in sented to and answered by a nuclear my case, pbar p colliders and astrophysics). physicist as well and I feel free to do so. • Very trivial, I grew up on an island that is not part of any ”continent”. • I have problems answering the question • about the size of my current collabo- I grew up in the middle east, which is ration since I collaborate with different not usually called Asia. ensembles of people on different projects • Too bad the type of research doesn’t (as most theorists do I suppose). specify the type of physics because cor- • I do 50% accelerator research and 50% relations in bias and opinions could have collider physics data analysis (50/50 was been made with that info. People always not an option in above questions). seem to vote for what they are/ have worked on. • I’m Canadian; for demographic purposes • This survey doesn’t seem to be geared Canada probably shouldn’t be lumped towards ”members of the HEP commu- in with USA since we have distinct fund- nity” but towards ”members of the HEP- ing agencies, aren’t particularly affected experiment community who work in the by DOE budgets etc. USA” - and it’s not the same thing. • For question 4, I find complete inatten- • These questions seem to be geared towards tion to non-accelerator particle physics. experimentalists. I am a theorist. I work in neutrino physics, which could be called “fixed target” at some level. • A year ago I formally retired from active I also work on atmospheric neutrinos. research by resigning from E871. I have This is NOT astrophysics. been active in Science Education for the past 10 or so years. I am 79 in a few • This survey represents a very narrow weeks. view of HEP. The committee seems to • believe that any work not being done at Many of us, including myself, work equally an accelerator (fixed target, or collider) on more than one experiment. You have qualifies as astrophysics. Is the commit- not taken this into account in your ques- tee unaware of the exciting physics tak- tions. ing place away from accelerators (SNO, • Maybe I could have said ’fixed target’ Super-K, MACRO, Monolith, Soudan- but I put ’other’ because I am in neu- 2, just to name a few)? trino oscillation physics. Comments on Balance vs. Focus 49

13.3 Balance vs. Focus supply research results for 10 years. The bulk of U.S. support for such a new 13.3.1 Timelines: facility must come from NEW MONEY. • NLC VLHC CLIC If this principle is violated, the actual science activities and achievements from • Design the next machine to be staged, U.S. HEP will wither and die in the with each stage component being able meantime. to yield interesting physics while ultimately contributing to the final collider • The assumption of a fixed budget is plain physics program. This way one avoids wrong and should not come from young an ”all or nothing” scenario, similar to physicists. Young physicists, together what happened with the SSC. with their senior colleagues should work hard on expanding the budget. Look at • I strongly support incrementally upgrad- biosciences! Mere whining about lack ing Fermilab to a) proton Driver b) Col- of money, so popular these days, is the lecting and cooling muons c) Neutrino best way to ensure that we won’t get factory d)Muon collider. This produces any expansion. Go to local schools, do diverse physics. Each stage is under PR, talk to journalists, talk to your neigh- $1B. Neutrinos oscillate and provide the bors, for God’s sake, but don’t tell me first evidence of physics beyond the stan- that the richest country in the world dard model. can not afford broad science programs after 5 years of bullish market! • Whatever course is chosen toward the frontier (and I personally lean toward • It is essential that we expend sufficient VLHC), the mantra ought to be ”staged resources to properly analyze the data development”. This approach should we work so hard and spend so much smooth funding profile, provide for more money to acquire. To do otherwise, we sustained experimental program, and per- may as well just skip doing the experi- mit strategic reassessment at appropri- ment. ate times. • In times of constant/decreasing budget, • One accelerator in the world next. Either it is important to invest in efforts to LC in Germany or US. If Germany, after keep the cost of new accelerators down. construction, then go for VLHC or muon There is also a tendency within the HEP collider in the U.S. (VLHC I prefer). community to inflate the cost of new accelerators to saturate the current bud- • Often a staged approach might be use- get. ful: start out at a new machine with one experiment, but add a second one • I do not accept the premise that our later. However competition and redun- budget is limited. It is true that it has dancy are very important in the long been flat (or declining, if you count infla- run. tion). But the future depends on our enthusiasm and willingness to pull for 13.3.2 Budget and Funding Issues: each other. Right now we have too many sour pusses, harping on the imperfec- • It is important NOT to commit more tions that any project will have. than 15-20% per year from the base bud- • Over the next 20 years, world HEP can get to a long-term project that will not support three machines at roughly $5B Comments on Balance vs. Focus 50

each: An e+e- collider, a neutrino fac- image problem in a world which, often, tory and stage one of a VLHC. This will bases its decisions on images, perceived require a construction add-on of about realities and received wisdom. $0.8B a year shared around the world...say • half in the US. It should permit a very We can afford a frontier ee and a fron- active program of support of existing tier pp machine as well as smaller machines. facilities, niche experiments some astro- Of course, the construction of the two physics while we are constructing in some big machines will be sequenced. phased way. If VLHC is in the U.S., we • We actually have a limited number of will have a tunnel to exploit over the ideas; a new machine is ten years away next 20 years. to its impact at least; A budget that can • Economics and politics mandate that contemplate $10B is not very limited; the next machine be a low energy e+e- WE FAILED TO USE THAT ORDER collider. We must do what is econom- OF MONEY WITH THE SSC AND ically feasible. A program that opti- WITH ISABELLE ... run flown into mizes the physics potential but can never the ground with our eyes wide open with be carried out is a disaster for the field. learned committees run by theorists and organizational scientists; budget reviews • Preferred next choice: Linear e+ e- col- and slogans, management teams over- lider with one experiment for e+ e- and sight committees, Harvard Directors, (fir- one for e-e, e-gamma and gamma-gamma ing the experienced director); examine collisions. A significant attempt should how Bob Wilson DID it and with whom. be made towards a multi-science cen- I find the NLC program more like one tre to attract and reach support by a experiment which would be very good wide scientific community - this is most if it could be done now; a lot like the probably the only way that the neces- SLC but a one shot deal very expensive sary resources can be found. no future and makes an oxymoron of ”high energy physics” mantra: rather is • Probably need to close some centres to physics at 1/2 TeV when we can see eas- fund new initiatives. A nasty choice. ily how to do physics at 100-200 TeV ... • For the next 20 year we can support and this has to be where we want to be only LHC and the linear collider. in 10 years ... There is no Z pole glory hole to make e+e- the known physics • Some standardization to save money. of choice; NLC physics is very likely that of the Tristan, SLC and LeP II • In an era of limited resources and pub- era: damn few events ... We would have licity/personality driven political deci- had hints something useful at a 1/2 TeV sions regarding both short and long range attackable with e+e- is just around the discretionary budgetary policy, the first corner in hadron physics; putting the thing HEP should support is a strong future of U.S. particle physics for the public and governmental relations pro- next generation on the e+e- option is gram it would perhaps be prudent for suicide for our field in the U.S. an umbrella organization such as APS (or a consortium of such organizations), • Put off very expensive experiments. Maybe to consult with public/ governmental/ in the near future new technologies will media relations experts from the busi- help to greatly reduce the cost. Just ness world HEP has an advocacy and keep the minimum going. Comments on Balance vs. Focus 51

• It’s not at all clear we can afford any we should make the case for it and jus- new machines. tify the cost. We shouldn’t expect any money without justification and shouldn’t • Given the SSC debacle, without consen- decide on the machine based on our under- sus inside HEP it doesn’t matter what standing of the limited budget. budget we have. • What do you mean by limited budget? • As to question 11, the number of detec- One should not assume that the bud- tors, and indeed even the size of the get is necessarily all that limited. How machine, can’t be just decided by fiat limited it is depends majorly on how or even physics desires; we need to seri- well the HEP community can convince ously consider doing what most other the funding organizations and Congress fields do, and figure out what we can do that a particular facility is important AFTER we have some idea of how much enough to fund. This in turn depends money we can get, not BEFORE. Doing on how united the HEP community is so requires us to fight against critics, in supporting one specific major facil- rather than working with them to fig- ity. A continually split community may ure out how to get the most bang for very well cause the demise of the field. the buck. • Dispose of a large fraction of staff which • Keep funding for accelerator physics R&D merely functions as unwanted by-product at a generous level to encourage young of funding; this will free resources and people who would like to enter the field. open positions. • Value for money is more important now • Good research needs enthusiasm and ade- than it ever has been. Providing for quate support including financial sup- other disciplines to work at our big toys port. as well is the way to go. • Limited budgets restrict options for new • Support the scientists and the field will machines. More important than ever to survive. HEP budgets tend to demand base decisions on best science. When more clever ideas from its proponents. a new facility comes on is much less There are limits, but we must maxi- important than that it be able to address mize our resources and work to increase a range of important topics. those resources. • The HEP budget is quite large com- • More effort must be expended to restore pared to many other areas of science. a budget sized to our needs and expec- We can support many disciplines and tations. be very diverse, if we avoid placing too • There is much work to be done with many of our resources in one activity. current major facilities. It also is impor- • Money will always be limited in research, tant that the community find a way to especially in fundamental research. In break the cycle of increasing capital expen- my point of view the combination of a diture and lengthening development times. HEP machine (really fundamental research) Advanced accelerator R&D is one approach. with a more applied subject (like e.g. • We should ask for the machine which the use of a free electron laser beam) allows for good and frontier science. Then gives unique arguments in our hands in order to convince politicians to give us Comments on Balance vs. Focus 52

the money to build such a machine. It one grad student per university project is also very good if we can tell our chil- would be a good start. dren that in our lifetime we did not only study the properties of the Higgs but 13.3.4 Importance of Using Exist- also better understood the functional- ing Resources: ity of proteins in our body. • • Lab budget is now 90% of HEP funding. Building a new accelerator at an already Universities, only 10%. This imbalance existing lab would be the most cost- is bad for long term future of HEP cre- efficient thing to do. ativity and funding. • The energy frontier is the holy grail. This is where the important discover- 13.3.3 Universities: ies will come. Pushing accelerator and detector technology is extremely impor- • The University Research, including equip- tant. I also believe that building on to ment development, must be more strongly an existing facility is a wise move. That supported at Universities. Universities is, using a facility with a trained staff, are the traditional source of ideas, and infrastructure, existing research program, young people. National Labs. (e.g. BNL) and running machines would overcome were started as places where Univer- many of the problems the SSC encoun- sities did together what they are too tered. small to do separately. The National Labs should NOT be in control. There- • The infrastructure for HEP is extensive fore the funding should come through and expensive. It is most productive Universities whenever possible. when concentrated at few (national) labs. We must be very cautious when propos- • Must always have a component that sup- ing a new lab rather that expanding ports undergraduate as well as gradu- an existing lab. The SSC is the poster ate student involvement. Otherwise we child for inadequate planning. have no future. • Put money into increasing Tevatron Lumi- • To attract young physicists, University nosity. support must improve. • The next collider should not be a ”start • A balance is important and students from scratch” effort, since I believe it should not be given false encouragement, would lead to another SSC fiasco. It but given the time lag between when should rather be viewed as an upgrade a student decides what to study and to an (existing?) facility. Each upgrade when she/he is looks for a potentially should be associated with particular physics permanent position, I don’t see what goals to justify funding and instigate could reasonably be done. At the fac- the necessity for the next one. ulty level, the interplay between government funding and what a department/ • Support research at HEP facilities. university wants is complicated. • In order of priority : 0 - Base program • A small number of universities eat up at FNAL 1 - Superconducting Linear the majority of the HEP budget. This Collider 2 - LHC participation 3 - VLHC needs to be better distributed. A mini- Magnet R&D 4 - Superconducting RF mum of one post-doc or technician and technology. Comments on Balance vs. Focus 53

• We should be upgrading current machines 1 detector. This is not happening at the to maximize their physics potential and moment, where redundancy is favored doing R&D for the next big machine. over adequate investment in each detec- It is premature to be building the next tor. If budgets allow, would be better big machine now in the US, or to be to have a 2nd collider with a diﬀerent proposing to do so. physics reach.

• There is a difference between the ”next • Presumably many facilities will exist (not machine” and a new facility. National just new ones, so balance does not have laboratories are natural places for a range to be maintained only within a new facil- of experiments, because they already have ity. What HEP can support depends on a critical mass to build an infrastruc- the size of the limited budget. Given ture. Smaller experiments can run par- the current limited budget it may be asitically off of this. Also, while for wise to have less redundancy. my personal career it would be better • if phenomenology support was ”man- Redundancy is a great thing, but at dated,” I do think that the community the cost of these detectors, it is not an responds to needs. Just not necessarily option that is worth the money it will on the time scale of our careers. take away from other experiments. • Not all machine designs are able to rea- 13.3.5 Importance of Redundacy: sonably support multiple detectors. How- ever, if two or more detectors are feasi- • It is obscene to spend $8B on a machine ble they should be built. and get 1 or max 2 interaction regions. • Can you imagine collaborations with greater I think its more important that the ”next than 2000 physicists! Diversity is impor- machine” host a large range of experi- tant. Only neutrino factory approach ments, but at the same time the number will guarantee this. VLHC timescale of collaborations is not as important. is after LHC, since its physics case will The important issue should be to get as only be made by the LHC. much physics as possible out of the next facility. At the same time, astrophysics • Two cheap detectors are probably not efforts that have some bearing on what better than a single, good detector. the physics being explored should be hosted, not just ”oh we need some astro- • It is not clear that we can afford mul- physics efforts here too...” tiple detectors at the next facility. If two detectors means the death of every- • A very interesting fully dedicated project thing else (which is almost certainly the without multi-physics can be very valu- case), then the cost is too high. While able too. There is no general rule. the next big machine is very important • to the future of the field, we cannot For an LC, one detector is probably fine. kill everything else for it. Whatever For a hadron machine, two are best. the facility is, it will not answer all the • For any new collider to be built it is important questions. absolutely essential to have at least two • May not be feasible cost-wise to have 2 detectors WITH EQUAL STANDING multipurpose detectors at next collider and OPPORTUNITIES. If there would - far better to put sufficient money into be one then effects below say the 6 s.d. Comments on Balance vs. Focus 54

limit cannot be believed. The number physics and environment becomes bet- of phenomena/reactions studied will be ter understood. much less diverse. The construction of • the detector which will be of the sev- I don’t think detector redundancy for eral hundred million dollar size will take the sake of redundancy is something our much (1.5 - 2 times) longer. One detec- field can easily afford anymore, attrac- tor only is unhealthy for the field. tive as it may be. On the other hand, if there is a physics case for two differ- • Next machine: only one, detectors: at ent kinds of beams (e.g. Z pole plus least 2. full energy e+e-, or a gamma gamma option), then a second detector may be • In reference to question 11: I would justified. rather see multiple interaction regions with significantly different experiments • The argument about number of detec- rather than multiple regions with the tors, experiment, etc. is quite impor- same type of detectors. tant, but the REALLY important question is the physics. Independent confir- • A second collider experiment doesn’t have mation of new results is VERY impor- to be completed when the accelerator tant, but might be achievable within a starts running, but the option to at least single experiment. add one later should be there. Includ- ing other physics (e.g. a fixed target • With regards to redundant detectors, I experiment and FEL/synchrotron radi- believe that they should be built if com- ation experiment) is important. patible with the accelerator design. I practice this means I favor multiple IP’s • Regarding question 11: There is less at a storage ring, but would not com- need for redundancy in e+e- than in promise the design of a linear collider hadron collider experiments. The mea- to accommodate multiple detectors. surements are generally cleaner, generally more precise, and generally can be • I assume the next machine will have at made in many channels in the same detec- least one general purpose detector. If tor (as a cross check) and less likely there is significant physics that the gen- to be created by instrumental effects. eral purpose detector can not do, but a It is reasonable for detector emphasis specialized detector can do at a reason- to vary for a high energy e+e- collider, able cost, this is obviously a good idea. especially where there is a desire to be able to make specific precision tests - by • HEP lives from the interaction of peo- switching for example between Z0 pole ple and of different experiments. In the measurements and continuum/ thresh- extreme limit, having 1 collider with 1 old discovery measurements ... Unlike experiment for a single purpose (with hadron colliders, these detectors are gen- a rigid hyrachie) would make the ”sci- erally less costly to build per discov- ence” that comes out of it not worth- ery hence making the construction of while. Single plans should be scaled two or more distinct detectors, a rea- that variety fits into the budget. sonable course of action. The signifi- • cantly greater baseline cost and com- Redundancy is a minor reason to have plexity of a detector for a hadron machine two detectors. The two detectors are makes it much more cost effective to not identical ever. build one device and upgrade it as the Comments on Balance vs. Focus 55

• Two detectors is not an option for a lin- focus on physical measurements the phe- ear collider. Redundancy is important, nomenologists suggest them. Experi- but I don’t see a solution for a linear mentalists should also understand how collider. their results are interpreted by phenomenologists (meaning of error for exam- • If we are to only have one linear col- ple). lider/VLHC in the future, I think redundancy is very important to give credibil- • The answers to these questions depend ity to results. on the resources available. For instance, two detectors are required but only if • Quality is much more important than funds are available. quantity. Neither the number of detectors nor the number of theorists plays • Even though redundancy is very impor- any role. Rather one excellent device tant, cost may make it impractical. operated by careful bright experimen- • talists and a few outstanding theorists Having two or more large multi-purpose than the unfortunate present situation detectors does not mean that they would with too much mediocre people in all do things in a redundant manner. these areas. • Past experience with multiple detectors • Given budget constraints, I would pick at a single machine has been mixed. two different but complimentary pro- The competition both helps and hurts grams (e.g. collider and fixed-target) (especially when it becomes all politics). over two large experiments on the same For the money and manpower invest- machine looking at the same physics. ment, I’d rather see more variety and And that’s not just my background speak- less redundancy. Experimenters have ing ! Redundancy is ”somewhat impor- become very much more sophisticated tant”, but it is also important to not in recent years about how they analyze put all eggs in one basket. data and how they take steps to avoid fooling themselves, so the redundancy • The redundancy between experiments is less necessary. Better to focus the (4 at LEP, Belle and BaBar etc) has so resources on making one experiment really far increased the thoroughness of results. good, and having variety in the other experiments/endeavors that are going • Because of the limited budget, new machines on. need to have a wide range of experiments. But at the same time, any new • The cost of detectors should be balanced measurements/ discoveries need to be against the cost of an accelerator. The backed up. main argument for multiple detectors is not redundancy per se, but the ability • General purpose detectors, expandable ro make optimal use of the substantial machines. investment in an accelerator • Greater facilities. Redundancy of detec- • I feel that redundancy and a rich range tors. But no redundancy of accelera- of experiments and collaborations is essen- tors in the world. More collaboration tial to the success of the next machine. between theorists, phenomenologists and A good mix of different disciplines is experimentalists. Experimentalists should necessary to keep the paths of communication open. Astrophysics and the Comments on Balance vs. Focus 56

HEP labs should coexist where they can, • We should concentrate on our own field but I think that there are some areas first and then if other fields can make where this is not feasible. use of the facilities they should be made welcome to. If money is a problem then • Identical detectors are a waste. Redun- the U.S. should stop competing with dancy should be considered along with Europe/Japan and agree to work on the cost, expected physics need for redun- major projects together. Competition dancy, might be healthy but we’re not playing • Redundancy between experiments is impor- sport. tant, however, there are lessons to be • Question 9 has may aspects. If you learned from the proliferation of B-factories, ask whether diversity is important from which may have been more politically the political point of view, the answer than scientifically motivated. More coor- is a clear ”very important”. From the dination between labs and institutions scientific point of view it is important could reduce ”unneccesary” redundancy, that the various fields of basic research i.e. 3 B-factories in the U.S. alone, while are supported, but whether or whether preserving scientifically motivated redun- not this happens at a future HEP cen- dancy, i.e. the ability to experimentally ter should be decided on the basis of verify measurements. the needs of the researchers. Hence the answer is ”very important” if an accel- • Your choices are limiting. Redundancy erator (like TESLA) is needed for other in any important measurement is vital disciplines (e.g. as a light source), but at many levels. This doesn’t necessarily one shouldn’t define multi-disciplinarity imply that two detectors are needed if a as a primary design goal. single, well conceived and built detector can look at a phenomenon in more than • Medical physics research should be val- one way. ued. Also it would be better to offer significant amount of lectures for the • HEP should focus on a world class facil- experimentalists who are far away from ity and eliminate marginal and dupli- the institutions. cate projects. • The LHC and Tevatron have clear goals 13.3.6 Maintaining Diversity: - find the Higgs and see if SUSY exists in the 100 GeV-1 TeV range. I don’t • Breadth and balance are far more impor- think any such consensus exists for the tant than trying to ”pick the winner” next generation machines. Therefore, for the field as a whole. diversity (and new ideas) is important. • • It is important that the next machine Question 10: I feel it is important to be able to host a variety of experiments expand the definition of HEP to include in order to be most prepared for new particle physics that is not done at col- physics. liders. Question 11: The size of a modern collider experiment somewhat alle- • In order to increase the chance of gov- viates the fear that a whole experiment ernments funding a large project, it is will run lock-step into some error. On important to show that it will serve a the other hand, experiments have shown large community and that it has a broad (17 keV neutrino, e.g.) that this sort spectrum of science topics to cover. of lock-step can occur even in distinct Comments on Balance vs. Focus 57

experiments. So neither is a panacea. • HEP must maintain its core mission of Question 12: I’m not sure parity is the accelerator based experiments. The com- right mixture, but some mixture is cer- munity has to support ”one” new accel- tainly good. erator in the U.S. To obtain this accelerator other projects will have to be • Anticipating reduced experimental facil- eliminated. This is a policy similar to ities, it is important to develop and pur- the one adopted by CERN to build the sue a strategy for maintaining combined LHC. nuclear, astro, and HEP physics studies. Perhaps more coordination between • It is crucial that the next big thing not these branches/labs would be economic kill the field... either if it fails or if it and positive. succeeds. The ”base program” must be vital. • The importance of the collaboration: I believed the new facility should support • Most of my opinions on these questions as many research programs as possible. are not very emphatic since it is not yet That not only will make our case stronger clear to me where the focus of the next before the Congress but also will bring machine should be. That will depend diverse ideas to the field of HEP. Also, on what current and near-future machines the possibilities of getting funds from find. The exception is my answer to different sources will increase if a very 11, since repeatable results are a funda- diverse program is supported by HEP. mental part of science, no matter what the field. The problem, of course, is • It is important to try to maintain a mar- that doubling the number of detectors ketplace of possibilities so that people and broadening the scope of scientific have some choice of project to work on. staff support invariably increases the cost. Development of an entire new labora- • We need to focus on the science; much tory, with its associated site acquisition too much emphasis on the sociology these and infrastructure costs, is probably out days... A lot of dead wood as well... of the question. Given the demograph- • I find the balance extremely important. ics in the areas of existing labs, it is However we should try to convince peo- probably also out of the question to build ple and not to force them. an accelerator that would extend much outside of their present boundaries. The • We should concentrate on a ”machine” next machine will most likely have to that gives the widest range of physics as fit within the real estate we have. This possible. It’s time for HEP to move on might mean pursuing new accelerator from one machine=one measurement. Let’s technologies rather than just trying to look at astronomers for one minute: one make existing ones bigger. machine = hundreds of measurements. • That’s a different paradigm. Whilst it is important that we aim to cover a broad range of HEP topics it • I would hope the next machine is going is obviously equally important that the to be truly versatile, for instance a mumu investment in new areas does not detract collider with great neutrino beams as from the quality of existing programs of well, etc. research. • Take care of a good pay-off of investments. No unused interaction regions in Comments on Balance vs. Focus 58

colliders, multi-physics purposes. Serve • I think that also smaller experiments/projects a large community, encompassing other should be supported even in a limited ﬁelds than only HEP. budget scenario.

• In my opinion it is very important to • I believe diversity in our experimental focus the available resources on ”world” approach to be vital to the health of the projects in order to avoid duplication field. I find the tendency for the field and maximize the physics return. At to coalesce into a handful of extremely the same time, a set of smaller projects, large experiments to be very disturbing. such as astrophysics experiments, should This trend is particularly damaging for be promoted to complement the physi- the younger physicists who will strug- cal scope, and to bridge the necessarily gle to obtain a well rounded education large gap of ’non-physics’ periods dur- and who will have difficulty in exploring ing the construction of large projects. those ”off the wall” ideas that have in the past provided some the more excit- • Maintain diversity; retain (Bob Wilson’s ing breakthroughs. concept of) ”nook and cranny” small- scale experiments, in addition to the • Given a limited budget HEP should sup- (unquestionably important) major detec- port small groups at the expense of the tors. large projects because the field needs diversity to be prepared to take advan- • HEP should remain focused on high energy tage of opportunities which have not yet particle physics, rather then indulging presented themselves. in interdisciplinary activities. • HEP must advance on multiple fronts • We should not spend all available resources to search for new (as well as expected on a single project. physics): (1) highest cm energy possi- • Need to support a diversity of efforts, ble to search for Higgs and SUSY, (2) including flagship facilities at the high neutrino oscillations, (3) Dark Matter, energy frontier. (4) Cosmology and Astrophysics. And finally, ”big” as well as ”small” experi- • The field has to retain a balance of diver- ments. sity while maintaining focus on the most • important goals. The Higgs search has Have continuous physics results coming to be one of the highest priorities. Neu- out of labs. trinos is second. Searches for ”beyond • Doing good science requires a broad approach Standard Model” physics is a third. and trying to come at the problem from • There must be room for the small exper- many different angles. Having few col- iments which are much more beneficial laborations and few kinds of colliders to students than the large experiments. (eg. only hadron colliders) is kind of There must be a mix of small and large dangerous. So we have to figure out projects – HEP should not support only how keep the field broad despite decreas- the biggest projects. ing funds and increasingly expensive experiments. One way is to try and be as • A diverse program is essential to the multi-purpose as possible: electron machines survival of the field. Squeezing out small might also be used as X-ray sources (ala projects is basically death to innovation APS or NSLS). Maybe this would allow and creativity. us to build a photon collider as well. Comments on Balance vs. Focus 59

I don’t think it’s possible to mandate • Also allow lower energy important exper- the mixture of theorists, phenomenol- iments in a booster section (or equiva- ogists and experimentalists. The best lent). that you could hope to do is encour- • age balance by choosing how to allocate Training the ”next generation” of physi- money. cists is also important. Training is easier on a small scale than in a huge col- • Right now, nature seems to be telling us laboration. Could one of the experi- to put more effort into neutrinos, while ments be ”small” and the other ”large”? go slow on precision studies of physics • for which there is no direct evidence as HEP needs some multi-billion facilities. yet. If the debate over e+e- colliders But needs in addition multiples of cheaper restricts the opportunity to make new and ’more exotic/risky’ experiments. HEP studies of the neutrino sector, it will be should realize opportunities in astrophysics. sad for the field... • If HEP can afford several experiments • Balancing the overall program will be with 500-1000 people budgeted at 100M$ key to the future survival of HEP. This +, then it should also give priority to means not only balancing experiment/ smaller (10-50 people, 10-50M$) projects. phenomenology/ theory, but large and • Diversity of different experiments includ- small scale experiments. Large scale ing underground and astrophysics; also experiments/ facilities offer economy of R&D work on development of new detec- scale, and broad physics reach at the tors and accelerators. expense of long lead times in construction data taking and analysis. Smaller, • Very important to maintain diversity in more narrowly focused experiments offer areas and not concentrate all funding in a chance to take advanges of rapidly one area (e.g. linear collider). developing trends in HEP research which • may take decades to pursue in a larger Diversity is very important ... would experiment. sacrifice redundancy on a collider machine for different kinds of machines, smaller • I think that the possibility of having experiments, etc. more than one detector at the ”next • machine” should be determined by the Significant results are beginning to come budget. I’d be more interested in putting from particle astrophysics and so sup- that money into smaller experiments (pos- port should also include funding for such sible next generation fixed-target expts). experiments. In addition, it is impera- tive that we continue with the tradition • Having a machine that is able to sup- of many ”smaller” experiments address- port a diverse range of experiments is ing very focused physics questions, i.e., important, but I believe that one should g-2, and future experiments which promise not spread one’s self too thin; the field high sensitivity tests of the SM (not just needs machines that are high enough a factor of 2 improvement in sensitiv- energy to get at what we’re looking for ity, but 10X higher sensitivity). Fur- (alas for the fallen SSC!); in my opinion thermore, we must strengthen our com- this should be the primary objective of mitment to new technologies, for they the field. are the future of this field. The current growth required to perform high energy Comments on Balance vs. Focus 60

tests of the SM is not sustainable, and rays, neutrino beams, heavy ions, and only through R&D on new techniques nuclear phenomenology. for particle acceleration, and radiation • hard technologies for particle detection It is wise to bet the future of the field on do we have a hope for the long term outcomes that seem very likely, rather future in this field as we know it today. than on poorly supported possibilities. LEP learned that only with intense col- • Given a limited budget, supporting diverse laborations of experimenters and theo- research is much more important than rists could they deduce any results of building a ”flagship” machine. We are significance. That will be even more much more likely to learn interesting true in the future. physics with a diverse program than with • The emphasis now has to be on the physics a single concentrated and centralized effort. we can do and for the machine builders Further, the diversity can help promote we need support. The machine physi- physics to the general public. cists are considered second class and that • It looks to me we can now do a ”Tesla” has landed us where we are. We have type of machine. Let’s support it. Also to make the machine part of the service we need to have 5% of the HEP budget work to do an experiment. It should allocated to ”small” experiments with just be part of the specialization. great physics importance without having to compete with ATLAS, etc. 13.3.7 Balance of Theory and Phe- nomenology: • Important to have small experiments as well as large ones, so that the young • Phenomenology is under-supported in physicist can learn hardware as well as the U.S. (I am an experimentalist). computing. A large experiment in Europe and one in the USA/Japan is very impor- • Phenomenology is too poorly supported. tant. • On question 12, the important thing is • The big money is in large experiments. for the theorists, phenomenologists and We should stop doing dumb things like experimentalists to work together and CERN to Gran-Sasso, duplicating MINOS. communicate effectively, not to have a particular mixture on site at one par- • A wide array of physics is needed, but ticular machine, though this may help. not necessarily at the flagship facility. There are still places where relatively • It is important to have a mixture, but small budgets can produce substantial the market should decide. results. • I feel strongly that “theorist” and “phe- • I think it is crucial that HEP support a nomenologist” should not be distinct cat- range of physics experiments, because egories, for the same reason that, as I we don’t know which area will teach expect, the authors of this survey would us the most about getting beyond the not accept “hardware” and “analysis” Standard Model. experimenters as distinct categories. The best people do both. • I think the ”next machine” should not • be so dominant in importance, I’m in Phenomenologists concentrating on the- favor of more diverse work like cosmic oretical calculations important for experiment (such as QCD processes relevant Comments on Balance vs. Focus 61

for Tevatron/LHC) should be hired by I think we should definitely look for sig- experimental collaborations to prevent natures of SUSY. their knowledge from being lost. • Now, as we enter a phase of many new • There are too many theorists. There accelerator and non-accelerator experi- are way too many string theorists. There ments, and related important astrophysics are not enough phenomenologists. experiments, it is important to have more experimentalists and more phenomenol- • Theorists: Phenomenologists : Experi- ogists. (We probably have an excess of mentalists = 3: 1 : 2. string theorists now.) • HEP can easily support theorists given • At least in the US, way too much money a limited budget. is given to ”string” theorists and not enough to phenomenologists. Europe • Theorists are cheap relative to exper- has a much better balance. iment, and it would be crazy to cut HEP support to theorists to incremen- • 1) HEP labs should support astrophysics tally increase funding for a facility. to the level that the experiments impact HEP, or the sites are the best place to • A healthy balance between experimen- perform an experiment. 2) The sepa- talists concerned about physics analysis ration of phenomenologists as separate and detector building is in my view also from theorists is bad for the field. very important, as is a healthy balance between phenomenologists (related to • With regard to 12), I think it is impor- current experimental efforts) and “pure” tant to get theorists and others who are theorists. In particular, the later seems looking at ideas beyond the programs at to be grossly off balance at the moment. an existing machine. Also people who can write up results in a way others can • There is a severe and very obvious lack understand and appreciate. of phenomenologists available to work closely with the experimenters in the • With regard to question 12), the actual planning of future experiments and anal- ”balance” (proportion of each category) ysis of experimental results. needs to be determined appropriately, • and this determination is independent Do not support string theory. of the need for a balance. The mixture • Being a theorist I do believe that some is not 1:1:1, but more like 1:1:8. type of quantum field theory/string the- • It is important to provide adequate fund- ory describes nature at the next gener- ing to the theoretical community, par- ation. However, my opinion is we have ticularly to invest in the computing nec- not yet learnt to solve non-perturbative essary to carry out lattice QCD calcs, aspects of QFT/Strings. Thus it would etc. be important to use the funds that encourage this type of research in theoretical • String theory is largely irrelevant to fal- physics. The solution to a QFT goes sifiable science, and therefore should be far beyond identifying the symmetries funded at a small fraction of its cur- that govern it and being able to perform rent level. In particular, the number of perturbative calculations at weak cou- string theory faculty positions is grossly plings. In terms of experimental research out of proportion to its contributions to our understanding of nature. Comments on Balance vs. Focus 62

• Strong theory program is an essential • I consider it essential for the experi- complement to any experimental pro- mental HEP community to collaborate gram. closely with theorists and phenomenologists to push the frontiers of research • New generation of HEP experiments will effectively. The mixture, in my opinion, require a closer collaboration between depends on the kind of physics under phenomenologists and experimentalists. question. About future accelerators, two e+e- linear colliders would be ideal but if this • Presently, there is a gross imbalance between goes against (politically or financially) speculative theory/phenomenology on the the elaboration of a strong research pro- one hand and real phenomenology which gram for the next muon collider, it should is critical to extract physics from exper- be avoided! I also believe that looking imental programs in all colliders in the for a post LHC hadron collider is pre- next couple of decades (cf. speech by mature. Matt Strassler at the Town Meeting). If YPP does not push hard for support • Labs and experiments need theorists and of the later, the future of HEP will be phenomenologists who work directly on bleak. the physics issues that are explored by the experiments. • For (12) I think the mixture is counter productive. There should naturally be • There are way too few phenomenogists. more experimentalists than phenoms than theorists. So it is important and the • I don’t think we can mandate a bal- market should decide. ance of fields, because academic freedom is a very strong reason people pur- • I think, at the moment, there are lots sue this field. However, I think it is a of theoretical models around but not shame that certain types of physicists enough data to test them. seem to fall between the cracks, particularly phenomenologists whose work is • Not related to budget limitations : com- not flashy but is still crucial to the inter- munication and work between experi- pretation of experiment. mentalists and theorists should be emphasized. • More support for phenomenologists. Too • many young theorists end up in string The experimental community relies upon theory while many areas of phenomenol- phenomenology, but there isn’t enough ogy are not adequately covered. This support given to phenomenology by the makes it difficult, if not impossible, to funding agencies and by the national correctly interperet experimental results. laboratories. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. • It is very very important that there is a • balance between phenomenologists and We have a long tradition of a fruitful experimentalists. Of course, phenome- mix of theorists and experimentalists who nologists should also be talking to theo- understand each other and know where rists, but eventually, theorists will even- they are needed. Science more or less tually have to come back down to Earth mandates what that mix should be; it and consider field/string theories which cannot be established by executive fiat. can be realistically measured (I should • Question 12: Who would decide what know - I am one !). balance is if not the ”market”? Comments on Balance vs. Focus 63

• Funding for HEP expt and theory should • Astroparticle physics efforts are a much be allocated within input from both spe- cheaper way of doing HEP physics in cialties, i.e., expts should be able to encour- the next generation. age useful phenomenology, theorists should • be able to have input on which expts are I think that using the same facility for interesting. Current situation with sep- experiments in different fields of physics arate review structures leads to a non- than HEP, like astrophysics or nuclear optimal mix of both. physics, is very fruitful and helps sharing costs. • ”Balance” should not be promoted through • the use of inflexible quotas. The situ- Future of HEP only in combination with ation at a given institution should be astrophysics - we HAVE to merge our judged by experts on a case-by-case basis. efforts. • • There is a tendency for students to become Don’t confuse “future of HEP” with “next theorists. This is probably due to the machine”. Future of HEP may well be high status given to theory by the physics in theory or particle astrophysics. community. We should promote pro- • I think astrophysics is very cool. I have grams to drive very well qualified peo- no objection to it being done anywhere. ple into experimental physics. Experi- However, it does not seem to me that mental physics is full of interesting and astrophysics must be supported in HEP intellectually rewarding challenges. facilities if there is some benefit to not doing so. 13.3.8 Balance with Astrophysics: • Next machine should probably also include ∼ • Not all need be invested in machine- the $500M nonaccelerator proposals based experiments. Correct mandates too. are a hard thing to anticipate. Flexi- • The astrophysics side gets a large bang bility is important and the best physics for the buck, but traditional HEP accel- should drive the choices, not the prior erator types often discount what can be investment decisions... done with it. Dunno how to change this • We have no business supporting astro- perception. physics. I think two detectors are good • Detector technologies and physics becom- but not if it chokes off upgrades as we ing much closer in HEP and astrophysics. see with CDF/D0. FNAL ought to have Very important to have cross-checks of forced them to join into one collabora- results - keeps people honest and gives tion instead of this ridiculous competi- competition. tion for non-existent resources. • Astrophysics and space-based experiments • I feel that only a limited number of astro- are good for finding inconsistencies in physics experiments are asking (or are our understanding of the Universe; they able to ask) the questions that HEP create more unanswered questions than seeks to answer. There is correlation they provide answers to. It is there- between the fields but the goals are not fore important not to lose focus and the same. continue pushing the energy and luminosity frontiers in collider-based experiments. Comments on Balance vs. Focus 64

• It is time to think of space based experi- will eventually (and soon) end the field ments in collaboration with space agen- of high energy physics. cies, as an option. • Diverse research is essential as none of • Astrophysics is important, but it may us know where the data which leads to not be necessary to do it at the labs. the next breakthrough will come from! Certainly, it’s not necessary to do it at It might be astrophysics, so we should *every* lab. do what we can to support GLAST etc. but not at the expense of major HEP • Much more attention should be given facilities. to particle astrophysics. This sort of research probes energy scales and physics • In order to train graduate students/postdocs which cannot be done at accelerators, on particle detectors, astrophysical (or attracts wide public interest and sup- even nuclear) experiments are impor- port, and naturally complements accel- tant. erator efforts. • We should look for more passive exper- • Try to get more out of cosmic rays rather iments. The future of HEP is not in than build colliders. colliders but in innovative combination of astrophysics and passive experiments • I think that HEP should concentrate (like detecting neutrino masses). on supporting experimental and theoretical efforts. Whereas there is a lot of overlap between our field and astro- 13.3.9 Survey-Specific Comments physics/cosmology. I feel that funding on Balance: efforts such as the Sloan Digital Sky • survey is outside of our remit. Such The questions in this section are almost efforts should be funded from other parts rhetoric questions: the ”right” answer of the budget. Our focus should be is already in the question. Anyway, I on promoting experiments and theory agree with the ”right” answers... which impact particle physics in a more • Answers here require considerable qual- direct way. ification. • Hosting astrophysics efforts is one thing, • The questions are based on the assump- collaborative efforts is quite another. tion that there will be a next machine. • I believe that major HEP labs should It is also possible that we have used up pursue both their primary accelerator our credit with the public. If there is programs, as well as non-accelerator projects. no next machine, all detailed questions One of the best subfields to pursue is of relative importance are irrelevant. particle astrophysics or high energy astro- • Redundancy is a loaded word. One might physics. The tie-in to astrophysical pro- also say independent verification. cesses which illuminate fundamental physics questions is necessary for a proper breadth • Your way to ask questions is very bias- of perspective at a major lab. ing, I do not know what you will do with the answers but for sure I know • I’d like to emphasize that HEP efforts what you want people to answer. You must include the fileds of cosmology and get an F for fraudulent questioning. astrophysics and non-accelerator experiments. Reliance on larger machines • Question 9 is rather obscure? Comments on Balance vs. Focus 65

• I don’t understand question 9. All col- This is how surveys ”with an agenda” lider experiments provide multi-physics are constructed. What’s up here? 9) results over a huge range of particle physics ”diverse (multi-physics)” is ambiguous subﬁelds. Does this mean that a large 11) It is at least ”somewhat” impor- facility hosts smaller ”other-purpose” exper- tant for a collider to have > 1 detector, iments? but redundancy is not the only reason. 12) Why can’t I select ”very important” • Question 11: you are leading the wit- but ”let the market decide”. ness ... nobody will answer that redundancy is not important. Still people can think it is too expensive, waste of manpower, etc.

• The answer to question 11 depends on what type of collider.

• Question 12 is meaningless without a deﬁnition of ”balance.” Perhaps direct- ing this question more toward the ”promotion of funding for” is more to the point.

• Not sure what you mean by balance, and what balance would be encouraged.

• For question 12, it’s not clear what the word ”balance” mean, from what point of view.

• Again, astrophysics and non-accelerator physics are NOT identical. This part of the survey shows rather incredible ignorance of the ﬁeld of high energy physics.

• Some of these questions are ill-formed: I don’t understand question 9 on ”multi- physics”. What is to be included? Does this mean the machine itself should be multi-disciplinary, such as TESLA? The TESLA proposal to include an X-ray FEL is a very good idea. Question 11: Redundancy is not a good choice of words. One does want complementarity and cross checking. Question 12 is unrelated to the next machine; it is a question to laboratories and the ﬁeld as a whole.

• Options for answers oddly structured, combining issues that need not be coupled the way they are in the selections. Comments on Globalization 66

13.4 Impact of Globalization after LHC. A single country cannot do it alone. 13.4.1 Global Collaboration: • Some redundancy is good, but interna- • HEP should support the advancement tional integration of goals is necessary, of the design of a machine (funded inter- in particular in the TESLA and NLC nationally) that enables particle physics question. It is a waste of money to to be done at the energy frontier. have two or more redundant accelerator physics programs in different coun- • International collaboration is the key to tries. United, the fields stands; divided, maintaining a diverse program on a limit falls. Let us not allow our individual ited budget. pride to override the needs of the field • The international HEP community needs as a whole. to come to a conclusion over physics pri- • Some international collaboration and less orities. We cannot afford to give inco- U.S. university politics would increase herent information to world governments. the available funding (even if you don’t • I very much believe in open discussions, receive more). People are too busy mak- followed by determined action, so we ing sure their little part of the detector can formulate a consensus on how our works. HEP needs to change the way field can achieve public acceptance for collaborations are structured. scientifically honest and intellectually proper • Due to budget realities, we need to form pursuits that mesh well with our inter- REAL international collaborations in order national colleagues’ activities. to accomplish the physics. • First, support running approved experi- • Science is broad and financial support ments. Second, try to get a next machine should be accordingly. Large projects in the U.S. Don’t send too much money like a new big accelerator requires inter- to Europe without getting much back. national (for us at least of European size) support. • American HEP should be committed to international collaboration/cooperation. • Focus on HEP interest as opposed to national interest. Build the best col- • Stress international cooperation; do not lider in the country that could do it demand U.S.-only efforts. best. Think international. • The world is getting smaller every day • I think the argument that the next big with the increase in networking, video project must be ”truly international” conferencing etc. If our field is going to is incorrect. We should work to insure become global we must learn to work that U.S. HEP is strong. International together from large distances. Part of collaboration will continue to develop if the fun of HEP is working with people all collaborators are independently strong. from many different places. This should • not be ignored. Most crucial is to get the lab directors and policy makers thinking that global • International collaboration is important collaborative work is essential. to the next series of machines. There is • The idea of having international collab- probably only enough money for 1 linear collider and 1 new hadron collider orations is currently taken as a necessity. However, I also think it vital that Comments on Globalization 67

even given international participation, made with the SSC contracts, i.e. requir- that detector elements produced should ing the money to go back to U.S. corpo- be created by those in the position to rations if possible. Each country involved best manufacture them, and not dis- needs to feel that it has something at tribute by, ”oh, well they needed to get stake, including getting contracts for work. some hardware done, so we’ll get the • ’insert name here’ to get these. We have several global collaborations already, and they work. Local institute • I feel the key benefit of global collabora- vs local detector presence is not a new tion in the design/ construction/ oper- problem, it can be dealt with. ation of HEP facilities is that expertise • in these areas will not be limited to the I think we have ample experience in mak- physicists living in the host countries ing large global collaborations work. – in the future one could imagine one • Many of us already work in global col- country having lots of resources but no laborations. In OPAL at LEP we have expertise, and vice versa. physicists from Europe, Japan, and North • Due to the high cost/complexity of HEP America. It is important for physicists research in the future the number of to spend a significant amount of time at HEP labs will be limited to 2 or 3 glob- the center of the collaboration, at the ally with specific research goals (neu- experiment. One can do quite a bit of trino physics, very high energy hadron work using e-mail, the web, video tele- physics). The inevitable ”global collab- conferencing, telephone, etc., but sig- oration:” will result in: 1) A multidisci- nificant presence is necessary. I don’t plinary environment with a high level of see how one can run an experiment or biasing and company like work style. 2) an accelerator without some hands-on A shrinking of the physics community presence. 3) Lower quality training since hands- • Non-U.S. HEP physicists in Europe/Asia on experience for graduate students will have much experienced on attending the be limited. 4) A cutting at the Uni- experiments in U.S. (in the offsite of its versity funds, in favor of the National own country). Labs (to complete the expensive experiment). • HEP has always been a global enterprise (e.g., the exchange of information • Strong U.S. computing leadership is very between physicists). The funding tends achievable and very important for the to be local. While HEP has done much health of the U.S. role in the global HEP to promote globalization, the interests enterprise. U.S. computing strength in of governments tend to be more local. ATLAS and CMS is currently under- funded and the U.S. leadership role is • Global collaboration works already pretty endangered. well with physicists, but there is no hope that governments will collaborate glob- • I am currently working on CMS, and ally for the length of time needed to answered the above questions with respect carry out the big projects: 10 years to to that R&D work. CMS and Atlas get approval and construct it, 10 more are good examples of functioning global years of running and upgrades based on collaborations. The key to having it the original construction, 10 more years work is to not make the mistake we of running based on a major upgrade. Comments on Globalization 68

• Large collaborations should have itiner- the future we should help them found a ating collaboration meetings matching global organization, with a budget and the percentage of physicists from each staff and formal links to national orga- collaborating country rather than the nizations. This body would provide a share of investments. Past experience formalized forum for ”thinking globally”. shows that the politics of ”everybody • signs every paper” should be maintained 1. What seems to be missing in the only in case there is a chance for a con- present climate is a mechanism for deci- troversial paper to be published with a sion making as to proposal by different minority of signatures. The advance- major labs. In the past, these labs pro- ment of physics should not be tied to vided a decision making structure for the opinion of the majority of contrib- their internal program. Now, some kind utors to large experiments (which will of international PAC is needed. The involve in the future large percentages immediate example is the choice between of all active physicists in the field, in cold and warm rf technology for an e+e- some cases). collider. The labs that sponsor each technology seem completely dedicated • It is important that there be several (as perhaps they should be) to their host locations (large experiments) for choice, and will never voluntarily accept the global collaborations. It is not good the other technology.... 2. ”Regional to have one project based at, say CERN, centers” is a possibly contentious topic and no other reciprocating projects in – if it is an initial to duplicate many of the U.S. or Asia. the facilities of existing national labs at new sites. It doesn’t appear that there • HEP should become even more a global is enough financial support for HEP in operation. Continental separation/isolation the U.S. for grand expansion in this direc- is not an option. The next step in HEP tion. Rather, the existing labs will more should be planned in an international probably evolve towards ”regional cen- context, taking into account redundancy ters” if they no longer host a major vs. complementary experiments on a accelerator facility. global level. • Again, this cannot be decided by cen- • It won’t work – we squabble badly amongst tral command; its anwer must be man- ourselves, and adding politicians to the dated by the specific activities we will mix will make things even worse. No have our review panels recommend for one country (among Germany, Switzer- funding, hoping that these recommen- land [which really also means Britain dations will be accepted by our money and France], the U.S. and Japan) will tree. let their lab close. • There will need to be better guidance • When it comes to working on experi- and leadership than at present, as bet- ments we are internationalists. But when ter management is needed for larger col- it comes to decisions about the ”next laborations. A lot of money is wasted big thing” each country wants its own by inefficient management at the moment. ”next big thing”. We shall be forced One major problem will be giving recog- to be more sensible and to pay more nition for the people who actually run than lip service to global decision mak- the detector(s) rather than those who ing. How? I don’t really know. But do the physics analyses. At the moment since it is the youth who will inherit Comments on Globalization 69

there is little or no reward for detec- Argonne and LBL HEP groups should tor work. I expect this will diminish as be absorbed into U. of Chicago and U. the collaborations get larger. Similarly, Cal Berkeley, and funded per physicist a greater role for technicians, engineers at the level of university research groups. and com. scientists within the collabo- • If U.S. physicists wish to partake in a ration is needed. global collaboration then they need to • Let’s for once take an example in multi- be prepared to travel overseas, rather nationals. Particularly where it con- than expect foreign collaborators travel cerns management, physicists are bet- to the U.S. ter of *not* to reinvent the wheel. • Global collaborations are bit more com- • It is important to develop U.S. plans in plex to keep going than national ones an international context, with interna- and those a bit worse than regional and tional support and cooperation. on down until the best is all in one institution - still, the new detectors are large, • Greater contribution of a global collab- the collaborations are large and extended oration would be to provide a guaran- but that is only one more difficulty. If teed funding profile. Participation in this were easy we wouldn’t want to do a global collaboration without such a it. basis will be impossible. • There are numerous examples of global • Global collaboration could be success- collaborations that work adequately. How- ful if and only if there are efforts from ever a future enormous collaboration on physicists of different countries but sim- a future large project will not be a good ilar scientific interests. place to initiate and train young people. Smaller and much faster local projects • Form small groups of people, 4-6 all inter- will be needed as a foundation for big ested in working on the same small area. international efforts. These groups should report progress to the physics subject area leaders The sub- • I think the major facilities should be ject area leaders in turn reporting to built by international collaborations, but the spokesman. It is rather important be located in the countries with most that the small group of 4-6 all be close developed infrastructure, experienced inge- enough to talk to each other in person. niers and qualified workforce - like U.S., Good quality software tools, well docu- Eorope, Japan. Regional centers, like mented are a must. Real responsibility described above, is a good idea, allow- must be taken for software. ing reduce the need for travel, and easing access for students to such facilities. • I can only comment on Fermilab, which is a wonderful place, with many resources... • Globalization of HEP is not just a U.S. R&D, computing, and software, can be issue as this section has leant towards. designed there, for a global machine. If this ’flagship machine’ as you call it is to be built in the states then we need to • Pragmatically, global collaborations are think long and hard about the location desirable, and inevitable. National labs of it. without accelerator facilities cost much • more per physicist and have much weaker Clear goals and leadership for the whole impact on students than university labs. collaboration and for each regional component. Autonomy (as far as possible) Comments on Globalization 70

in carrying out each major sub-project. ”can do” ability look a the initiatives of Detector design, development and con- the last 15 years.. struction to take place in all regions. • [By region I mean Europe, USA, Japan]. You will always underestimate the value Strong involvement of theorists, from of a multi-national collaboration (with design of accelerator through detector equal participation among the nations) to ultimate physics analysis. until you are actually in one. • • Living and working in Europe makes HEP communities in U.S., Europe and it difficult to judge the U.S.-situation. Asia must work out a coherent long term Still, competition and collaboration are plan that can be supported by the gen- both very essential, as is complemen- eral public and governments. tary equipment. I hope that the U.S. • I’ve taken part in quite a few experi- (or America as a whole) will get an large ments that can be defined as ”global accelerator of the future (TESLA) gen- collaborations” and I’ve found them very eration, but would strongly advocate that effective. My opinion is that the future it is not a national lab, but rather a type of particle physics,in both accelerator- of ”world-lab”. based experiments or astrophysics experiments will greatly benefit from the global • A global collaboration working together collaboration approach is possible. It has been tested and it works! Is the best way for the promo- • Physicists should start to realize global tion of science (HEP). aspects. I don’t care whether a lab or a colleague is in the U.S., Japan, Europe • Global collaborations can work very well. or on the moon. The quality of physics Collaborations definitely should be global. results on this globe is relevant. The • The U.S. has to develop a ”culture” of rest is outdated nationalism. international collaboration, i.e. to give • I welcome global collaboration working up the leitmotiv: ”We are second to powered by modern communication tech- none”. nologies. • Globalizaion is a mantra I don’t sub- • A global collaboration will only work scribe to; we will have leaders that will if the discoveries are shared. LHC will cause things; the Germans WILL build be a test case. If $500M from the U.S. an NLC because they believe in it strongly results only in discoveries by ”European enough to do it the physicists them- scientists” then I think globalization is selves; internationalization is with us not going to work. We must also be NOW as is; our current generation is careful with the results from the Teva- largely analogus to the previous gener- tron in Run 2. The good publicity should ation of bubblers; they did a lot of the be spread around to all the participat- physics and substantially inherited the ing institutions - not just the national field but rode the coattails of generation labs. 1 who built all our machines and started the physics; the bubbler generation did • At networking bandwidth increases global a terrible job of running the next ini- collaboration will become easier. My tiatives; Isabell, the SSC etc etc... The current collaboration, BaBar, is already Japanese, Germans, and even Europeans intercontinental, and I work at my uni- are making a laughingstock of our vaunted versity rather than SLAC. As to regional Comments on Globalization 71

centers, it’s really a matter of determin- • I think that being closer to the detec- ing whether it’s cheaper to build/maintain tor is fundamental and if one has to them or to fly people to the detector. Of choose I would in the end choose to be course the real experts (those who can closer to the detector than to the super- fix hardware problems) will always need visor (provided the supervisor can han- to be stationed near the detector. With dled it!). As for the U.S. national labs, regard to national labs, I think there is I really believe that the ones that are enough to do in the next 25 years to in being are necessary for the future of keep all of our current labs busy, but HEP, but I also believe that before eval- see no need (or practical possibility) for uating whether open or not new labs opening a new one. the HEP community as a whole has to be involved: the ”next machine” needs a truly international effort and ”national” 13.4.2 Proximity to Detector: labs might not be the right answer! • It will always be important to spend • I am definitely in favor of international time at the site of the detector. collaboration on experiments. I think • The international collaborations based the major element of a students’ edu- on facilities outside the U.S. require large, cation that will suffer is lack of prox- continuous presence of U.S. personnel imity to the detector. It is also not at those sites. Too many U.S. physi- clear to me how the experiment will sur- cists want to play remotely (i.e., stay at vive with all component experts away home in the U.S., and participate only from the detector. I think physicists via teleconferences or occasional collab- should remain committed to spending oration meetings). This ends up plac- some amount of time away from their ing all the burden on on-site personnel, home institution. and destroys the goodwill in the col- • Hands on hardware experience with the laboration. Instead of having remote- detector or in the case of accelerator operations facilities in the U.S. for exper- physics hands on experience with the iments based abroad, it would be much different components to control the beam better for U.S.-based personnel to relo- is important if the student doesn’t have cate to the site of their experiment, and a strong experimental background. The provide remote-conferencing for them to idea would be that students receive the participate in activities back at their adequate education in experimental physics home institutions back in the U.S. Put at their universities before going to the this question the other way – how com- lab. I believed that global collaboration fortable would U.S. collaborators at U.S.- can definitively boost the progress in based facilities feel with having their science. It will allow to have more and overseas colleagues remain overseas, par- reliable results with lower investments. ticipating only remotely? This would It will improve communication among not really make for a very cohesive col- scientists with positive consequences in laboration. Same principle applies in their research. reverse. DO NOT promote remote operations as a substitute for on-site pres- • Hands on experience is important for ence. There is no substitute for human people in the formative part of their presence on-site. career. I rarely do hardware/ electronics/ DAQ, but I can do it if needed. Comments on Globalization 72

It is the fluency that is important. As • Working in or near a lab when learning a supervisor, I find that some students experimental physics make a big differ- need more direction than others and ben- ence ... efit by my proximity. Other mor inde- • pendent students thrive at the lab. I The question of advisor vs. detector am not sure I understand the role of proximity depends strongly on the indi- a regional center in lieu of a lab. It is vidual, this can’t really be answered in not clear that developing the infrastruc- general. Labs should be kept open as ture for a center at a greenfield site is a long as they are doing good physics. If wise use of resources. If a linear collider they are not doing good physics they were sited somewhere in asia, I would should close. be more inclined to spend my summer • Students should learn not to be depen- at the lab than a domestic center. Sim- dent on their advisors, particularly when ilarly, the center of LHC will be CERN, working in large collaborations. it is and that would be were I would spend also not essential to be continually near extended leaves. the detector (in fact, to concentrate on • Travel will remain important, but tele- independent analysis it can be better conferencing, especially if it can realis- not to be). tically simulate a physical gathering of • Students would have to be resident at scientists will help many aspects of the the lab, since it is the only way to learn design and analysis of data. I feel about what they need to learn. labs much the way I feel about detectors, redundancy is important, even if • Proximity to the detector is important it is only partial. And labs scattered to the roles that a large number of physi- around the world helps to insure this cists take on. But it is also very impor- depth. tant to have access to a large number of collaborators. In question 16 this is • If anything I think for young people trav- largely why I side with detector. eling overseas to work is an advantage. It adds important perspective. It gets • Hands-on hardware experience is impor- more difficult as you get older. tant, but needn’t be with the particular detector you’re working on. It’s not like • Globalization has an impact on personal we all know EVERY bit of our detectors lifes. It is no coincidence that nobody in inside out, is it? Or am I in trouble with our European based group is married or my supervisor ? has a family and being single is seen as a bonus by the department head. It is • It’s hard to predict the future. Every- devastating to one’s life, going beyond thing depends on the broadband tech- the bimonthly problem and taking it to nology and storage breakthrough. Mak- completion: no family possible. Alter- ing an ”educated” decision now is illu- natively one cannot participate in physics. sory. Look at video conferencing - it’s been around for 20 years, and it still • A collaboration works much more effi- can not replace a day worth of presence ciently if everybody is at the location at the detector site. of the experiment. Teleconferences etc. cannot replace permanent personal con- • Building of a detector or of an acceler- tact. Travel budgets are important. ator can be distributed easily. Once it Comments on Globalization 73

comes to analysis the best place to be doing this for years, though one group is where the detector is. still controls the ”experimental apparatus”. • Hardware experience: As annoying as I personally find it, it really is a good • Computer technology allows a true inter- thing re: building character and stay- national collaboration for virtually any ing in touch with reality. Advisor vs. experimental facility. This should be detector proximity: Depends on the stage largely exploited to attract the best tal- of one’s career in which one finds one- ent worldwide for any set of experiments. self. When trying to learn to swim, • advisors are crucial. After some mea- This seems rather obvious. It’s possi- sure of autonomy is gained, some qual- ble to operate an apparatus intelligently ity time with the detector is probably anywhere in the world, from anywhere in order. Use common sense. in the world with today’s technology. In ten years, I can imagine we would • It is critical that people working on an no longer actually fly somewhere just experiment work together. Teleconfer- to take shifts. encing is a pitiful substitute for coller- • ing someone in the hall. The usual place We already have lots of experience in for meeting is the central place – the experimental HEP. Working in global experiment’s site. If the site is over- collaborations will become easier as com- seas, our grad students will live there munication technology improves. How- (as usual), but so will the postdocs and ever, there is no substitute for spend- untenure - types and their families. Why ing significant time on site to develop bother moving back to the States after an understanding of the hardware! the experiment is over? • Question 15: unless you are a theorist, • Broadband is going to help a lot, espe- or you plan to continue your career on cially when we have learned to use it Wall Street or in the Silicon Valley. Ques- better. However, people need to work tion 16: it is important to be in an on their detectors and beams physicists intellectually-stimulating environment, also need to have hands on in many especially for grad students. Sometimes important situations. This means that labs provide that, but quite often uni- the foreign travel process has to be ade- versities have an edge. For a student, quately funded and the approval pro- it is important to be able to see ”how cess simplified. Maybe this is not a the lab works” and have hands-on expe- problem outside of the national labs, rience, but it is also important to be but it is a major problem within. I exposed to the life outside HEP, espe- don’t know what the highest level multi- cially given uncertain career prospects. national institutional structure should Therefore, as an issue of ”globalization”, look like; inevitably it will be formal, it is important for universities to be able remote, and less responsive than desir- to be actively involved in the physics able. However, at the collaboration level analysis, and not have to go to the lab existing models will probably work. to run software. • • Collaborations need to improve infor- 1) A global collaboration will only work mation flow. The technology exists. if the members also have direct in-person contact at reasonably close periodic inter- • People who use space satellites have been vals. Near future technology is inca- Comments on Globalization 74

pable of replacing the vital role of per- require just good network access. This sonal contact. Communication will dete- does not necessarily require big hard- riorate, and regionalized banding-together ware at all labs. On the other hand, it will become a major problem if there is is not clear from the question how large no central gathering. the investment needs to be to have a RC. For example, if the cost is a few • I think globalization of experiments and $M, then both LBL and SLAC should of machines is of vital importance. While have it; if the cost is $100M, then only it is still indispensable that at some time one needs to have it. Question 19 is in the career one has hands on experi- weird. What is the relation between the ence, this is not vital during the long ”importance” of labs vs. reducing the time an experiment runs. There work- number? We might have only 1 lab, ing on one continent while the experi- but it would be very important. BNL ment is on another is certainly possible. is moving towards nuclear physics, and In fact many of us are already doing this its HEP is winding down. Where does quite successfully. it fit in this question? • It will be very tough, considering that • We need to do as much as possible to the less developed countries will have keep down the ”barrier of entry” into less sophisticated video facilities, less HEP, particularly HEP-experiments. If travel money. Basically, if one wants it is possible to do productive work near to be a productive member of a collab- your home institution we would attract oration, then one should be stationed in more physicists and perhaps more money. the first world (that includes Japan). I wonder if we’re approaching another • At a fundamental level, people need to ”split” in HEP: between detector builders feel involved and needed. Large col- and data analyzers. (How do we bal- laborations have succeeded so far b/c ance this with the value of hardware there has been strong effort to spread experience? I don’t know). Or perhaps them around the world, so most insti- we should be moving towards making tutions are ”near” something. Addi- data publicly available. I mean TRULY tionally, the construction/maintenance public, rather than what D-Zero is doing tasks have been specifically chosen so with Quaero -which is a good start. Maybe that small university groups can specif- people can get early access to the data ically and markedly contribute. by doing service-work. A collaboration would then publish its data rather than • Question 16 is a serious problem. Hav- its analyses. This would allow real spe- ing young people live at the experiment cialization in the process of detector build- running ”open loop” is bad for every- ing which could help keep costs and man- one. On the other hand, doing an exper- power requirements down (imagine hav- iment remotely is just not feasible; too ing a ”standard” silicon detector or calorime- much of the communication is lost. The ter). The danger to this approach, of supervisor needs to spend more time at course, is that the detector builders might the experiment and/or a mentor sys- loose respect and job-prospects. It might tem needs to be established to help the not be seen as ”exciting” and interest- young people stay near the real axis. ing. I’m thinking of the example of This tends to undermine the supervi- accelerator physics here. How do we sor, but that is just life. Question 17: avoid this? I don’t know. Regional centers as described above really Comments on Globalization 75

• It’s all about networking and data dis- • Time lag between regional centers and tribution. As it is a lot of people on experiment will be too long. large collider experiments only know the • detector hardware as a picture. For future HEP is a international field as such we large experiments access to the data and must be prepared to work in a distributed ability to communicate with remote col- fashion at local universities and be pre- laborators is paramount. pared to travel as required to do the research. Most recruitment takes place • We will always need physical presence - at universities and regional centers will after all we’re humans, so are your co- only weaken them. workers, and communication is improved • by physical presence. But meetings 3- It is certainly useful to have regional 4x a year are good enough. For the centers with ultra-fast communication rest of the time a distributed data (most with experiments; FNAL and Brookhaven important) and R&D and control scheme will do that for LHC. I don’t think a should be sufficient. remote control room would help. • I think all data grids, regional centers, 13.4.3 Regional Centers: and any other such ideas are wonderful ideas to broaden participation and • Regional centers may be a good idea increase the value of the physics. even if the next machine is in the U.S. • They also afford the opportunity to be National labs are a natural and com- located in a place with a better quality pelling place to host regional centers, of life than FNAL, Sudbury, wherever especially wrt to U.S. congressional fund- MINOS is, etc. ing. They have immense infrastructure, local support and existing programs. • Global collaboration not only on the exper- • iments, but also in construction and run- The regional centers may be developed ning the machine is essential. Regional at the existing national labs. centers with expertise and educational • Hardware experience can be gained on possibilities for accelerator should be strength- R&D and construction projects that can ened and have the possibility to partic- be run at Universities. Definition of ipate as full members. ”regional centers” as remote control rooms • For collaborating groups with hardware is unfortunate. I don’t think the remote responsibility a regional center can never control rooms are important. Regional replace the on-site expert. It can only centers for data analyses would be use- serve to reduce travel efforts for shift ful. takers. So it should be truly regional, • As the quality of video-conferences or since it almost makes no difference whether other telepresence facilities improves, they you fly transatlantic or coast-to-coast. should increasingly be used. There is It should be within a day’s drive from no reason why some of the shift work any collaborating institution. couldn’t be done remotely. However, • Regional centers may save money, but face-to-face contact and hands-on expe- they will NOT have a positive impact rience will not become less important on detector/accelerator operations. in the near future, even if they may become somewhat more rare. Comments on Globalization 76

• I don’t know if these types of ”regional at the hardware just seems like a poor centers” can take the place of ”taking idea. Shifters should also be able to shift” at the experiment. With the improve- take advantage of beam problems by ments in computers and networking, the going in which would be impossible on possibilities of monitoring detector per- a remote shift. formance can be done from home on • your laptop. I don’t see how this could I really don’t know how this is going replace ”taking shift” at the sight. Trav- to work. I believe we have to move eling to take shift is nearly equally oner- to the model of regional centers, but it ous whether the experiment is near by is a brave new world and I can’t pre- or half a world away. dict how well this will actually work. I do think that while contact with the • Regarding question 17 ... I am not sure detector is important, the most impor- that the quality of the physics results tant thing is contact with your fellow will improve, since this is dependent on physicists. It is the successful inter- other factors, like accelerator performance, action among people that determines detector performance, and the ability our progress more than anything else. to adequately record interesting physics In my mind this mandates ”centers” of events. These facilities might not be some sort. Right now, those are the big able to impact these factors, but they labs, but in the future the role could would certainly be important for remote be replaced by regional centers provided users to understand the experiment they they develop enough critical mass. Inter- are working on at a more fundamen- center relationships are likely to be com- tal level, which will allow such users to plicated and may develop (unfortunate) better understand the quality physics political tones. Closeness to the detec- results derived from this next machine. tor and the hardware is important for the people with strong hardware inter- • In order to keep the ﬁeld exciting, we ests, but the notion that we all need to need to keep pushing the frontier. This be close to the detector is based on old means bigger facilities, not more facili- ideas that date back to the days when ties. If it is necessary to close some labs experiments were smaller, cruder, and in order to make the largest facilities more tabletop. As for the role of U.S. even bigger than we ought to. On the labs in the next 10-25 years, I’d like other hand, if the others can contribute very much to see one of them (FNAL!) in to the main one, then we should sup- host the Linear Collider. The others port them. The notion of shifting on would make great regional centers, plus a detector when all of the real hard- have strong programs of ”smaller” scale ware is at another location is prepos- projects, astro-particle-physics, etc. terous. You would spend far too much time and money getting the remote sys- • The communication technologies that tem working and keeping it maintained. would be needed for such a thing will Also, if the remote center will have the not be mature enough to trust in quite ability to actually do anything, think a long time. The problem is not the of the security breaches possible. On ability to build prototypes, which I’m a collider experiment like D0 or CDF, sure we can do — it will be problems it may not be possible to check out the with the very large scale that we won’t detector itself when the beam is on, but discover until we are already deep into having a shifter who can’t even look the project. Such experiments would Comments on Globalization 77

be far more meaningful for computer • I’m working in Canada, and I’m not science and network engineering than sure what exactly is meant by ”regional for physics (which isn’t a bad thing, it centers”. My answers to question 18 just needs to be kept in mind). Besides, and 19 refer to distribution of particle when the dust settles and the technol- physics centres in Canada. ogy *is* working well, we’ll probably • find the band of access too narrow for Regional centers would help, if for no our needs: tinkering is only possible when other reason than it gets collaborators one is immersed in an environment. working in the same place. However, they’d only work if there was already • Clearly defined responsibilities assigned a lot of collaborators who are already to each participating institution. Clearly working at the site of the regional cen- laid out metrics for performance. A ter, and the travel costs to get there chain of command with some teeth in it. were noticeably less than to get to the Without it, regional centers will merely actual detector site. be the same hotbeds of confusion that • they are now. Also, individuals should Difficult as an outsider to comment on not be allowed to split their time among specifically U.S. problems. The Global more than one large collaboration (>500) Accelerator Network sounds great, detail and one small one (<100). Does any- needs to be investigated to see if it really body seriously believe that people who works. A pilot project would be a good are members of more than one large col- idea before committing ourselves to this laboration can seriously contribute more for evermore! than name power to either ? • The proposed Global Accelerator Net- • Regional centers are VERY good for some work seems like a good start. things (data crunching) but remote con- • I don’t think Global Accelerator Net- trol rooms can be bad as young people work will work that well. could end in a ”virtual reality physics”. Physics is (still) flesh and blood. • It will hurt to have people remotely looking at problems. Ownership of the detec- • My experience on Auger is that remote tor/lab will only accrue to the resident stations are very important. It is very team. The GAN is a nice sounding idea expensive to travel to the southern site that will not work. (Argentina), and it is difficult to spend more than 2 weeks down there due to • Re: regional centers - How to monitor other commitments at Fermilab. a detector and approve physics results • I believe that it is extremely important, in a 1000-member global collaboration especially early in ones career, to be (without using up the whole week in present at the experiment/lab. This is meetings/travel) are questions that need in part so that the full experience of to be addressed. Regional centers will working with the apparatus occurs, and need very good connections to the detec- in part to broaden knowledge of the field. tor site to do any of the monitoring, In this sense, regional centers would be DAQ etc. tasks listed. Even in the a disaster, since they would remove the U.S., connections from a university are incentive to send students abroad and nowhere near good enough to accom- promote provincialism in U.S. high energy plish these tasks remotely. A demon- physics. stration that this is feasible and reliable Comments on Globalization 78

is needed to make any informed deci- but I do not see the need for regional sion on this. Will funding for travel centers to monitor data taking. This to/from these regional centers be jus- does not mean that remote access by tifiable? Traveling from a home uni- experts as needed is bad, just that it versity to a regional center just to use can be accomplished without the invest- video-conferencing seems to miss the whole ment in regional centers. As far as anal- point of video-conferencing. Why not ysis is concerned, it is distributed now, improve links to existing universities and and it will continue to be distributed, organize/streamline meetings better? To whether we like it or not. Again, I do improve the quality of physics results not see the need for regional centers to and of the peer review process, espe- facilitate this aspect of accelerator-based cially if attending meetings by video, experiments more documentation on analyses and • their progress would be very helpful: slides About ”centers”; quality not quantity. on web before meeting, descriptive note • I think this is very important, but I distributed before meetings, analysis code would prefer to leave details to those in a public area specific questions sent experienced in this area. Difficult issues to speaker before meeting. Re: National involve money, credit, and politics. labs: Current national labs are funded; it’s clear that the funding for building • The existence of regional centers will be new ones is not there, eg SSC in Texas, a benefit, but it’s not clear to me what NIF over-budget. CERN/FNAL are good the cost/benefit ratio will be compared examples of what you can do by build- with other ways the money might be ing on what’s already there, rather than spent. starting from scratch, which usually costs • a lot more in terms of infrastructure I feel that a hands-on feel for the actual and people. Closing some labs? ANL, detector is very important in getting LBNL, LLNL, BNL, FNAL,... do diverse a feel for the data being collected and research. Could this really be done at helping in wringing the most out of it. any one university? A list of what we I feel that ”regional centers” will help would lose in terms of resources and to keep communication between those, research projects is necessary to make with valuable experience, that can’t relo- any informed decision on this. cate to the lab and those that are local to the lab. I feel that the current U.S. • We should have regional centers which labs can play a large role in this and already correspond to national labs which that they must play an integral role in do HEP: BNL, FNAL, SLAC mostly. any future machines to be built in the Other nations may also be included in US. to the lab having regional centers (Japan, Brazil, • Canada, India, Russia, China, Australia, A single collaboration could have many S. Africa). (dozens perhaps) centers around the U.S. These would be at universities and labs • Work will always be centered physically where many collaborators reside, or where where detectors and accelerators reside. many could easily commute to. Virtual control rooms (aka. regional • centers) are ridiculous. Focused at a national lab with a few regional centers for Monte Carlo work. • There is a role for distributed analysis, Grid connections. Comments on Globalization 79

• I think it is impossible to run an acceler- • As I see it, there seems to be a some- ator, or a detector, remotely. If a power what natural division in terms of the source dies, someone has to be on site, functionality envisioned for ”regional cen- so that the voltage gets reset and opera- ters” – first, they would provide con- tion resumes. Since there will necessar- trol and monitoring systems for remote ily be staff and scientists on site, I think detectors/accelerators; second, they would that regional centers (other than the provide regional access to full (or per- labs) will create ”unneccesary” redun- haps partial) datasets from the exper- dancy, and result in less efficient data iments they are controlling/monitoring, taking and therefore lower quality sci- along with concomitant computing resources ence. The efficiency of data taking becomes needed to adequately exploit the datasets exponentially more important, as the • new facilities proposed require enormous I regard the integration of human resources amounts of power per year- on the order in smaller countries of the utmost impor- of 150 MW/yr. At a cost of 0.6M$/MW, tance. Countries that do not have the (from FNAL power consumption and economical resources to contribute money operating budget today), inefficient data but do have a lot of young physicists taking is an insupportable strain on the in need of guidance. This will bring HEP budget. new ideas to the field and can easily be achieved using video conferencing tech- • Regional centers will degrade the qual- nologies and such. ”Regional Centers” ity of beams and analyses, but MIGHT should be cloned also in these places. improve the ability of remote physicists • to participate. I don’t think the idea Virtual control rooms are a poor sub- will work very well. stitute for ”hands on” detector work. They will help run an experiment, no • Global collaboration would have to have doubt, but should not be used as an region centres but it would still be very excuse to prevent students from travel- important to allow for visits to the real ing to the actual experiment. site. National labs must continue to supply electronics/detectors development • We’ve learned a lot about global collab- expertise and support smaller experi- orations from current large-scale exper- ments. iments. We should use what we learned there and see where the problems are • I very much encourage the cross-participation to be able to ensure some truly global in different international projects through team-work. Regional centers with lots the so-called regional centers. This should of resources sound like a great step in apply to both European participation the right direction. in U.S. projects and U.S. participation in European projects, as well as to poten- • It is crucial for the students to be at the tial projects in other countries and to experiment. I personally to not believe the sharing of responsibilities within the in regional centers. U.S. or Europe. • Regional centers are a good idea but • Running the experiment should be a the host inatitute will always carry the local affair done by professional staff. most weight since where the hardware Data-quality monitoring, testing and debug- is that’s the place where the action will ging should be possible externally with be. good networking facilities. Comments on Globalization 80

• It could become chaotic or just be an experiment as possible. Regional Cen- organizational nightmare if there was ters are not a good idea. People learn more than one of these regional centers. by interacting - and I do not mean by video conferences. It is crucial for peo- • It already works in some cases for detec- ple to work at the experimental site as tors. It can also work for accelerator much as possible. studies, but with local hardware experts on site. • We have to realize that s/w is a bigger and bigger issue for collaborations. • BTW, the issues here apply to LHC This means that efforts in that field should operations, as well as to future facili- count with a significant weight with respect ties. 17) There are other reasons for to h/w activities on the detector. Being ”regional centers”, including greater ease a European working at SLAC I could of participation by both senior experi- also see the many advantages of having enced physicists, and young physicists more remote control options available. who would benefit greatly from the expe- It does however need to be built in to rience. 19) I’d like my answer to be the experiments right from the begin- ”much the same role” AND ”about the ning. current mix of lab sizes and types”, BUT ”the role of some labs may have to change”. • Regional centres are very important, not only in U.S. but also at other places • Regional centers should replace long trips of the world. All high energy physics e.g. to Europe due to shifts; a role of experiments are facing a manpower short- regional centers easing analysis is also age. Situation can be improved if work desirable; personal discussions cannot is distributed properly all over the world. be replaced by video conferencing; regional centers should work as well for HEP as • This is the first I’ve heard mention of they are for international companies! the idea of ”regional centers,” and I’m skeptical. Access to the hardware and • The next machine is already being built face-to-face communication are very impor- in Europe with large U.S. participation. tant. Access to the detector is probably Regional centers are probably a good slightly more important than proximity idea but need to be tested. I would to the advisor for a graduate student, advocate regional centers plus ability to but I believe the difference is small. work from everywhere. Technology will allow it. • I think the main advantage of ”regional centers” is the effect upon people’s lifestyles • Local centers are probably fine, for data and the balance between finding a job analysis and processing etc. Maybe even and needing to commute. I would thus for shifts. Nevertheless a shift needs place them near large cities that do not interaction with the hardware and local currently host national labs. experts to fix things, so you won’t get around to have a center among centers. • I’m not sure the remote control room itself is a good thing. However, a regional • As a member of an experiment taking center which brings together scientists place outside of the United States, I from different collaborating institutions encourage all young members of a col- is very valuable. This would be a more laboration to spend as much time at the important aspect of regional centers, in my opinion. You might need a virtual Comments on Globalization 81

control room to give the place focus, I case, I’m a sceptic. Shift crews (after guess. initial phase) are small, so dispersing seems unhelpful (I’d expect average occu- • Regional centers strike me as an extremely pancy of one of these remote control stupid idea. rooms would be zero or one). Hence • In case regional centers take over from I assume you mean to run the entire the national labs on certain physics pro- experiment from the remote site? Might grams, the later may be restructured to work, but network links are not infalli- pursue state-of-the art technologies and ble, and I cannot see any collaboration possibly house test grounds for future accepting that the control room could experiments. lose contact with the experiment (which, if it is remote, it *will* do at some point). • Sort of like how an unmanned interna- Given that there will probably be some tional spaceprobe is operated. need for physical intervention (at the level of removing faulty DAQ modules) • I am worried about the decline of hard- and that initial data recording will be ware/software work at the universities local (you will not ship the RAW DAQ because it reduces the opportunities to stream to a site on another continent excite undergrads about HEP and reduces to record it), I just don’t see this being opportunities for outreach to the pub- very helpful. DAQ teams put a lot of lic. Also funding grad students/postdocs stock in reliability, and this proposal as sub-contractors to the labs on lab- could only reduce it. Remote advice, funneled money is worrying because of yes, but not remote control. If shift lack of stability. We should think care- crews were large, with many experts around fully how to maintain the strength/presence to monitor (as opposed to control), I of HEP at the universities while imple- could imagine these people being dis- menting the regional centers idea. persed, but my experience (from PETRA, LEP and PEP-II experiments) is that • I find it hard to believe that an acceler- this is not how things will be after the ator or a complete LHC-scale detector first few months (and in the first months can be run remotely. The goal should all experts will be on-site with the detec- be to maintain operation of smaller detector in any event). I *do* see a role for tors or sub-detectors from remote places. regional analysis centres, but not for An extremely good computer network is remote control rooms. Oh, and while crucial. I answered ”don’t have a detector” to • A global collaboration will work best if Q14, that is because my role in BaBar the focus of collaborative technologies is is offline software and ATLAS does not on enfranchising collaborators as well as exist yet. I was a DAQ expert on OPAL, possible at their home institutes, rather and am a first-level trigger designer for than focusing on regional centers. ATLAS - hence my normal role is in trigger/DAQ (but not with my current • I’m not 100% sure what you envisage live experiment). I should perhaps remind here: do you mean the entire experi- you at this point that I’m European, ment run from a single virtual control so don’t have strong views on the U.S. room, or a dispersed shift crew spread national labs (personally I’d prefer them between several such plus the actual con- to stay open, but I don’t think the Vir- trol room near the experiment? In any tual Control Room is a strong argument Comments on Globalization 82

if that is the objective). • National centers are great, but most important would be to have enough funds to • Regional centers could make gigantic col- ensure frequent travel to experiments. laborations tolerable when it come to data taking and analysis. • My last answer is what I think should happen; not what I believe will happen. • More than control rooms, you need places As for regional centers, one needs to be with a critical intellectual mass to under- careful about how such things would be stand and advance the physics of the coordinated. While there could be as experiment, along with data taking. many monitors as desired in principle, • Coming together and working together in fact there should be only one active in the main places (e.g. next machine) control room where such things as volt- is much more important than outside ages and detector parameters are set. control centers. One could envision control rooms in different hemispheres handing off control • Comments: 1) experts need to know the of the experiment at shift change so that hardware precisely (i.e. expertise) so he everybody works the day shift (although needs to work with it on place, there- many prefer evenings). But it can be fore I disfavor regional centers 2) addi- difficult enough to track what happens tional national labs (whether in U.S. shift-to-shift in a single control room or Europe or wherever) are only cost where only one group at a time is in intense and do not contribute to new charge. Multiple, simultaneously oper- physics more cost-effective is one physics ating control rooms is a recipe for con- place and multipurpose/redundant detec- fusion, no matter how good video con- tors. ferencing eventually gets (and it has a long way to go). Such centers might • I don’t think ”regional centres” are impor- provide advice or input to an opera- tant - I don’t think we could run the tional control room at the experiment, DAQ / control room by video confer- but their number should be limited. They ence! But we will need many sites car- would undoubtedly cut down travel expenses rying out data analysis/ monte carlo in a global collaboration, but sometimes generation, much like the SAM model there is just no substitute for being there. at D0 or the grid for LHC. • Quarterly face-to-face collaboration meet- • The point about ”regional centers” is ings; 2-3 regional data-taking monitor- equally valid for collaborators outside ing centers in the U.S., others in other the U.S. - if you aren’t in the country countries at same per-physicist density the ”next machine” is in, it can become as in U.S.; hands-on work on hardware very difficult to do good physics work. for all young experimenters at home and The quality of beams and physics at at the detector during early part of career, the detector might not improve with the with periodic returns for detector upgrades; existence of reasonably easily accessible expanded role for video conferencing as ”regional centers”, but the quality of this technology matures. work done relating to physics done at the detector could be greatly harmed • The regional centers should be at uni- by the non-presence of those trying to versities as well as at national laborato- be active collaborators. ries students at all levels must be involved research must be recognized by univer- Comments on Globalization 83

sity administrations as an intrinsic part the fields of high energy and accelerator of responsibilities of faculty members physics. In order to realize these benefits, there is a great deal more work to • Virtual control rooms might be sited at be done in order to make these centers Universities. feasible.! • Instead of ”regional centers” better facil- • We need to concentrate on a few large itate international meetings, support abroad labs. Wherever the next collider will trips for the scientific staff etc. Collab- be, people there are able to run it, i.e. orations should not be split in national U.S. people are not essential. On the subsets. other hand, we need ’regional centers’ • A new ”green-field” site looks awful hard for those involved in machine/experiments to create in the current funding climate. (hopefully incl. people around the world) If we pursue this, we have to under- to reduce necessarity of traveling. It stand why we are creating this new infras- will/should be a global project. tructure and be able to defend it scien- • The quality of beams and physics may tifically. or may not be improved; however, the • Although I currently don’t have a detec- accessibility of the physics throughout tor, I did work on D0 at Fermilab as a the U.S. is important to physicists, the grad student. In my case, I didn’t see larger physics community, and the gen- the detector for several years after join- eral public - especially current K-12 stu- ing the experiment because it was com- dents who embody future particle physi- missioned and well into running. Later, cists. I did become involved in the upgrade • I don’t think the quality of beams would detector R&D and construction, and given improve but the quality of physics results the choice, I was closer to the detector would, so I have separate answers for than my advisor. I believe that while those two things. I put yes anyways. regional centers could prove to be use- Also, I don’t see an option stating that ful in the more globalized situation we the national labs should act as regional seem to be entering, there will still need centers and then some other centers should to be a large number of people actually be created as well in other geographical present at the host lab. I don’t think areas. I would choose this option. regional centers can replace the personnel needed at the host lab (at least not • Regional Centers are important. If the yet and certainly not during commis- proliferate, they could weaken the role sioning). I also believe there is great of the national labs. This would not be value in being physically at the lab for good. On the other hand, the university some time where the experiment/accelerator roles should also not be weakened and is running. I do think the regional cen- are already under stress in the current ters can minimize the time spent at the environment. lab, and would facilitate bringing new • Identify a number of centers (3-5) iden- students onto an experiment. I also think tify a core of people at each center (15- they would enable people to avoid uproot- 20) daily involvement in operation and ing an entire family to work on an exper- rotating shifts among the centers. iment across the globe. Finally, these centers would hopefully enable more peo- • The concept of ”regional centers” is flawed. ple to remain interested and active in As a faculty member, I would be more Comments on Globalization 84

than willing to send my students off to tation, have phone conferences (video work at the lab where our experiment conferences are awkward but we are start- is operating – but if that’s not feasible, ing to use them), but mostly fly peo- the next best thing is to have the stu- ple out for collaboration meetings and dents at my university. I don’t see that shifts (and even sometimes for very dif- the benefits of regional centers comes ficult detector problems). E-mail is a close to compensating for the diminu- wonderful tool. tion of the universities’ roles.

• I worry about regional centers for exper- 13.4.4 The Role of National Labs: imental control. Will the host lab really • allow someone sitting across the ocean National labs should become ”regional to change the trigger for example? Many centers” also. times, there is no substitute for being at • Build new colliders at existing labs - your detector. labs without colliders (and without plans • I am a strong supporter of regional cen- to build colliders) should be reduced to ters. The large detectors may be sup- ”institute” level. ported by professional staff. Hardware • What I really mean is that labs should experience is critical and can be gained continue to play a strong role, but that in R&D, test beam work, etc so we can in order to ensure a strong physics pro- develop and build new detectors when gram we should not take it as a given we need to. We need some kind of national that all labs should remain. The empha- lab structure. Your response choices sis should be on ensuring a strong HEP were limited. I do not really know whether physics program, not ensuring the sur- all existing labs should continue but I vival of labs IF (and only if) they have hope that they will be given a chance to outlived their usefulness. At the moment, evolve to follow the community’s needs. no lab falls into this category. • I doubt if the beams will get any better • Some of the national lab HEP groups with remote centers – you really need are really just massive University groups someone standing beside the operators (e.g. LLNL, ANL, LBL). Other labs and attending their meetings to get some should be encouraged more in this direc- action on beams. More or less the same tion as the direct accelerator operations with physics results – you need someone roles are eliminated. to go and power-cycle the power supply or whatever needs to be done to get the • The role of national lab will depend on detector going again, and that person what they can contribute to the discov- has to be present at the detector. An ery of new physics. If there’s nothing experienced team of shift-takers usually they can do on this they will have no outperforms people who come in to do importance. one or two shifts/year in detector relia- • bility. But it is important for the physi- Having a domestic program for smaller cists to be familiar with their apparatus experiments is extremely important, and (and to know when it failed and how, the labs must continue to play a leading so they can do their work accordingly). role in this. Right now flavor physics is CERN collaborations are already global. more exciting than its been for decades, We use the web heavily for documen- and an active flavor physics program Comments on Globalization 85

(particularly neutrinos) is very desirable • Closing some labs is probably the only in addition to a high energy collider. responsible way to strengthen others.

• I would like to clarify answers to 18 and • Funding is going to be a bigger and big- 19. For 18, there should be at least ger issue as we try to get more money ... one center per experiment. For 19, I consolidation of labs could potentially believe that national labs will still play save millions a year. Especially since a very strong role in the future of HEP I see us having fewer machines in the on a global scale, but this may require future than we do now (one e+e- LC as a reduction in the number of these labs opposed to 2 high energy e+e- machines being operated. today) due to funding constraints, it seems silly to keep open more labs than • The issue of the future of the U.S. labs we need to to support the machines. is a thorny one. At the present level of funding and with the current number • It would be nice to have less competi- of labs, it is difficult to nurture devel- tion *within* labs for new ideas, R&D, opment groups of excellence in critical resources, experimental proposals. areas (most HEP software comes from • CERN, for instance). Fewer labs (with The importance of the U.S. national labs the same budget, of course) would allow should be driven by the status of HEP this. On the other hand, a single mega- research. I don’t understand question lab (like CERN) has its own dangers. 19. If there is motivation to do a new The diversity that comes from differ- experiment and open a new lab for that, ent labs with different emphasis and dif- let’s do it. If there is no motivation, ferent directorates would be lost. For what are we talking about? instance, would SLAC objectively con- • Question 19: I do not understand, though, sider hadron colliders or Fermilab e+/e- what closure of a lab means. Argonne colliders? I am at a loss to make a firm and LBL are closed for direct HEP exper- choice between the two directions. iments, but they are the host of syn- • I think the labs should have an impor- chrotron facilities and have strong user tant role, perhaps more important, that groups. LBL also has a strong accelera- doesn’t mean there should be more of tor R&D group that is synergistic with them. the synchrotron radiation lab. In the future, Brookhaven and SLAC might • Ludicrous to even consider closing any also ‘close’ in this way, but it would national lab that has a strong physics be unrealistic and counterproductive to program - as all do, when you take the have them drop out of HEP and return time to understand their program and their full budgets to a common pool. the physics that they do. • Not all labs have to have centers; some • Some national labs should be closed or could be at universitities. But too many develop in very different directions. Other dilutes strength. The role should be labs should continue at the same or greater similar. It is too early to say “some level. should be closed”. That is anyway a case-by-case thing for politicians. • Close a national lab and/or convert it to an international lab ala CERN. • Labs are not only to be seen with respect to the one large major machine in the Comments on Globalization 86

world. There should be a variety of • To suggest that some labs should close further, somewhat smaller experiments is not the same as declaring that the supported by local labs. labs are crucial. It is quite possible that some labs have completed their mission, • Existing labs should provide support cen- however important they have been or tres for universities, to ease access to will be in the near future. machine site - leading machines should be distributed regionally including U.S. • ”National labs” doesn’t necessarily mean HEP or even physics labs; some shift- • Labs should be much more closely con- ing, depending on the market, will occur. nected to universities, i.e. students should It should be a combination of what the be encouraged to go to the labs etc. public finds important and what fore- • I think consolidation of high energy physics sighted government knows is best for into a smaller number of labs would be the nation, for the world, and for human- beneficial if the freed resources could kind. be made available for important future • If the budget for the new facility requires projects (such as NLC). that some labs should close that’s ok, • The labs should be staffed by researchers; but we should be careful not to kill all how can afford to do research on a long smaller projects that may exist at these time scale. The University model works labs, like fixed target experiments. well on a much smaller time scale, and • Labs without active accelerators should industry is of not help. probably be closed. We cannot afford • I hope, you mean ”national labs doing the luxury of maintaining inactive labs HEP”. We do not need such centers at in the present budgetary climate. LANL, ORNL, NREL, etc. Addition- • Budget constraints might force the clos- ally, LBNL and SLAC probably need ing of one of the HEP labs, but the only one such center. U.S. program would be much better off • In the future only two labs will continue if we can keep the current labs. With with high energy physics at colliders - respect to whether it is more important CERN with LHC and another with the to be near the detector or near the advi- linear collider. sor...it depends on what stage of career a student is in. During data-taking it is • National labs are important for large important to be near the detector. Dur- projects to be carried on; it is impor- ing anaysis, it is more important to be tant to keep the funding of University near the advisor. Research at a • I believe that the role of national labs • Some labs should close to allow new is very important ... BUT ... there may ones to start up higher level than now. be a need for rationalization.

• U.S. national labs have provided greater • If national labs perish and the next machine opportunity for international interaction is outside the U.S., we will need an enor- with both experimental and theoretical mous travel budget to get necessary hands- physicists. It has helped me a lot, and on experience and take part in an exper- I hope, the U.S. physicists too. iment. Comments on Globalization 87

• I believe that the national labs will remain • Geez, do you really think the U.S. are useful as staging centers for the future the center of the particle physics world? accelerators, but that their role should • be carefully examined. The dominance Don’t see why U.S.-related topics should of DOE support for the laboratories needs dominate. Is U.S. the motherland of to be better balanced against the Uni- HEP or the only provider of HEP-enthusiasm? versity program. Much of the leader- • Well, globalization seems to be bit self- ship and innovation comes from the uni- centered (on the U.S., or have I gotton versities. something wrong?) • If the model is regional centers in the • Why is there so much focus on the U.S.? U.S., then it seems to me that the answer to 19 should be ”different role/ same • Some questions are U.S. specific. number”. The role is no longer to pro- • vide beam to the experiments, but rather This seems to be a little U.S. bias/emphasis to support them in other ways. ”Regional” here, given this is intended for the whole implies at least several, and east/ west/ HEP community. central is an obvious mix. • A little irrelevant unless you’re Ameri- • Need to allow a greater variety of work can I feel. to proceed and be undertaken at the • No opinion about the U.S., I am not in national labs, which are a natural focus the U.S. for multi-institutional collaboration. • This part of the questionary was ded- • The number of U.S. national labs has icated to U.S. people and I am from already been reduced and should not be Europe...(I answered in replacing U.S. reduced further. It allows some diver- by Europe). Global collaboration will sity which in research is an important be working more and more via video factor. conferencing. As far as management is • Cannot support too many labs. Dis- concerned, we should make sure that tribution of resources can reduce the democratic aspects are respected and number of experiments due to overhead. that scientific aspects always preveal any These labs need to be globally distributed. decision. • • Question 19: It depends on the roles of I must admit that I do not know exactly the labs. There are no entitlements, but how many national labs you have and the field should be sufficiently diverse how they are distributed, so I cannot to have at least 2 major labs (and a few answer the last 2 questions. I think any- smaller labs) doing productive work. way that having places where a ”critical mass” of physicists work together is surely good, even if the detector is 13.4.5 Survey-Specific Comments somewhere else. Nowadays communi- on Globalization: cations around the world are very good, but nothing can substitute an old-fashioned • Again you have poorly worded questions. discussion face to face for the small groups You assume one detector. You assume and especially students. a supervisor. Comments on Globalization 88

• I can’t comment on issues relating to is important is that the ”next machine” location of regional centers in the U.S., is constructed somewhere. ”Where?” since I am not a U.S. citizen nor do I is much less important. Obviously, for live or work in the U.S. me, it would be more convenient to have it in Europe, but I’ll use it wherever it • I’m not an U.S. citizen. America is not is. I currently do my research at SLAC everything (just a remark). because that’s where the B-factory is. • Sorry, I’m not familiar with the status If it were in Europe, I’d use it there. of U.S. national labs. • Half the questions are for U.S. residents • Why do 17-19 focus on the U.S.? only. Strange kind of doing when dis- cussing globalization. All experience shows • Questions 17 and 19 are not U.S. related, that techniques like video conf or web they are general questions. Particle physics based expert treatment is not (NOT!) is an international effort, the U.S. is really working (guess why). I believe only one of the partners !!!!!!!! that the virtual control room as well as non local experts is complete bull- • I don’t understand why you asking me shit. At least, alone rising the question so many questions about U.S. It’s not shows full absence of relations to reality the only country which makes Physics or newer practice in running an experi- in the world and not event the most ment. Sorry! important for particle Physics. • What does question 18 mean? • Questions 17-19 should be decided by the U.S. physicists themselves. • The questions were geared to students and postdocs. For others the issues are • ... don’t want to comment on U.S. affairs. somewhat different and include access to computing and to expertise on how • Being working outside U.S., my answers to analyze the data and participate in can be ignored. They ”mimic” answers the physics and collaboration. reflecting my viewpoint • As a tenured European some questions • Once again, you are taking the very biased in this section don’t apply. On question (and incorrect) view point that the U.S. 14. When OPAL was running I would somehow dominates particle physics. The see it roughly monthly. question you should be asking is ”How can the U.S. contribute in a meaningful • Queston 14: it depends on my responsi- way to the future of particle physics?”. bility which change in time : daily/monthly Regional centres are a means by which etc. U.S. physics can CONTRIBUTE to foreign experiments and are therefore impor- • In question 16 I give my perspective but tant to U.S. budgets, but to no one else. am, myself, the supervisor.

• I have diﬃculty answering the questions • Question 16 doesn’t make any sense for in this section because: (a) I am an those of us who are supervisors. I answered advisor/supervisor (not a student) (b) in terms of my relation to those who I work in Europe, and so do not have work for me. U.S.-biased view implied by these ques- • tions. HEP is a global venture. What I found that some of the above questions had no answers that totally apply Comments on Globalization 89

to me. For example, I have no ”super- • These questions are not well posed. For visor.” I thought this questionnaire was example, I think question 19 that the also for senior folk. importance of the labs will be at least as great as now, but that *IN ADDI- • What is the answer to 16 when you are TION* some labs should close. Sim- the supervisor? ilarly, the importance and identity of • You give the choice ”N/A- don’t have the advisor/supervisor changes as a stu- a detector”, but not ”N/A- don’t have dent’s career progresses. an advisor”. Much better not having • You didn’t have my option about U.S. an advisor to not having a detector. labs. I think they are very important • For answer 16) it depends from the period but I also think we should reduce to of the thesis work. One can also travel one. back and forth. And spend more time • You didn’t give enough choices. The near the detector or in home institution labs will not all have frontier machines depending on the needs. ... of the four now, only one or at most • My answer for 18 is not accurate. There two have frontier machines. This is bound is no choice for ”no opinion” which would to get worse but labs can still support be my real answer. R&D on accelerators, on instruments, on detectors for the frontier machines, • The answers to 18 and 19 are very ”model on precision experiments on the g-2 model, dependent”. etc.

• My answer to question 19 presumes that • Alas, multiple choice does not cover the at least one new frontier facility is built nuances ... these are complex issues. in the U.S. during this period. • These questions cannot be answered in • The answer to 19 depends on the pre- the abstract. The only meaningful answers cise choices of technology and location. are those which address speciﬁc possibilities. • The answer to (19) assumes that e.g. CERN will carry the major accelerator. • Again, limiting in your choices. Regional If America hosts the next machine obvi- centers should be considered economi- ously one of the national labs should cally as well. Can we work eﬀectively have an enhanced role. and more economically with regional centers? • On 19) The answer here depends on what the future looks like. I would like • Your possible answers do not cover all to see a program diverse enough to sup- cases, which is why I didn’t answer them. port the current labs, but I would not I work within a mile of ”my detector”, say that the labs are a requirement. In but I last saw it a few years ago. I either case I do not think we need *more* have never ”worked on my detector”, labs. since I write software. Or does that • Question 19 is naively worded. Labs count? I think hardware experience is have not closed, but have turned into very important, yet I have not worked staging areas, in a fruitful way. Oth- on my current detector’s hardware (but ers have evolved. Perhaps a national did on previous detectors’ hardware). I underground lab should open. do not really have a supervisor in the Comments on Globalization 90

sense you mean. While I think regional Having hands-on hardware experience control centers are important, I do not does not demand presence at the accel- think they will improve beams or physics. erator. To me, being at FNAL seems Regional centers are primarily impor- most important because it’s the central tant for social purposes: to give a sense gathering point. It’s where the great- of ”co-ownership” to institutions who est number of people are located, and will have worked very hard on the facil- where the highest density of work is done. ity, but won’t be close to it. It is that You can get questions answered quickly, sense of co-ownership that may result in etc. This is, in large part, because the better beams or physics, because of syn- detector’s at FNAL. But, if we’re taking ergistic eﬀects, not because the regional data smoothly there’s no great need to centers give access to ”better people” or be physically near the detector- except whatever. As to the number of national that it’s where people tend to congre- labs, one would imagine that the regional gate. Regional centers could provide centers would surely be hosted at the other high-density gather points. But, national labs, so it is not clear how to would they reduce travel costs/lessen answer question 19. travel headaches signiﬁcantly? Maybe so. • I don’t understand your question about frequency of distribution of regional cen- • My detector is an optical telescope, usu- ters ... how often they are founded and ally 4-m. I don’t have an advisor. No closed? appropriate N/A.

• The questions regarding ”regional cen- • As a theorist, I cannot answer most of ters” is misleading. It would be natural these questions. However, I would like that the infrastructure of the national to strongly encourage global collabora- labs be used to create the so-called regional tion. centers, since the machine components and bigger detector components will likely • Seems as if you mainly ask experimen- be fabricated at these central places. It talists; that’s for me (theoretician) quite is also the most cost eﬀective method of disappointing. Furthermore: The ques- controlling and monitoring ﬁscal issues. tions seem to concern mainly U.S. experimentalists...? • The question is not clear. Do the results improve because of RC vs. no RC? or: • You are missing the point on ”next machine”. do the results improve because of RC My ”next machine” may be neutrinos in the U.S. vs. nothing in the U.S.? at the Oak Ridge SNS. Where does that And why should the quality of the beam play in the spectrum? Are cosmic rays improve? (supernova neutrinos) a ”next machine”. By asking these leading questions about • Again, your terminology’s confusing me a next machine you are pre-supposing a bit. It’s not clear to me what you an answer and narrowing the range. Regional mean by ”see or work on your detector”. centers just add another level of man- This year I’ve only physically been at agement, siphoning of resources from FNAL a few times, so I haven’t seen labs and universities. the whole detector very often. But, I’m working on a Run IIB Upgrade project, • I wrote these based on the present feel- so I work with a certain part of the ing. In near future, the situation may detector (SVX4 chip) every day, at LBL. Comments on Outreach 91

be significantly changed by the progress 13.5 Outreach of computer-network technology etc. 13.5.1 How to Do Better: • (16) Don’t have a supervisor. (17) I • believe physics quality will improve; how- As long as outreach activities (to the ever, I am not convinced about beam general public or to politicians) are seen quality. (18) I don’t understand your as not essential for career development, question. A regional center is some facil- there will not be enough of it. We should ity, room and so on. How does one dis- try to build a connection to the general tribute this? (19) This question is ill public, but at the same time try to do posed. The importance of national labs this not on the terms set by the indus- depends on what their roles are. Is it (in try, i.e. ‘what products do you develop’. the context of this survey) where accel- Our interests are not identical to those erators are? Is it where we concentrate of IBM, Microsoft or GM and we should computing power for experiments oper- emphasize the cultural aspects of what ating at CERN for example? Is it where we do a little bit more. After all, the some unspecified concentration of effort ancient Greeks are not remembered for takes place? As an example of the last the amount of olive oil they sold but one, Livermore is currently a national for their cultural and scientific achieve- lab without its own HEP beams and is ments. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t not a site for LHC experiments. also take advantage of economic opportunities - if we as a community would • Again, the questions seem to relate only only get any royalties every time some- to a new LC and leave out other fields. body uses the web, we wouldn’t have to Examples are B physics, neutrino physics apply for funding ever again. and astro-particle physics, etc., which • are all fields in the midst of discoveries I think outreach is like pushing on a and which should also have a future!? rope: you don’t get anything but a local effect. A television series might allow a • Your survey ignores the impact of large lasting impression, but probably would collaborations on non-accelerator physics. receive a small viewership anyway. I Overlooking this gaff, the above responses think the only way to improve funding are still very true. is to demonstrably MAKE MONEY. If you can PROVE that HEP contributes X dollars to the economy for a given investment N years ago, then you have something. Better yet, just have the beneficiaries of the created wealth lobby congress directly themselves. I think we should perform some actual ”value mining” to determine what we have that the world wants. Our analysis tools, like ntuples and PAW/root, should be cleaned up and marketed. Instead of paying out a load of cash to develop fancy silicon chips, we should develop fancy silicon chips and then license the techniques. Comments on Outreach 92

• The ”meet - a - scientist” program is a idea would be to think at our collider good thing and need more volunteers. detectors as big lotteries. Since gambling is big in the U.S. (as everywhere • Try to find a way to explain to the pub- else there is money to spend) we should lic the purpose of HEP, its goals and start funding our experiments by sell- applications (e.g. developing detectors ing events before we collect them. A for HEP we contribute also to the devel- dollar for one event, with variable pay- opment of detectors for cancer treat- offs if the event turns out to be a W ment etc). Organize public talks at Uni- candidate, a top candidate, etc., would versities, advertise these talks with posters, do the following good things: 1) bring tv, radio, make nice films for CERN money to HEP from an entirely new or other laboratories, organize visits to source 2) boost people’s interest in HEP schools and universities and tell them and allow them to get an education in about HEP ... particle physics; 3) media would become • I believe we could be more active and interested too; People buying an event more honest in our outreach. For exam- number would become the ”owners” of ple, BaBar’s recent announcement of a that event once it is collected. If an 4+ sigma CP-violation effect in the B event results in a paper being published, system was reported in the press under the owner of the event would get cited headlines implying that the matter - anti- in the paper... Outrageous but fasci- matter asymmetry of the universe was nating, ain’t it ? now understood. This is an example • Mini-series as on the Discovery Chan- where we should have been more clear nel. about the implications of our measurement. The difficulty, of course, is that • Outreach does NOT mean constructing it’s very hard to explain what we do a webpage. Actual contact with the to people without a substantial amount public should be sought. of science education. Long-term suc- • cess can only be attained by support- Put a complete directory on the web ing educational efforts in the elemen- where one can get an answer to any tary and secondary schools that com- question ever asked about Fermilab. municate the interest we all have in learn- • To answer the public whenever ques- ing more about the universe. tions are asked every scientist should be • There must be more emphasis upon the willing. But I hate if propaganda gets synthesis of the different sciences in the more important than careful work. public understanding. Connections between • Operating a good Web site promoting physics and the other sciences and tech- HEP might be good. nologies must be drawn for the public in order for the U.S. physics program to • Heck, if I knew a sure fire way to inform maintain relevance. the public about what we do, I’d include it. But a big step in the right direction • More emphasis should be put on find- would be to encourage the young and ing commercial outlets for HEP, as this enthusiastic people to not be afraid of will pay for the blue skys research of the people running in terror when you tell future. them what you do. • To involve the general public one good Comments on Outreach 93

• The majority of the public has never important. And be prepared to answer, heard of a quark or even the photon. honestly, why the public should spend We need a massive PR effort. billions to learn about the Universe. Empha- size the core goal: learning about our • I think that outreach to the general pub- place in the Universe. No, it ain’t about lic be increased greatly. finding yet another bunch of particles • We need to cultivate a grass roots inter- and measuring their esoteric attributes. est, as astronomy has done. Then we Who cares about that? No, emphasize have a base to turn to influence the polit- that we do this because, for whatever ical process. What we need is more reason, we (all of us) want to under- of what Lederman has been doing at stand our place in the Universe. Explain Fermilab and in Chicago. We need to to the public that yes our instruments attract private funding. We need to get are costly, but very good value for money modern physics including particles into when compared to many other things the high-school physics curriculum. our governments do, some of which are truly dumb. We’ve just got to be more • The P.R. situation has improved in the honest all around. last few years, but more physicists must • get involved. I do work on outreach, but somehow we are inspired to do physics early on • The level of awareness of the general in our lives. It is not a choice as some- public is, in my view, poor. It’s our thing that drives us. People don’t want responsibility to improve that and in to work hard to understand things that so doing attract public backing for our make them feel inadequate. We can work. only continue to try to rephrase things in language that can be understood but • Our outreach seems to be directed at some will never understand. It is criti- getting people to support our work. Our cal though that we don’t sell our souls obligation to funding agencies, and the (GRID is an example) or try to con- public, is to inform and educate regard- vince them that the next project will less of the outcome. cure their cancer. Hyperbole is useless, honesty in what motivates us must • I don’t think we have figured out how to prevail and spin-offs are nice but sec- do this effectively, given the U.S. (non) ondary. culture. In some European countries, such as Italy, there is much more appre- • This is a two way street; you can’t reach ciation for science than in the US. out to someone who is not interested in being contacted. • I fear that without educating the general public and Congress on both the • HEP tries to answer some of the most basics of HEP and reasons why we this basic questions about the universe around research should be done, we will NOT us. But it is also a luxury, even in be able secure funding to keep the field the First World. Past questions from of HEP as active, diverse, and dynamic Congress include ”What use are quarks? as it is today. Can I eat them for breakfast?” (!) Past answers include ”It makes the country • Be honest! Say why we do what we do: worth defending.” The culture of stereo- because it is exhilerating. Not because typing physics and maths as difficult it is ”important”. Combating poverty is Comments on Outreach 94

is strange. (So History, English and month I talk with groups of junior high/ Spanish are easy then?) We need to high school children to answer questions reach out more and show people how about the lab. Suggestions for better basic physics principles work in their outreach: 1) HEP needs one person who everyday lives: from ice-cubes and air- stands tall and makes public appear- conditioners to aeroplane wings and rock- ances. Someone that people will begin ets to positron emission tomography and to recognize. Where is this person ? MRI. HEP scientists can do this and, if NASA has one - hell, the NRA has Charleton they can bring in the advances made as Heston. Why can’t we get a single, charis- a result of HEP research, both of bene- matic spokesperson ? Also, we need fit to society and to the sum of human more PR money. When I turn on the knowledge, so much the better. A soci- discover channel I should see lots of shows ety that appreciates the love of learn- about HEP. There should be lots of half- ing and the benefits it may bring is far hour shows on this stuff floating around. more likely to fund the next accelera- CNN should have a section for us. The tor. Personally, I’ve found that people major obstacle in this is convincing peo- are quite fascinated by accelerators and ple we are as interesting as space. To detectors and want to know how they do this, we must simplify our language work. The most unexpected people will and not forget to dream... and imagine present you with a HEP article that ... NASA is not afraid to show pictures they clipped out of the local newspa- of streets lined with coffee shops on the per. In comparison, astronomers have surface of Mars. Why are we afraid to it easy: they have the glossy pictures. predict things like extra, non-standard We have to work a bit harder to explain model forces giving us new energy sources our pictures. When it comes down to it, ? No one seems to have the guts to a telescope and a particle detector are quote anything unless they have a few both luxuries compared to clean water, sigmas behind them... stable power grids, medical care, tax • relief... Small, interested sections of the public are being reached by various laymens’ • Our mission in life is to explore the cos- books, TV and radio programmes, which mos in every way that our collective present frontier research (in terms of imaginations may conceive. Outreach factual detail) in an exciting, engaging is important partly for funding/survival way, but not enough is done to convince reasons, but also to simply convey the the public at large of the need for this beauty of what we have found (and are research. Once you have convinced the looking for) to the general public. The public of this need, it then becomes pos- truest test of our love of the field is sible to convince the appropriate politi- our ability to do that effectively. Every cians. Also, we have to demonstrate physicist on planet Earth must take this to the politicians that we are coming responsibility to heart. I think if we up with ingenious and efficient ideas for all take this attitude, then the rest will experiments, rather than just throwing take care of itself. money into the research.

• Clearly, we need more. However, there • Seems to me we are far to ”esoteric” in are great people out there doing at least Public view. The transistor was once there share on this - working with high esoteric too... schools and younger children. Once a Comments on Outreach 95

• HEP labs should be completely discon- is a good thing or a bad thing is a whole nected from classified research. In this different issue! way, the public would gain more faith • and maybe interest in the labs. The I think we should all chip in and form public should be allowed to go to the a PAC. We need to quantify the eco- labs and look around (to a certain extent), nomic benefits of our field better (pre- even without guides. sumably with the help of professional economists) and make sure this infor- • I think each person in HEP needs to mation is widely disseminated. We need commit themselves to public outreach. to design a really addictive video game Perhaps once per year, each person should base on particle physics. make sure to perform some type of pub- • lic outreach. I think it is most cru- The field is dominated by the old white cial to reach youths at the early high boy network. We don’t have many blacks, school level. This can be a guided tour other minorities or women in our field. of a lab, a very good talk on particle How can we talk about outreach when physics at their school, etc. These talks we fail so miserably at this level? Sci- MUST be at the proper level to develop ence is not valued by this society and curiosity and interest, and not to show we are partly responsible for it. Our how much you know. Also, one should children will pay direly for this failure touch upon the technologies which we of ours. We need to do more to educate use every day, such as high speed com- the public, to make the connection of puting, superconductors, etc. Also, I science and society. think we need a budget for public out- • Old men’s job. reach programs. This includes investment in programming on public TV in • I think it is very important to include addition to advertised evening demon- an inter-disciplinary approach in the plan- strations/presentations at universities of ning of future HEP experiments, in the the ”Wonders of Physics”. I really enjoyed way it is planned for TESLA with the such a show put on by Clint Sprott (at free-electron laser. the Univ. of Wisconsin), who set a great • Need to foster programs with engineer- example. ing schools and computer science. • I think we need to point out to the gen- • When the Kameoka data came out there eral public (more clearly and without was no place where it was discussed so any jargon) the benefits that can come non experts could understand it. I heard from basic research. For instance, I tell Harry Lipkin give a good talk which people that although the electron was did. discovered over a 100 years ago, it took many years of research for us to under- • There is a very big difference in the stand its properties. But, if you look effects of outreach in the different coun- around now, almost our entire technol- tries. I consider the present contact to ogy is based on the electron. I agree the general public and the politicians in that one should not tie current research Germany, the place where I work good. to future benefits, but at least we should The contact to the schools (in particu- point out the fact that basic research lar teachers) and to physicists working has the potential of completely revolu- in different fields and scientist however tionizing our way of life - whether that should be significantly improved. Comments on Outreach 96

• A real catch 22... In Sweden NSF fund- cation in the field, and generating sup- ing is followed by a documentation require- port for funding in HEP. ment – maybe a similar thing for out- • reach should be considered. IF, the HEP community did reach a consensus on what machine to build next, • Non-physicists do not understand what it may not become a reality due to lack we do at nearly the level they should, of public support. If we spent a fraction and this is our fault entirely. HEP asks of the time we spend solving technical alot from the taxpayer, and the tax- problems, on public outreach and gov- payer should get more in return. Sci- ernment education/lobbying, we might ence education is one area where HEP be successful. outreach could improve enormously. For • example, if all HEP graduate students Sit in the damn boat rather than fight- spent 1 day per year giving a tour for ing in shortsighted competitions. the general public, or talking with high • In my point of view: High energy group schoolers, or writing letters to their con- is a special group in the physics field. gressmen, or writing letters to their news- While the other groups, such as, solid paper, the level of education of the gen- physics, material physics, do a lot of eral public about HEP would increase practical things, HEP does lot of fun- enormously. We should have an out- damental study. It appears that HEP reach day, where all students, faculty, does not give good economic output. staff scientists, etc. make a coordinated However, it indeed does a lot! the rea- effort to explain what is is they do to son is HEP concentrates on those fun- the taxpayer. Second, a greater degree damental questions that human being of centralization would facilitate outreach has for this universe. Solving these ques- for those who already do it, and make tions need a great amount of human it much easier for those who do not to intelligence. Therefore, having a quali- get involved. A central repository of fied HEP graduate student means hav- outreach materials, success/failure sto- ing a man/woman with great intelligence. ries, listings of local contacts, e.g. high Of course, not all of them will stay in school teachers who would come for tours HEP field. Suppose 50them leave to or invite classroom talks, would make it other fields. Definitely, they will develop much easier to get involved in outreach. new brand new stuffs that will some- • Senior physicists and well experienced what change the style of the current physicists should dedicate more time for world. As an example, I studied HEP outreach and less for scientific policy. for 4 years (another 7 years in physics), Young scientist should mainly focus on I found it is very easy for me to under- research and in designing new challeng- stand knowledge in other fields, which ing projects. Presently (and this is wor- is a good basis for invention/revolution. rying), this is most of the time the other And surely a qualified HEP student has way around. accumulate enough inventing abilities when he did his absolute and systematic anal- • Keep better track of HEP alumni – in ysis on this complicated universe. I thought fact maybe they should be treated more of working on some other fields once a the way universities treat their alumni. while, one example was to work in Gene This information could be very useful sequencing field to decode all genes sys- for demonstrating the usefulness of edu- tematically! Hoping/thinking is the way Comments on Outreach 97

leading to invention. Just thinking of danger that demographic factor might some of the modern technology: Inter- play significant role and there will be net, CD information storage, Laser tech- not enough followers for HEP. nique, they are all directly related to • physics. And HEP is a typical and spe- General public is fascinated by macro- cial component in physics, just like what scopic world, e.g. life, the Universe, nuclear physics did 50 years ago. Not arguments for strong and fascinating ques- only HEP provides economic benefits, tions. However elementary particles at it also uniquely provides social bene- all scales, from atoms to quarks and fits when answering those fundamental below, are fundamental to understand questions human being has for this uni- macroscopic phenomena. This must be verse. And this is a very special advan- stressed with strong cases to reach gen- tage over other fields. In closing, I am eral public sorry for my poor written English if it • Congress/public. Scientists tend to think already made it hard for you to under- that laypeople can’t/won’t understand stand this writing. their work so they spend little time build- • Externally changing our approach to the ing enthusiasm by explaining it to them. general public with projects like out- Every day we teach folks who don’t under- reach goes some way, however I feel that stand physics, why is it harder when it people would be more interested in the comes to the general public or congress? subject if we made changes from within PR is the way of (future) science fund- the field. Making our own language more ing. transparent and obvious is one way of • The problem is not specific to HEP. The doing this as is releasing data to the problem is that there is not sufficient general public to use. There is still far understanding or appreciation of basic too much intellectualizing of subjects scientific research. HEP will not stand that could be explained in a much more or fall on its own. We are part of a understandable form (e.g. pages teach- larger community. We can probably fall ing computer skills for physics seem to on our own, but we can garner signif- be written by people who are more inter- icant additional support only if basic ested in showing how clever they are, scientific research as a whole enjoys a than in teaching people the skills in the higher level of support. simplest form. It is next to impossible for someone from outside who has • Abate superstitions about HEP, increase no experience of the field to ever get a public support for HEP applications and proper handle on it.). importance.

• We have to be able to explain impor- • I’d love to do more outreach. (perhaps tance of our research programs for our more than physics analysis!) We have civilization. It requires very serious think- to sell our products (knowledge + peo- ing and development of strategy how to ple) to Congress, and other scientists. do it. Implicit assumption that every- AND we have to return the public’s invest- body understands how important is sci- ment in us by telling them what we’ve ence can not work forever. Government learned. and public have to be convinced. On • the other side if there will not be long It is more important to ”educate” to the range plan approved, then there is a importance of basic research and its fall Comments on Outreach 98

out than to press release exaggerated activities for general public more math claims to the importance of a result just at high school. obtained. i.e. information, not (more • or less false) advertisement I really think that worldwide the HEP community should make a greater effort • I think large collaborations should pub- to outreach the public making them under- lish more often even if it’s just updates stand what we do, why we do it, and on what is being worked on. I think what comes out of it both in terms of general information about the impor- scientific knowledge and technical devel- tance of basic research and how its by- opment and spin-offs. Especially for Fund- products have very applied influence on ing agencies and politicians a stronger our lives must be given a lot more read- effort has to be made since it looks as ily. the decreased investments in research is a general trend in the world, and HEP • Outreach is important because we should especially now needs great joint inter- not take funding for granted. We need national efforts. I believe it is an ethical to show that we are doing valued work. duty to all physicists to devote time to However, it is important that the out- divulgation of her/his research activity reach be of high intellectual value. I was to the public as it is a duty to be aware often appalled with the claims that were of the possible applications of the tech- made about the benefits that would accrue niques she/he’s developing. from the SSC. It is difficult to do a good job of education. We need to get advice • In a country like India where there is from those in the community who are great need for rural development I am best at the job of communicating sci- using Monte-Carlo simulations for pre- ence and to learn to do the job well. dicting the reliability of rainwater har- • The NIGHTLINE program on neutri- vesting system - this is just an example nos was excellent, as was coverage in of a meaningful outreach. national magazines. Keep up the con- • Answering the question, ”What good is tacts, strengthen them by periodic vis- HEP?” is tough to answer. Unfortu- its, email, phone conversation, etc. and nately anything that directly or indi- have something to say. rectly points to an answer is good. Any- • Perhaps work on a video which surveys thing else won’t convince the public. HEP/astrophysics work and clearly ties • We are trying to reach the public, but it to the spinoffs which help people. we don’t always talk their language. We • Making the work we do as accessible should try harder to make ourselves under- as possible to people working outside stood. With Congress I think we also of the field is sorely overlooked by too need to stress additional issues such as many people. It is my opinion that visas for physicists from foreign institu- everyone is responsible in part to make tions. the current research efforts of the field • You can never do too much communi- known to the general public is any way cating. Much of what we do is excellent, possible. Only through increased under- but I think that we still have a major standing will we gain increased funding. problem in trying to explain WHY we • More activity on the www as is happen- do it, and what the ultimate goal of the ing in astrophysics hands-on-experiments/ ’Theory of Everything’ is - this phrase Comments on Outreach 99

(quite amusing to the particle physic years. Needs real leadership - and strong insiders) is meaninglessly arrogant to prodding from young physicists. other scientists, and just meaningless to • the general public. We need a better The amount of outreach in USA is fairly articulated goal. adequate compared to that in developing countries, which statistically pro- • Subject of high energy physics and its duce majority of researchers world wide. output is hard to understand for com- • mon people and politicians. We should If we decide to build a new large facil- try to show people how the big high ity then educating the public and the energy physics experiments have ben- politicians on it’s importance will be efited common people. crucial. I personally think that we emphasize the spin-offs from our research too • Personal contact (including casual con- much in some cases. We should have versations) changes attitudes in a big some goal of promoting fundamental research way. If every high school student had as being important in its own right. a chance to see the big picture in HEP, • then even the small amount of cover- Most of the funding or big scale experi- age HEP news gets in the popular press ments comes from the government. We might be enough to maintain interest. should do more efforts to attract people from other areas. We have accu- • 1. Physicists must urgently understand mulated enough technological and sci- that the language and methods of infor- entific knowledge that can be applied to mation distribution in the community bring immediate benefit in other areas and in the rest of the society different and to society in general. Society for and that we must learn also the other sure, will give us back all our efforts language even if the other language might • look trivial. Triviality is a tool in pro- It is almost too late. motion. Use it instead of reject it. We • Saturday Morning Physics-style programs know that we can do better so don’t or physics road shows to teach high school think too complicate. 2. We need bud- physics students about HEP/physics in gets for promotion, real independent bud- general should be implemented every- gets. 3. We must use much more pro- where! This could also help draw more motion professionals in strong relation- smart young people into physics. ship to the community. Physicist with a hand for the public could build the • We have to understand that, as any com- bridge. Encourage them and give them petitor for general interest, we have to money. You know promotion investiga- put more manpower to marketing (out- tions usually come back but not alone. reaching efforts) than to production (research). The ratio of 1:50, as it is currently, has • Most of us do this job because it’s fun. to be changed to 3:2. Nobody can sur- We need to communicate that spirit of vive who has a domination of produc- fun to kids, both to promote our public tion costs. image and to promote kids’ interest in learning how things work. • Much more important than press releases about work which the general public usu- • Get a unified agreement to phase out ally does not understand at all are con- one lab, in the course of the next few tinuous low-level efforts like days where Comments on Outreach 100

the labs are open to the public, public nature and the goals of particle physics. seminar series, and co-operations with I an convinced that some budget limi- schools and science teachers. tations that are being experienced now are to be put in relationship to the fact • I am not at all interested in ”outreach” that the public opinion is skeptical about in the sense ”convince everyone that what the fundamental research on particle physics we are doing is wonderful and impor- and little keen on pouring money into tant and give us more money”. I emphat- it. Strength should be put on the tech- ically believe there are things that are nological fallout made possible by R&D far more important and worthy of fund- in particle physics. ing than HEP, and I find some HEP ”propaganda” rather overblown (and philo- • There was a recent issue of Time mag- sophically illiterate). I do think it is azine which had an article on the end very important though, that we try to of the Universe - it spoke about the explain to the public what we are doing; history of the Universe, including men- make the science comprehensible. In tion of dark energy and the implica- my opinion, our contribution to ”cul- tions leading to a Heat Death predic- ture” is as important as anything else. tion. I thought the article was well written and informative. Today, I saw let- • First, find out whether anyone outside ters to Time in response to that - not of HEP really cares about our results only was there much ado over how depress- and plans. Can you answer the ques- ing this outlook is, there wasn’t under- tion: ”Who is interested in what I do?” standing of what the alternative possi- If the answer is simply ”others doing bilities are expected to be. This, while the same thing”, then look around for really a question of cosmology, is to my something else that could be done. Much mind indicative of the problem. We of the outreach I have seen has focused physicists often succeed in showing new on telling our message. We need to discoveries and such in light of previ- spend more time listening to what their ously understood phenomena; but we questions are. rarely succeed - and often don’t seem to • Streamline access to policy-makers and attempt - to show those same discover- congressional / senate staff. Host items ies in the context of related research. A of public interest (e.g. planetarium, pub- search for the Higgs is interesting, but lic observing telescopes, displays, etc.) seems a foregone conclusion when there at the national labs and encourage cre- isn’t statements made about competing ation of tourist-oriented visitor centers. theories. • • Figure out how to speak and write for Outreach is very important but hard the general public and the press, instead work. Open house every year would be of other scientists a good start. Invite politicians/ Congress people. • We need to have a continuous general • public education effort, and rely less on Tours and open houses of laboratories ”the big discovery”, since the latter are and experiments are often helpful. Peo- extraordinarily rare these days. ple of the general public for the most part really like the ”gee-whiz” aspects • I feel that more effort should be made of our work that we may sometimes take to inform the general public about the for granted. An article written for a Comments on Outreach 101

local paper (not a letter to the editor • There has been visible progress in the complaining about low funding) or inter- HEP outreach effort - programs like Quark view with a local journalist about your Net, special events at Snowmass are good current project can go a long way to examples. Frequent interactions of fac- generate local interest and support. Con- ulty with local congressmen etc should gressional support is important, but ulti- be encouraged, increased emphasis on mately we really do need grass roots the society benefits from the by-products support. There will always be some of the HEP activities: web etc, training people who feel that basic research is of highly employable people ... a waste and the labs should be closed • down,but while these people are a small Programs like QuarkNet and CROP should minority, they tend to be vocal. Most remain strong. Outreach programs like people haven’t thought much about basic that run at Snowmass are excellent and science one way or another and we ought should be encouraged. Whenever a HEP to make sure that those of us who sup- meeting takes place, there should be an port it are heard too. outreach activity included. be • • Britain has some nice Science Fairs at The record of HEP in getting the pub- High schools. lic, and therefore the lawmakers, interested is abysmal. I believe we need major • Stress importance of HEP research results efforts to overcome this, including per- and possible impact on everyday life haps a popular science magazine dedicated solely to HEP (a la Sky and Tele- • Physicists both at labs and universities scope, Astronomy, Discover, etc.). devote a great fraction of their time and resources to teaching, mentoring, writ- • Outreach is the key to get more funding textbooks. This should be counted ing. I try to do it on every possible as public outreach. ”Outreach” is mis- occasion and would like to encourage leading because it implies an inside and young physicist to engage very actively an outside. The truth is, we are all in in science fairs, local school gatherings, the same boat. Our research is publicly talking to your local newspaper people, funded because it is done in the public publishing articles in News bulletins of interest. your labs and universities. I am not ashamed to act like a used-car salesman • Tell the truth about HEP. It is a cul- if it brings extra funding and extra pub- tural activity to discover the nature of lic knowledge to our field. This is what matter. It is not done to create spin- NASA does very well. offs or cure cancer. That type of stuff killed the SSC. • More frequently inform administrators and political leaders on science status • Astrology is much more widely accepted by direct formal and informal contacts. than the big bang among the public- this is a problem! • The public will listen to us if we have discoveries. Without new results it becomes • Currently working as lead mentor for harder to get attention and funding. a QuarkNet center at my home institute. This is a great program, but only • I am a tour guide for SLAC; it is my a start. More needs to be done to con- experience that some people come to tact students and the public at all ages. SLAC as skeptics or cynics about the Comments on Outreach 102

justification for our work, but after a between 2 and 4 mere 2 hours of questions and site-seeing, • they are overwhelmed by a sense of pur- I don’t really know what folks in the pose and importance. It is inspiring to U.S. are doing these days as far as out- me to know that it is possible to take reach. However, it is extremely embar- somebody with some doubt in their minds, rassing to hear of press conferences being and simply by showing them the lab called to pre-announce scientific results and talking to them about physics they before scientific peers have even had a are convinced that things shouldn’t be chance to see the results. (Cf. CDF, otherwise! Babar, Pons&Fleishmann). This practice should be discouraged, via funding- • I think we need to think this through agency pressure if necessary. from the beginning. We are starting • with a product that is complicated and Need to provide a broader base for devel- hard to market. We may need to patiently oping ideas of how to involve the gen- do a huge amount of education. There eral public better in physics goals. may be no quick fix. • I’m still in school, so outreach for me • I think we definitely need to spend more isn’t an option. Congress as well as the time/effort/money on outreach. It is general public are largely in the dark extremely important to educate the pub- when it comes to science due to how lic about our work. This is true both in little science is taught in our schools. the interest of gathering future public So I feel much more emphasis on the support and simply to bring the excite- importance of science should be given ment of science to more members of our in schools (at all levels) such that the community. In order to promote this next generation of ”the general public” process of outreach, there must be recog- will” will know it’s importance. nition of its importance and of the peo- • I used to be a SLAC tour guide – and ple involved. The method of funding found that the people taking the tour such work must improve also. For exam- where very positively impressed with the ple, currently the DoE does not allow activity at the lab. Perhaps such pro- universities to spend DoE money on edu- grams should be expanded, perhaps via cation or outreach. This makes no sense TV. And sending physicists to schools since they are funding people/programs for brief lectures. at educational institutions. Currently their mission statement does not allow • Outreach already represents a signifi- for such expenditures; however, this mis- cant consumer of resources. Seems to sion statement could be (and should be) be ”reasonably” successful at funding changed to allow such activities. We agency level. If activities are to be increased could also take our cue from other scien- maybe this should be done by appoint- tific institutions who maintain extremely ing full-time staff to be most effective. good public and congressional relations. NASA, for example, can! crash Pathfinder 13.5.2 Outreach Organization: into MARS and still get money from Congress to continue their work. And • The largest problem is that even with the general public still thinks that NASA increased “outreach”, our message gets is doing extremely exciting and neces- lost when we don’t speak with one voice. sary work. Unlike HEP, NASA spends Comments on Outreach 103

Too many divisions or local battles within should surely join with other disciplines the field are fought in public forums (eg. to keep a Neal Lane type in Washington funding agencies). It’s difficult to get a working for science. We should award a lay-person excited if they are frequently significant prize for the best op ed arti- hearing a dissenting voice at the same cle in a local newspaper etc. time. • We need Carl Sagans and should try to • I feel that the HEP community presents discover, support and reward them. too fractured a face to the funding agen- • Important to focus more outreach on cies. It is necessary to unit behind some- ”decision leaders”. Outreach to general thing to help in the funding. I feel that public is important in principle, but is the general public is very much out of not a primary path to strong support touch with what we are trying to accom- for funding. plish. I have offered to donate some of my time in the answering of questions • Perhaps more organized ways of con- from the public that come in through tributing to outreach could help. I think the FNAL webpage. a lot of people are willing to commit some time, but would need to make a • Regional outreach organizational might large time investment to get anything work in the same way as indicated above going from scratch. Some way of allow- for research centers. ing people to contribute a little here and • Physicists who are not working with a there could really help, and contribu- large fraction of the time on commu- tions could really add up (a bit the way nication with the public need guidance providing bins so that recycling is easy on how they can use limited time effec- really promotes recycling!) tively. Some people must devote a large • We need to develop training material to fraction of their time to organizing this use for outreach. This provides a con- effort. sistent and clear message. • Need for a better control/management • We need training programs in outreach. over the huge projects our field requires, Too many of us really don’t know how in order to avoid shameful endings like to do it. the SSC... Get people to like physics: tough job, but it’s the only way. • We need more coordination of outreach efforts. We need information on how to • It is incredibly hard to explain HEP ”plug-in” to programs which work. physics to the general public, and doesn’t come naturally. Courses in graduate • I would do more outreach if I had bet- school or workshops on public outreach ter guidance as to how to do it well. We would certainly help. This would help should strongly encourage those who have fund-hunting, too. the talent for it. • • We are badly lacking in leadership, in Hiring people just to do outreach work good communicators spending almost would be useful. full time in Washington and in deal- • I think people with good communica- ing with the public through TV, OP tion skills, who have wide general view ED articles. We must raise the level of of HEP, should do more to popularize respect for the future Carl Sagans. We HEP and physics science. Comments on Outreach 104

• Outreach should be done by those who is in the various Labs and countries) have a talent for it. The rest of us to create the infrastructure for outreach should give them support and recogni- activities (institutionalize public events, tion. visitor days, school and university contacts, etc.). Some such activities are • I already spend some time on outreach going on, but they are mostly pushed activities. My observation has been that by individuals. many who do little or nothing will do a good job if asked. Part of the activ- • Rather improve quality/ coordination ity of outreach activists ought to be in of outreach efforts than quantity. recruiting and organizing capable expo- nents of the sciences who are not suffi- 13.5.3 Value of Outreach: ciently self-motivated to seek the opportunities to connect. • The problem with outreach is that it • It’s hard for us as physicists to explain isn’t part of the job. Faculty don’t get what we do in an accessible way. It promoted because of their work educat- would be good to get people who are ing the general public. At best, it is a good at explaining (such as science writ- little extra - but if the basic research ers) and really get them informed/involved work isn’t enough to stand on its own, in the experiments, such that they can outreach won’t push one over the edge. use their skills but actually have the And it takes time and talent and, prob- knowledge of the topic to get things right. ably, instruction to do well. Question 23 - I put ”maybe,” but the answer really • This cannot only be done by a few ”pro- is ”yes, if it becomes a real part of my fessional” spokespeople. We have to get job” and ”no, it isn’t an official part of more of our colleagues involved in the my job which is already very demand- various ”outreach” activities. ing, and I don’t spend enough time with my family now.” Note that I do a fair • This is not my forte so would be a waste amount of outreach now! of resources for me to reach out to the public. Specialists in this area are needed. • Outreach should play a role in deciding tenure/ permanent positions. • I recognize the importance of these things, but I personally am not that excited by • RECOGNITION BY THE LAB/ UNI- them. But there are many people in our VERSITY MANAGEMENT: outreach field that are, thank goodness. activity should be spelled out on eval- uation reports, and be integral part of • We need to stop talking about outreach the career path. and start doing it. People want to do it, but don’t have the support needed. • We should value outreach more in this Efforts should be coordinated and adver- field! One example is to give physi- tised to build support and excitement, cists an extra vacation day for every two and so that our culture values and rewards weekend days that they spend doing out- outreach efforts. reach (such as Saturday morning physics at Fermilab, etc.). Actually, this exam- • It’s not only the question of time to ple could work for any Fermilab employee invest. It’s (in my view) the task of / user who is able to give tours/ lectures the ”HEP management” (whoever this on the weekends. In general, though, Comments on Outreach 105

we as a field should spend more time cultural shift within the community so and resources educating the non-physicists. that public-outreach is seen as more valuable. As it is, outreach is seen as some- • To increase outreach, management must thing that you do in your spare time. provide working time for such, for those willing to help. • I would personally be willing to dedicate more of my time to outreach, if it • There has to be a mandate from the would be also count as much as writing agencies and the university/ academic a scientific publications. career structure to recognize and foster these activities. Doing more with less • If my career uncertainty were not so is getting ”old” and ineffective. strong, I’d be much more willing to do outreach. As it is, I feel such efforts • Perhaps mandate some level/ form of detract from doing things that make me outreach for different career levels. visible to hiring committees. • Outreach is the duty of tenured faculty. • HEP needs better marketing! But out- • As a postdoc doing theory I do not have reach doesn’t pay off for one’s personal time for anything other than research. career. The reality is that selection criteria in • I already have dedicated much time to the field depend only on the quality/ Congressional outreach (2 trips with SLUO amount of research. If I dedicate some + UEC to D.C.) but am constantly amazed of my time to outreach (in principle a at attitudes of my colleagues when I nice and respectable thing to do) then tell them of my involvement – typical I produce less research = my chances of responses are ”That’s not doing physics!”. getting a next position/ postdoc decrease They often don’t understand the impor- rapidly. Clearly if the system does not tance of these activities. change then I do not see how theory postdocs can be expected to do out- • I already do a lot of outreach, but reg- reach. ularly get belittled for that effort by faculty, and ESPECIALLY other grad- • Most people are already overcommit- uate students. Physics grad students ted. To spend substantially more time and postdocs need to get over them- on outreach, they need to have other selves and realize that those ”C stu- duties lightened. Universities could lighten dents” in the labs we used to teach are teaching loads, labs could lighten other now the staffers of Congress determin- service work. There are only so many ing how much funding we get. hours in a day, if people are going to spend substantially more time on out- • Outreach or die. reach, something else has to give. • I consider outreach as an integral and • For large experiments, public outreach important part of the faculty position. might be a recognized service task (maybe I will dedicate my time to it when I this is a bad idea, but it’s worth consid- become faculty. ering). What else can we do? I don’t • know. To a certain extent, we already Outreach is important, but young peo- know what to do, but we just don’t ple are not rewarded for this. In fact, do it. What’s required is more of a in can be detrimental to their careers. On the other hand, the older crowd has Comments on Outreach 106

failedtodo agoodjob. Iamina quandary • I already spend a lot of my time engaged as to how to deal with this. in public outreach, and usually enjoy it. Probably that is also a measure of how • I might do some outreach in my Coun- much one should do... try instead of in U.S., just to have more time at the Lab when I am in the U.S. • I already spend a significant amount of time in outreach. Let us also not for- • Those who do outreach should not be get that teaching is one of our most outcasts. This is an essential part of substantial forms of outreach. When our future. we leave students with the impression in our courses that physics is a dead • We need to create incentives for out- field concerned with inclined planes we reach and obtain an outreach line-item ensure our future... on the DOE budget. • My contribution to outreach frequently • Yes, but this effort should be paid as consists of writing letters to Sci Ameri- well, since it is an essential part of the can, NY SciTimes, American Scientist, task of the physics community. I am Physics Today, Atlantic Monthly, San astonished that most efforts of U.S. labs Diego Union Tribuen on topics from whether into this direction are completely volun- Pluto is a planet, the play, Copenhagen, tary. In this respect, CERN seems to to cosmology. These letters rarely get be far ahead when is comes to outside published! I’m doing as much as I can. communication. • I admire my colleagues who perform out- • Outreach to the public has to be appre- reach activities. I recognize my impa- ciated more. So far, it is more consid- tience in these endevours, and find it ered a personal hobby but it seems not very hard to participate. Outreach is to be adequately appreciated within the very important - it is just not something scientific community. that I’m good at. • Those doing outreach at university don’t • I have volunteered to help out with var- get the recognition of those doing the ious outreach programs. When I have research and bringing in the funding money. worked I have gotten primarily positive • Outreach to public best done by tal- feedback, and yet they rarely seem to ented individuals - very important, but ask twice. Other people have told me much HAS BEEN ACHIEVED over last of similar cases. years - I can’t do more or quality of my • Science seems to be in the lift again. work would reduce - worse end of stick. Nevertheless, persuading the public of • I’m saturated with outreach activities the interest of physics remains impor- already. tant. However, being a physicist has no status. • You didn’t ask how much time I spend already. I spend a LOT of time already. 13.5.4 Schools: • I already spend an extensive amount of • my time on physics popularization. (a More researchers should spend time doing lot more than most of my colleagues). outreach to local schools. Shape children’s attitudes when they are impres- sionable. Comments on Outreach 107

• The American public does not have a remains to be demonstrated. Unfortu- good knowledge of what HEP does. This nately, it takes a generation to change is especially a problem considering that public’s attitude... scientific literacy in the public and Congress • is fairly low. More public lectures, lab On QuarkNet I’ve hired two high school open houses, education- oriented HEP students this summer, and all I hope web sites are needed. for is that they tell their friends they worked in the Physics department, did • Let’s get schools involved. Let’s make good work and were paid a lot. it a standard to have each student visit • a physics lab once in her/his lifetime! Support high school teachers to do research Funding is important, but I care more on HEP experiments in the summers. about the general public. DoE used to do this, but quit. I worked with one of these teachers and was very • Reach to the children. impressed with his enthusiasm and his contributions to the project. • I think we should help high school teachers to make physics lectures more inter- • Bring in more high school, college stu- esting with videos, public lectures, small dents and high school teachers to uni- experiments, visits in the labs, etc... At versities and nat’l labs during the sum- least here in Europe, physics is thought mer. pretty boringly, without much attempt • to excite the natural curiosity of young We have generally been a dismal fail- people. And of course if one starts as a ure when it comes to getting our case student to consider physics boring and out to the public and to Congress. The abstruse, it is very difficult he/she will SSC debacle is the best recent exam- change mind later on. ple. It is not clear where to start, but it certainly would not hurt to have a bet- • If we expect funding for our field, we ter science educated public in general, need to do a better job of getting ”good” and that starts in the public schools and and exciting science in the hands and with the public school teachers. minds of the general public. Students • need to develop their enthusiasm and We need to do outreach right, not nec- interest at the K-12 level. We need to essarily more. For example several hun- work with High School Physics/Science dred thousand people/ year take intro- teachers. We need to be more pro-active ductory physics. They are sitting in a with promoting physics to our congres- room with a physics prof for about 100 sional representatives. Letters and vis- hours. Do we do anything with this its to congressmen. captive audience? • • Education starts in school. School physics Outreach needs to cover all age groups. (and science in general) education in Today’s K-12ers can be tomorrow’s physi- this country is pathetic, especially for cists - but only if we manage to get the enormous resources the U.S. has. them interested in physics. Otherwise Talk to any European and they will tell they miss out on the excitement while you that any time. This should be one making lots of money... of the messages to the Congress, and • Request to NSF & DOE to provide fund- the public at large. Quarknet seems ing to minority-serving institutions who to be a good beginning, but its success Comments on Outreach 108

are trying to establish a HEP research But the most important may be to con- program at their institutions. Provide vince high schools to include a sensibi- funding for HEP research in South Texas, lization to the questions of science in a region with the largest number of Hispanic- their school programs. American population in the United States. • NSF/DOE have traditionally focused on Outreach means more than asking for HEP funding to mainly Ph.D granting more, which it seems is all we really do. research institutions, leaving out the non- As far as public education is concerned Ph.D granting minority institutions. This we should be in the schools far more must change. than we are. • • Outreach to the public is too important An indirect and very long term way to to be left to the HEP field. The physical help guarantee funding is to ensure a sciences need a coordinated approach scientifically literate populace. One place to this issue. My personal opinion is to start is to help educate those who that most of the effort and funds should will become primary education teachers be expended where it will multiply the to be good at and, hopefully, enjoy sci- effect. That, to me, dictates an empha- ence. Such an attitude can help reduce sis on training teachers at the grade through the uncool perception of an interest in high-school level and less effort on sin- science, particularly among young girls. gling out gifted students or students from I do not know exactly how to accom- disadvantaged groups. plish this, but I suggest looking to other countries, especially Japan and Korea, • HEP as well as other great modern physics where the educational systems may not topics need to be put into the Fresh- be ideal, but young people are much man Physics curriculum, which is where more receptive to science and there seems most people in the general public get to be much less stigma in being scientif- there life’s worth of physics education. ically literate. These investigations are not directly a job for physicists, but we • Basic science education in schools must should be involved. be improved worldwide. If the science teachers are good, the subjects are taught • I am a part of educational outreach already. in interesting ways, the public and politi- Introducing HEP to the classroom is a cians interest and support will be a free high priority of my collegues and me. additional benefit. Go to the schools • with the best people! I already do some outreach — teaching various physics courses in local uni- • Outreach is important and has the great- versity’s adult education program – my est impact when targeted at educators. courses are specifically tailored to adult If we prepare kids in school for the intel- non-physicists who are interested in learn- lectual and abstract rewards that HEP ing more about what’s going on in mod- offers, then and only then will they (and ern physics. their Congresspeople) be receptive to other forms of outreach. 13.5.5 Reaching Funding Agencies: • An effort in media-ization of particle • physics is needed to gain the interest The funding outreach has been spotty. and maybe support of the public. Some Some districts do very well others make popularization at the TV needed maybe. no attempts at all. Comments on Outreach 109

• I think a wise investment would be a value of basic science for feeding the coordinated lobby effort, with liaisons country’s economic ”engine”. It is imper- stationed not only in Washington, but ative that we work harder to make the also at each of the labs. Those stationed case for strong support of basic research at the lab could ”rally the troops” and both to the Congress and the general have the sole responsibility of organiz- public. Of the G-7, the U.S. is one of ing support for Congressional petitions the lowest per capita investors in basic and developing a good repoire with local research and unless we can make progress officials. Those stationed in Washing- in influencing Congress of the value of ton could be our voice. this research to the long term health and competitiveness of our economy, it • We need to work much, much harder on will be very difficult for us to play a members of Congress. They are appallingly leading role in HEP in the future. We ignorant. We are appallingly inept in must expand our interactions with mem- our dealings with them. Recently HEPAP bers of Congress and the public to make has done something good, ie develop a them aware of the value of this research ”briefing book” on the example of NASA. and the impact that their budgetary actions I think we spend a lot of time and effort have on the continued viability of these in outreach to the public, and I don’t programs. know that it does much good. We lack pretty pictures; histograms don’t excite • A great deal of effort has, and is, going the public’s imagination. I don’t know into outreach. It is necessary, but I am how to solve this problem. not sure it is effecting Congress (well • the HEP budget has been flat for a decade). Hire lobbyist to deal with the legisla- Hard go to convince the public and the ture. Seek advise from advertising agen- Congress to support HEP. cies. • I simply do not know if we as a field are • Hire lobbyists in Washington. Individu- doing enough to ”outreach to funding als should meet congressmen more often. agencies.” I know I could do more. • We need to get far more physicists inter- • You can’t wait until you need money to ested in lobbying the government to sup- start doing outreach. No one believes port science. In parallel, we need to the words out of your mouth when you restore our reputation among the more hand is outstretched at the same time. influential sectors of the general public HEP is a tool of foreign policy. CERN – this will be very difficult. has amply demonstrated the values of • Somehow, we have to get money. science as a way to encourage nations to work cooperatively together for the • Seeing your Congressman is important, better good. The U.S. needs to under- but we should take a lesson from the stand this. AMA, Gun Lobby, etc. and employ some more professional help to get the • This is a tough problem, given that the message across. This could be financed funding techniques used by the U.S. changes thru the large Professional Societies and and the funding of other countries is should be broader than just HEP. quite different. • It seems clear to me that the current • Keeping the public informed about the Congress has little appreciation for the results of the use of their money for Comments on Outreach 110

HEP is mandatory, not optional. Physi- • Since it’s a fact that the government cists should lobby Congress to earmark caters to the desires of corporate Amer- funds for this purpose, or strongly encour- ica far more than to the concerns of the age the funding agencies to do so. The public, we should step up our efforts comparison of how well people know about to get the so-called ”power lobby” in what NASA does with their money to our corner. The role of public outreach what they know about what HEP does should focus on attracting bright peo- with their money is not accidental. It is ple to our field (and retaining them) in because High Energy physicists in gen- order to ensure a healthy future. eral do not communicate well, so the • answer is not to put High Energy physi- Do not neglect outreach to corporations. cists on outreach, but to put profession- • HEP has failed to answer adequately als on the job like NASA does, and pay the question of WHY society should pay for it. for HEP. The reason for this is that no • MOVE THE APS MEETING BACK one in HEP has learned enough about TO WASHINGTON. recent social science research to be able to understand the long term impacts • In order to do outreach on the level that HEP is likely to have - especially required to make a significant impact through future career switches by senior the funding structure must be changed physicists now in HEP - and how to to allow resources to support these efforts. explain these impacts to Congress and the public. • I don’t think that high energy physics has much clout on the political end; as • The public would be far more support- for public interest, it doesn’t seem to be ive if they knew what we were doing. very high; I think the field makes itself That has to happen before they can be a little bit inaccessible in general; clout convinced it is worth their tax dollars. will come with interest, though I don’t • have many thoughts on how to engen- Many of my friends and acquaintances der an interest in it, other than con- know a little about HEP (usually by tinued efforts to inspire human interest association with me) but few folks I meet in the fundamental constituents of the know what the HEP labs do or why this universe. research is important. We, as physicists, need to sell our field more to the • Have better people in the DOE Office public and garner their support before of Science. Rosen & O’Fallon are poor we can ask Congress to increase support communicators with OMB, Congress and for the field. Particularly now when we physicists in the field. anticipate building a new facility with an expense of many billion dollars. • To maintain funding levels we must communicate with the people why we should • I think the government would embrace be supported. If the people don’t sup- physicists and their projects more if they port the science the governments of the included as part of their project out- world have every reason to continue to reach to the general public. Politicians apply cuts, slowing existing projects by often don’t understand what the return years. on their investment is, which allows them to rescind their funding much more easily. I feel strongly about the commit- Comments on Outreach 111

ment we ought to have to educating the general however labs / funding agen- general public about what we do. cies have to realize that outreach costs money, and have to be more willing to • Write your Congressman. Write the local fund such activities. paper. Tell them what you do and why it is important. Have open houses at • I am not well enough informed. In fun- your local university. Invite your reps damental research, independence from to visit your favorite national lab. Above ”money givers” is vitally important! all, realize the public is interested in sci- • Society gives us as much funding as it ence and isn’t stupid. understands of the reasons of our research. • I believe that the recent coupling of pub- Thus, if we don’t do the job of inform- lic outreach to funding is a disaster that ing society of the importance of what needs to be overcome. It is naive to we are doing, we should not be aston- think that any election result is likely to ished about the lack of funding we receive. be much influenced by the question of • HEP needs to work out moral evalua- funding for particle physics. The politi- tions of how much money / effort the cians need to understand the long term public should be asked to donate to the benefits of funding basic research. The uncovering of given pieces of knowledge. general public should also be taught this e.g. is the supplementary knowledge lesson but that is a huge effort which that an NLC could provide worth $5-10 has more to do with the education sys- B? Perhaps the public could be involved tem than efforts on the part of physi- in the process. cists. • We need to come up with a better plan • What is the difference between ”not nearly for selling HEP research to conserva- enough” and ”far too little”? SSC had tive administrations. We need to show- a very strong public outreach program case not only the ’sexy’ physics, but in K-12 education. This served the role also immediate (or near-immediate) appli- of helping the country as a whole to cations of developed technologies. We improve science education, and it also also need to show how the U.S. will gave name recognition to the project. lose much more than just the science Doing more of this would be good, but edge if U.S. HEP funding continues to DOE has restricted the use of funds mak- be below the rest of the world commu- ing this tricky. Labs might use some nity. limited discretionary funds in this manner, but the scale may be wrong. • I think many scientists regard the money we get from society as something due, • Consider allocating funding explicitly for and I think it’s wrong. Our societies outreach. In particular, well paid and are making not negligible investments larger PR groups in the national labs in HEP and we should be able to explain would be a good start. However, do why (even if it is more a cultural than not neglect the important influence of pragmatic reason). the universities. • There are many claims on public monies • Outreach in a sense can never be enough. and we do not have an entitlement. It However a balance has to be found for is absolutely essential that we explain the time spent on these activities. In our claims to both the public and the funding agencies. Comments on Outreach 112

• The community needs to understand that face of tough decisions that funding agents billion dollar facilities are too expen- and politicians must make. sive to be an entitlement for scientists. • This has to come from each of us; are we Our gloss from the atomic bomb is long gone, and we are viewed as just another worth the public support? I VISITED 19 congressional and senate offices last constituent group which wants money time in WDC making this case - Orches- for its pet projects. We need to get the message across that fundamental research, trated formated contacts come across as phony at least to me. Do YOU have even if it doesn’t make a better mouse trap, is very important to the future vision of our role in U.S. society as a scientist and the importance of the sci- health of the scientific and technological entific enterprise? base on which our modern prosperity is based. • I have absolutely no experience reaching out for money. There are people • Physicists of the present generation tend who are very good at this even though to feel entitlement. The world owes them they are primarily physicists. Maybe a living for their hard work. My gener- these people should get a full-time posi- ation (over 70) never felt that way and tion seeking funding. all of us fought to keep the budget up. We must get support from University • I frankly cannot judge if enough out- Presidents as we had for FNAL in 1965 reach to funding agencies exists; it is and as we had at the start of SSC (but evident though that this outreach is not we lost it by the end). sufficiently effective. • We need to completely eliminate the • Outreach to the general public is by far idea of entitlement so ingrained in the the most important in the long term. A DOE. Both at the agency and grant lot more needs to be done to open up level, people think that they should receive and justify future projects. If we have basically the same funding that they trouble justifying the cost of a future got last year. This has got to change. project, then this suggests a failure on NSF is better in this regard. our part rather than the ignorance or stupidity of the public. • The relationship between globalization and outreach to funding agencies should • It just happens that I am in almost daily be carefully considered. The agencies contact with Congressional aids. This need to be sure they will get something is not a steady state. from the investment. • What it takes to reach the funding agen- • Two comments: 1.) I do lots of pub- cies has not really been done and it relies lic outreach in addition to working with on a creative idea of a few. A seri- students. 2.) Although I believe we ous systematic study of what it takes should keep our funding agencies, Congress, to get the level of financing and inter- etc. well informed, I don’t think we est from the Congress does not seem should expect too much from this. We to have been taken yet. The effort of tend to be rather arrogant in thinking information to the general public is not that once people understand what we relying in real knowledge on what it are doing, they will give us 100% of takes to get the general interest and is their support. This is unlikely in the still driven by a somewhat aloof attitude (big progress has been done though). Comments on Outreach 113

• Spend more money on it so we can get could almost be called anti-outreach, or on-going national outreach programs. at least ”outreach is fine, as long as I don’t have to do it”. This inhibition is • We need more federal funds spent on often quickly forgotten when it is time science. Present government has squan- to publish one’s somewhat over-hyped dered the surplus on a huge tax cut results in the New York Times. for the wealthy rather than investing in the nation’s future. This is the funda- • NASA and the Hubble Space Telescope mental reason U.S. pure science is in are good examples of groups that have decline. That includes HEP. reached out to the public. It will be necessary for high energy to do this if • To maintain a dynamic equilibrium in it wants multi billion dollar support. the field, we need consistent and pre- dictable funding. Similarly, if the field • Emphasize what has been learned about is to grow, we need a well-defined fund- ”inner space” and tie it with the cos- ing profile which will allow for realis- mos. NASA has good public awareness, tic planning. Even if we are going to even though they’ve had some well-known lose funding, we need a realistic profile failures. HEP does not. Astronomy is so that we can plan effectively. Unfor- more glamorous because the sky is right tunately, the U.S. government lacks a up there for all to see. Maybe we ought history of accurately projecting future to hire a Madison Avenue PR firm. funding levels, and seems to have little • NASA manages to make much of lit- interest in doing so. tle, e.g. showing glitzy computer ani- mations of the Ulysses probe flying by 13.5.6 The NASA Model: the Earth. As scientists we tend to shun glitzy presentations, but these roman- • Learn from NASA; attract topmost peo- ticized presentations appear to work in ple in science to public work. inspiring the public’s imagination. (e.g. the merit-less International Space Sta- • NASA and biology is much more adept tion is handily gobbling up a budget at getting results (even ones that are of a size comparable to the canceled not truly ”new”) reported. Even what SSC.). We need another Carl Sagan’s we consider the most mundane HEP result ”Cosmos” to do for HEP what he did can be presented in a way to the public. for astronomy. The APS should do better in this. • NASA has shown over the years how it • NASA does a good job at outreach. We is possible to convince a broader public should try to emulate them. But it is how important and in the national/global easy to say that we should do more out- interest it is that a resourceful civilized reach, and it is even easy to say that I nation support basic research. We’ll have personally would be willing to do more to learn how to bring our concerns to of it (although I already spend some the public in a way that convinces oth- of my time on that). There are some ers that we are talking about the public obstructions that need to be overcome. concern. Nobody enters our field just to One is that DOE specifically prohibits ”make a living”, or to ”make money”. the labs from the type of outreach and Let that message sink in, and let us try PR that NASA has. Another is that to convince the public on whose payroll there is a general culture in HEP that we work, that we are doing it in their Comments on Outreach 114

best (defining understandably what ”best” made about hiring/tenure/ etc.? We means) interest. This is by no means need to try to appeal to the public/ easy, but it is clearly incumbent on us. Congress on a more visceral level. It is one thing to explain the importance • Get more physics into the news media. of basic research. However, these kinds (NASA seems to do well there.) of arguments seldom seem to have the • If you want to see outreach, watch what same effect as showing someone a beau- the astronomers do. tiful picture of a supernova from the HST. More thought needs to be put towards • Astronomers beat HEP physicists hands understanding how can we best capture down when it comes to outreach. What the beauty and excitement of our field. have we done to compete with a Hubble • picture? We must figure out how to do outreach to the public as effectively as the astro- • Follow the example of astrophysics who physics community does. Without the are more efficient in their outreach. pretty pictures, this is at least difficult and maybe impossible. • HEP has got much to learn from the outreach work carried out by the large • The field of particle physics could become astrophysics project laboratories plus NASA the field of particle astrophysics. The etc.. sum of HEP + astrophysics funding + coordinated outreach to the funding agen- • I already spend a significant fraction of cies could equal more than the current my time on outreach activities. The base for HEP + astro. big problem is that it is difficult to provide the public with easy to understand • Above is for astrophysics, which (as was visual images that can compete with pointed out) ”captures the imagination.” astronomy. Astrophysics gets a lot of press, and the astrophysics community seems to have • I think that this area is probably the more people willing to interact with the one most neglected by the community public. I feel it is important that the as a whole. We should really make an public get the chance to interact with effort to understand issues like” Why ”real scientists” – all too often we depend can NASA get funding for a $100B space on the press to mediate interactions which station, while there is a feeling that a then become all too far removed from $5 B project will somehow handcuff our what we are actually doing. Scientists field? What is it about the space pro- are real people and should be capable gram that captures peoples interests? of communicating results to the public Can we capitalize on that curiosity to (where often they are incapable of com- help promote our field? What needs to municating even with their colleagues). be differently? I have several ideas on I dare say they even have a responsibil- this subject. First of all, there seems to ity to do so. be a perception that taking some time from research to spend on outreach will be detrimental to a young physicists career. 13.5.7 Survey-Specific Comments We need to understand as a community, on Outreach: the value of outreach, and make sure • that it is recognized when decisions are More U.S. specific questions. Comments on Outreach 115

• Not relevant for foreigners. treated as such. Simply educating your congresswoman or -man about your neato- • This appears to only be relevant to U.S. science doesn’t translate to $$$, and we physicists. shouldn’t expect it to. • Seems like ”we” means USA here?

• Answers apply to Europe.

• Again, I can’t comment about issues relating to funding from the U.S. Congress.

• NA, I am not an American citizen.

• I don’t know about the outreach program to funding agencies in the U.S...

• My answers apply to Europe/Germany. I don’t know the U.S. outreach activities too well!

• Question 21 is naive. Reaching higher levels at DOE and reaching OMB is as important.

• The answer to question 21 requires a level of political understanding that neither I nor, I suspect, 99% of the physics community has.

• I don’t know the current level of outreach in order to answer these questions.

• ”Not nearly enough” and ”far to little” are not exactly distinct.

• ”Not nearly enough” and ”far too little” mean the same to me! Outreach (both to the decision makers and the general public) is clearly extremely important. However, I’ve declined to answer this section because as a European I have little knowledge of what is done in the U.S.

• I think you need to make a clearer dis- tinction between lobbying and education. I’m not sure it’s appropriate to lump them together as you do here - outreach to funding agencies is really is a political question and should be Comments on Building the Field 116

13.6 Building the Field encourage more young people to enter the field. 5yr-time scale astro projects 13.6.1 Timescale for Projects: could balance 20-yr time scale new accelerator based projects. • The field is aging and young people are essential for the new ideas and perspec- • If the field is not making much progress tives that they can bring. I am afraid in physics then it will not be exciting limited budgets the extended time that to young physicists. (Your options for young scientists spend considering how question 28 could have included ”inad- to secure their next job reduces the over- equate rate of physics progress”.) all vitality of the enterprise. • Lack of control – What do you tell a stu- • It’s frustrating how long it takes to par- dent now who sees that we are already ticipate in and get data from an experi- designing or building machines (LHC, ment. The scale is now 10 years/ exper- NLC, VLHC) that will span the next iment. If you’re unfortunate to be near 30 or 40 years. If the machines are the beginning, you may never get to see set, then the questions we wish to ask any physics data! have already been decided. Yes, you can make an impact ’inside’ an already • As an undergraduate myself, the most agreed upon direction of physics inquiry, disconcerting aspect of particle physics but there will be no opportunity during is the time investment required of the the span of an entering student’s career scientists. They talk of the VLHC being to embark on a new track and actually finished in 2030?!? I’ll be fifty then! see any result. Unless something changes, young people are going to be turned away because • Long project cycles are a big problem. they don’t want to be locked into a path. • In question 28, I worry about the very • Hey. Everyone knows we can get more long time to mount an experiment and cash in other work. We still go into this to get results, relative to the 5 years a field because we like it. I can trade off student should spend in graduate school. pay for doing this - it’s great. How- ever, the time scale of these large exper- • No facility! Time scale for results. iments is getting too large to continue • putting PhD’s through as we are doing. Experiments take too long. Universities need to think about their • Bad Morale: Growing size of and timescales requirements for PhD’s - otherwise how for experiments are putting larger pre- can anyone think of entering things like mium on social-group dynamics that reward the LHC right now if they know they those who are more politically savvy. In probably won’t get a university-required an environment that already makes it publication for 7-8 years ? very difficult to have some semblance of • I think the ever increasing size, cost and security, this inevitably lowers morale. timescale of experiments is driving peo- Such an environment also suppresses orig- ple away from the field. Unfortunately, inal/creative thought that perhaps can- this is not such an easy thing to change. not be expressed well at its inception. This then drives a somewhat ”mono- • A mixture of astrophysics + accelera- lithic” approach to the science. tor based physics in a single field could Comments on Building the Field 117

• I think people are also influenced to leave long that they cannot see a whole exper- by the lengthy and uncertain timescales iment. They gain very little hardware for future projects. I doubt that the experience, and we may end up with a average time to get a Ph.D. in HEP new generation which could not build a is significantly different than in other new detector in 2025 even if given the areas of physics. But under even the opportunity. Additionally, the inputs most optimistic scenario, a linear col- students have in an experiment is very lider, for example, is still at least ten limited. Rather, they have a hard time years away. doing anything but work in a corner of the big picture and use a large amount • Management is also a very big issue, of hard- and software which they don’t and more than salary, it is the image understand at a fundamental level. that you need 5-7 years of postdoc (additional servitude) before becoming a sci- • Large experiments imply large collabo- entist. It is hard to justify being 34-40 rations and also imply a long time between before starting a tenure track position. initial proposal and final published results. For persons to feel they’re contributing, • Long time scale of experiments from con- the time has to be less than 5 or 6 yrs. ception to first publishable data. • Slow rate of innovation plays an impor- • The pace of discovery in HEP has slowed tant role in many people’s disillusion- considerably in the last decade and has ment with the field. probably discouraged young researchers • from pursuing a career in HEP. Another feature that would influence me to leave the field is the amount of time • The time from entering grad school to it takes to get funding and then to have become a faculty member is a way too the experiment completed. → long. Each step, i.e. grad student • postdoc → faculty is very important; Although personal reasons drive this the but the phases are too long. Shortage most, the biggest concern is that there may be no physics out of a new post- of permanent job opportunities are to blame. LHC facility for 25 years. A young person coming out with a PhD in parti- • The pace of discovery has been too slow. cle physics today may wonder if *any* machine will be built after the LHC. • Large time scale of HEP projects may The community needs to come to a deci- influence young physicists to leave the sion about what to do after the LHC field. on a time scale that is not beyond the career lifetime of a new PhD graduate. • Duration of big experiments is approach- Postponing the start of construction of ing human lifetime. In this prospective the next e+e- collider until after the a HEP experiment is no better than LHC would result in many young peo- work in a company, with lower salaries ple leaving the field. and long hours. • The length of time in graduate programs • As an ”old geezer”, I’m not a good ref- is also a negative factor for many stu- erence for these questions. What I find dents. most discouraging for young physicists is the fact that the time scales are so • The total amount of time new particle physicists are required to spend in Comments on Building the Field 118

grad school and then on post doc posi- ity of fame, allure of working in a HEP tions is just not justified. It feels as if it lab??? You’ve got to be kidding, right? was a way for universities to find cheap • labor... The biggest problem we face is the length of time required to mount & perform • Main concerns: long time needed to grad- experiments. This, coupled with the uate and to establish yourself; limited need to establish a ”physics” reputation number of permanent positions. We need in order to get a permenant job, drives to speed up promotion of the best young many talented people from the field. talents in the field, increase rotation at the management positions, operate with 13.6.2 Leadership and Large Col- more realistic schedules. laborations: • The length of time spent in graduate • school needs to be minimized, yet the HEP moves too slowly and in the USA, student should still get both hardware leadership is lacking. and software experience. They need not • Field desperately needs more leadership, work on one experiment from start to fewer useless meetings. end. Perhaps they can work in accelerator physics for hardware experience and • It is important to have scientific leader- even analyze data from previous exper- ship which present a balanced and focused iments for software experience. There physics program for young physicists. is certainly a lot of good data out there Current sociology in HEP is too fad- that could be analyzed. I think if grad- driven. uate school is not so long (∼ 5 years or • less), then the issue of pay afterwards is Lack of vision and leadership from senior not so bad as you start earning money people, and the reluctance of younger earlier in you life. But it must be clear people to assume the role. that there are permanent jobs that are • Lack of jobs and weak management hurt obtainable on a reasonable time scale. the field. Not being able to get ”tenure” until one is in their mid to late 30’s if pretty crazy. • I believe that the deplorable state of One is typically trying to raise a family present management is the main rea- at that point and to have so much at son for young physicists to leave the risk that late in life is not a good thing. field. The lack of professionalism in the Perhaps the whole system of tenure needs working place, as well as the incompeti- to be re-evaluated. tive salaries and lack of growing opportunities are merely consequences. The • When I think about my future after fin- field simply is in dire need of influential ishing my last degree the biggest rea- people with vision. With the decade+ son for leaving HEP is the collabora- timescales for new experiments, scien- tion sizes. Another factor is that the tific spin-off needs to be implemented timescale between experiments is so long. by design in every stage of development. Running ATLAS for a bunch of years, and then building a super-dooper-NLC • We are losing many of our best young just doesn’t seem that exciting. By the people due to poor management (both way, what was the deal with questions in the experiments, and at the national 25 and 26??? Lifestyle/Hours, possibil- labs). Comments on Building the Field 119

• Lack of permanent job opportunities is university groups to handle graduate stu- closely connected with weak manage- dents and postdocs as physicists in train- ment. ing not cheap technical manpower d) teaching professors not allowed to be • Some problems: oversized, over man- involved in research projects while they aged collaborations with too little impact maintain teaching obligations or admin- of every person; uncertain future (employ- istrative tasks in their universities. Skill- ment, continued viability of field, open- ful and talented people are leaving fast ness to new directions). while the old guys are proud for elimi- • There has been too much politics in HEP. nating the competition. Finally, young Good/best persons often are not rec- physicists should worry about the prob- ognized for their contribution. Many lem of thousands of people putting their people take credits without doing work. names in experiments that they do not Too many people just promote their stu- even know what the initial mean. It dents, employees and friends. should strictly discourage university teams to split peoples time into multiple projects. • Regarding young physicists leaving the • The working atmosphere in HEP has field: one comes with the idea of work- changed. With larger collaborations, ing to understand nature’s most inti- the amount of ”corporate politics” has mate workings, and discover (s)he is the increased. It’s not a large group of smart most insignificant gear of an enormous people working together anymore but machine whose control is often dictated rather may small groups scheming for less by physics motivation than polit- their particular interest. Academic free- ical/ sociological/ budgetarian/ sched- dom is diminished, it is almost impossi- ule, etc. reasons. ble to do research in a non main stream • Most of the problems in question 28 field and succeed. Having to put up result from the poor management I selected. with this makes ”normal jobs” that are also by far better paid look more attrac- • ’Weak and unstructured management’ tive. - a new form of international management is needed. Otherwise the funding • Current generation of HEP’ists slowly and the plans for extended facilities will adopt to new globalized working condi- be refused by any society. tions. Once we managed, collabs will be virtually smaller. So that’s fine. BUT • The main problem is the existence of as long as people still think that HEP an aging generation of physicists with is about bombs we’re in trouble. See poor managements skills and overcom- ”outreach to schools”. mited to many projects. As a young • physicist I hate to see all these profes- My first publication had 6 authors my sors in the mainstream academic insti- present publications have over 400 authors; tutions to waste millions of tax-dollars my LHC publications will have over 2000 to improve their political positions and authors, and precious few of them are do unauthorized research. Things can young physicists. drastically change if: a) vanish tenure • Question 28 is a guess (that large col- positions b) hire managers/ physicists laboration sizes is the biggest influence to manage money and people c) force away from HEP), but I hear people talking about that the most. There’s less Comments on Building the Field 120

glory. But rather than playing that aspect on management and politics. Not that I down, we should consider it an inter- think D0 is over managed but large col- esting twist: not only are we study- laborations need this overhead and its ing nature, but we represent an innova- not really what we are here for. It also tion in the way physics is done. Com- makes it far harder to affect the course municating well and sharing work seem of the experiment in a big way: there almost counter-intuitive to us (our major is too much inertia with large groups of problem here, myself included, is a ten- people and you are unable to try out dency to border off a project and take some ”neat thing” you just thought of it over completely). There are a lot of without extensive justification. These things that established organizations do ”neat things” could lead to important much better than us (organization, less discoveries ... or they could be a com- complete dependence on any given indi- plete waste of time but large collabo- vidual, managing personality conflicts, rations are generally less likely to take etc.) — we’re still beginning to learn risks. how to merge organization with physics • goals. And if we can do this on a world- People leave because the factors that wide scale, physics will be less of a beast brought them to the field are no longer plodding along accidentally and more there. These I think are scientific curios- directed toward human needs and ratio- ity and a sense of being able to con- nal goals. tribute in a meaningful way. Large collaborations deprive people of their abil- • The number of people we retain in this ity to feel part of a scientific effort. They field is appropriate. The problem is that rather feel as part of a group in which we don’t retain the best people. One their contributions lack any individual- of the problems with large collabora- ity and are simple submerged into the tions is that it is the politically savvy group effort. ones who tend to stand out and are • rewarded. We keep people who give The greatest concern physicist are fac- slick talks and lose people who actually ing and the major reason they are leav- make experiments run. ing the field is the general decay of HEP. Lack of experiments. Poorly planned • I see people leaving my experiments so experiments, based on political decisions that they can have more control over and non on physics potential. The con- their lives. Being a cog in a large project sequences of all these (loss of funds, less offers little stimulating professional devel- positions, long time for obtaining results). opment, and can leave the most tal- • ented looking for an area where they You need to create social organizations can have impact and control. Old guys with which people can identify. No one (like me) should develop, encourage, then bonds to a group of 500 collaborators. empower the young. Don’t expect them The typical ant colony aspect of collab- to be junior colleagues for the next 30 orations in which there are no mean- years. ingful social organizations below that of the collaboration is a real killer in terms • Large collaboration sizes are a bad thing: of getting people to hitch their wagon to since joining D0 (I was on a smaller the work. Also, the field needs to get experiment before) I have been amazed over the idea that the only worthwhile at the amount of effort which is spent life is one in which one is married to Comments on Building the Field 121

the field. You need to create an atmo- get paid less in exchange for the increased sphere in which people believe that it is pleasure of their work. HEP is moving a good experience to have and then to in a less anarchistic management style, move on. and this is causing some of the better people in the field to leave. They think • I think that large collaboration sizes and that if they are going to have to deal length of time spent in grad school both with a rigid business environment any- deter pursuit in HEP for some students. way, why not go somewhere else and get I understand the appeal of working in a paid more? smaller collaboration in a different field. Also, the uncertainty of future fund- • I think that the size of the experiments ing for projects (as they are often tied is a disaster in that it reflects the over- to governmental whimsy) creates some whelming problems we try to take on – sense of job insecurity for some students– and do a poor job of solving. Much of of course, this is unavoidable in most our physics results actually does not get fields of physics. published because people simply cannot reach the data – because they are work- • Problems which I have seen hurting the ing in an unprofessional manner and are grad students include: Isolation: Some- too arrogant to believe that they can be one gets stuck in a ’job’ which takes taught better by a non-physicist. Options years to finish, and does not experience are to have a better idea or accept that the other aspects (and people) of the things cannot always be hacked together. field. Politics: In a huge collaboration, The lack of professionalism results in a there is no connection between service very discouraging and depressing atmo- work and research opportunities. I’ve sphere. seen topics divvied up according to the prestige of the advisors rather than the • Working in a big collaboration, where interests and capabilities of the students. you don’t even know your collaborators. Prospects: There are only so many tenure- jobs possible in academia without vastly • Personally I think when we have 2000 increasing the number of students tak- people on an experiment, we have too ing physics. There are only so many many people. To keep more people the ’permanent’ jobs at the national labs. field has to have a clear vision of where The experiments require many more peo- it is going and why. I think that is miss- ple than there are prospects of perma- ing right now. nent jobs for. Despite the reported charms • In large collaborations most young physi- of being able to slip from job to job, cist work as part of a team doing a tiny those of us with families see problems fraction of the experiment, so: a) do not with that lifestyle. No, most of these have an overall knowledge of the experi- have not hurt me; I just mention what ment b) do not feel they work as a ”sci- I’ve seen that looks serious. entist” c) there will be a lack of lead- • Young people will leave the field if it ership with broad knowledge of experi- persists on emphasizing politics, and other mental HEP in the near future. extraneous factors, rather than science. • The collaboration size in itself is not a • I think people like being in HEP because problem. The huge amount of time con- of the academic and somewhat anar- sumed by secondary tasks like comput- chistic atmosphere. They are willing to ing and organization is annoying. Comments on Building the Field 122

• If collaborations become too big and • Question 28 is difficult. I have cho- the individual has less impact, a com- sen management [at all levels] because pensation in form of early positions and it’s responsible for the other woes. We better salary is needed. MUST find a way of giving the young scientists more responsibility at an early • Long-term projects of large collabora- age - I was running my own group two tions should be cut in smaller pieces to years after my Ph.D. give students a chance to making a contribution. • Young physicists leave (or are upset at least about) for the unscientific way deci- • We need more flexible solutions in terms sions are taken (”politicking”) , and by of positions. I would also like to see a poor management of scientific projects. much more professional management of Kicking and boxing is felt to be more the people, for instance reward the ones important to obtain a good permanent doing an outstanding job (and NOT by position rather than scientific quality giving them even more tasks to do!!!) and correctness. but also sanction the ones not performing correspondingly! So far, the latter class of people do not directly feel 13.6.3 Salary and Benefits: the consequences of inadequate perfor- • mance, but rather their jobs are given I think salary and the bureaucracy inher- to the ones working very well! ent in large collaborations are the driving factors in physicist attrition. I don’t • Poor management comes in a very close see any way to resolve these issues. second. A more professional environ- • Salary is no doubt another factor. A ment with fewer egos and less beauracracy software professional earns much more would help to drive fewer young physi- than a Physicist, and the nature of work cists into industry. The salaries will he has to deal with is nowhere as chal- never be competitive, so the environ- lenging as Physics ... I can say this with ment has to make up the shortfall. conviction because I worked in software • Giving adequate acknowledgement of indi- for 2 years. vidual excellence without mixing in pol- • Postdocs last too long and salaries are itics of institutions, etc. too low. If you have a family, it is almost • Although I do not expect to stay in irresponsible to stay in the field because physics in a direct role, I do think it of such low pay. is important to retain most students. • I do not believe a young physicist can Money is an issue, and as for HEP, I support a family on his/her own. know many people are concerned about the enormous collaborations. A friend • Lack of financial security. was recently making fun of Physics Nobel • Prizes because there is a perception that Postdocs need a 50% increase in salaries, HEP Nobels, at least, really go to the junior faculty need a 30% increase. Senior best manager, rather than the best sci- faculty need a 20% increase. entist. Fair or not, this attitude can • Low pay in academia is a major minus. be corrosive for highly talented students who do not have an interest in admin- • VERY long working hours, stress and istration. lack of financial compensation. Comments on Building the Field 123

• I think the salary situation is more impor- change this but I don’t feel there is much tant than most people give it credit for. more to be done. I for instance do not know if I can stay • in HEP any longer and at the same time Salaries are no longer competitive, assault have children to support. I may have to on the institution of tenure continues, sacrifice my interest in academia to be postdocs who are in their 30’s are earn- able to support my family. ing teenagers salaries. • • The salary issue is a big issue, as the job Let young people know about the goals is also very long hours, and few bene- and tools of HEP physics. Then it’s fits. To encourage people to work in a ”personal path” to HEP. To stay in the field, probably the most effective the field, permanent jobs and adequate way would be to emphasize the valu- salaries are necessary. This is what con- able experience, and the travel opportu- cerns me the most. nities. To get and retain the appropri- • Also for question 28, lack of permanent ate technicians/ engineers, I think that job opportunities may cause young physi- some sort of career structure is the most cists leave. pressing need. • I can stay in physics and work 12 hours/ • A professor working in HEP is synony- day 7 days/ week for a grad student mous to a poor person! Intellectually grant. Then I can go into industry and is so exciting but it is very difficult to make piles of money for less time, or make ends meet. The young people see I can stay in physics as a postdoc and it immediately and only if they are inde- still work 12h/d 7days/w and get less pendently wealthy they don’t bring up than half the money. I would love to the money issue. do a postdoc, but I dont want to do it • With $100k starting salaries common- 24/7 and given the lure of industry, it place in high-tech and other industries, looks like I will leave the field. who will wait for a department to decide • I think you have to accept that the allure on offering you a postdoc position which of cash will always draw away a large needs to be renewed every other year? number of talented physicists. Future Departments need to commit to longer issues - money and the diminishing pos- term contracts with reasonable benefits sibilities of independent work. and speed up their hiring process. • I was attracted to HEP because the peo- • Lucrative dot.com jobs caused talented ple were exciting and intellectually vig- HEP physicists to leave the field. orous, and the field seemed fundamen- • Money will always play a large role in tal. I think young people leave the field the retention of any field. If a person because they don’t see a clear career does not have the right personality, they path line. The opportunities don’t look will have a tendency to go where the great, and the salaries don’t justify a money is. The best way to improve so-so job. Better to have a so-so job in retention is through the recruitments of the software industry and make lots of graduate students and targeting those money. I can’t blame them. at the beginning that would be more • Most new PhDs in physics I know have likely to stay. Circumstances can always moved away from physics research as Comments on Building the Field 124

a career, either to pursue jobs with a must have known at the outset that this higher starting salary or because they career is poorly paid, but still made the were no longer interested in pure research. decision to join. I am in a minority However, few of them have expressed group, being both female and a mature regret about studying physics. As well, entrant to the field. The issues which even if not all new PhDs stay in physics, have led me seriously to consider leav- there seem to be enough who want to ing have been the working conditions stay to fill the positions available. rather than the substantial salary I could earn outside. The field is most defi- • Money. The skills we acquire would nitely male-dominated and aggressive in earn us serious money in, for example, nature. Everything is geared to point- the computing industry. Given the real- less races and competition, both intra- ity of working in HEP, i.e. sat in front and inter-collaboration. I despise the of a computer for vast portions of the internal politics and petty power games, day, well ... and had expected so much better of an • Wish I knew ? Increasing the salaries academic environment. In academia, must help. if nowhere else, we should reasonably expect a meritocratic system. • Lack of permanent job opportunities cou- • While lack of a competitive salary might pled with low salary is critical combina- be the main reason for young people to tion. CEO change positions often, but move, I do not think we can compete in have sufficiently large salaries to make that area. Instead, we should aim at the it viable. smaller group that leave due to lack of • The funding for life sciences basic research longer term positions or general tired- was doubled over ten years. We need to ness of the big collaborations. Those do the same. issues can be solved maybe by having longer contracts and by giving regions • Salary questions. Very hard to get some- more power in experiments. Many peo- where in large collaborations. Difficult ple grow tired of the micro-management to get tenure and financial support. where all decisions have to go around the top of the collaborations. • Many go to computing for money. • You might like the physics, studying • When I was starting out, I had confi- long years helps you to keep believing dence that the field would be funded in what your are doing but one day you in a steady, rational way. I think the might be bored eating noodles and live SSC cancellation and the scientific igno- poorly waiting for a post. The modern rance of Congress and the administra- life could give you a better way of liv- tion trouble young people who balance ing. a HEP/academic career with opportunities in the private sector. 13.6.4 Attracting Students to HEP: • Salary seems to be the most cited reason for young physicists leaving the field. • HEP is an extremely hard sell to incom- However, I am convinced that this would ing science students. You tell them that not count so highly if those physicists you can expect to spend 6-8 years in had not first become disillusioned with grad school, earn little money as a post- the working environment. After all, they doc and then have absolutely no job Comments on Building the Field 125

security. Why not just go straight to • I think we are training too many peo- industry? Retaining talent is a real prob- ple to be high energy physicists. Which lem that I worry about. means we should reduce the number of large experiments we are conducting. • It’s very hard to attract the best people to a field that is contracting, and that • One thing that seems obvious is the field has no clear long-term path. is over crowded. So increasing the general funding in a way that increases the • I do not believe HEP really has a prob- number of experiments and the salaries lem with finding and keeping talented is very important. The HEP commu- people. nity has recently taken two steps in the • Considering the number of new machines opposite direction by shutting down SLD and accessible problems, there may be and LEP. There are now very few choices too many people in the field. available for graduating physicists. • Some more manifest excitement in the • Attracting grad-students to HEP means field, particularly evidence for physics making travel less necessary. In an Amer- beyond the Standard Model (not count- ican grad-school you typically spend ∼ ing the neutrino sector) would do the 2 years taking classes before you start most to bring the best people in. But research. During that time you build we can’t just order that up, we need friendships and maybe find a significant- some help from Nature. Still, we can other. The latter is very important, b/c visit classrooms, and speak at other venues, frequently this is the person you’ll end to try to convey our own excitement up marrying. Students do consider this to members of the general public, and when deciding to go into the field. I cer- especially to children, who generally have tainly considered it, and I know other more of that initial spark of curiosity. grad students who decided against joining HEP for these reasons. • We should not try too hard to attract young physicists and in any case tell • This problem is a critical one for the them that it has become very difficult continued viability of the field. If we are for an individual to make a sizable con- not able to continue to attract talented tribution in our field. young people into this field, we will not be able to sustain a strong program. • There’s no doubt that we are losing tal- From my viewpoint there are several ented people to industry. However, given problems needing attention. First, the that we still find enough people to fill need for permanent jobs in the field. out thousand-member collaborations, and As the current faculty at universities that faculty openings still generate a approaches retirement, it is important flood of applicants, I can’t argue that that some of these positions go toward the field is under-manned. On the other hiring the next generation of researchers. hand, it’s clear that fewer grad students Second, the uncertainty of our long range are coming into the field than in the planning process and its vulnerability past. I’m not so comfortable with the to rapid course changes due to the whim idea of aggressively recruiting more – of Congress. When young people see that may lead some to make unfounded programs like the SSC shutdown and promises about the future growth/ finan- NASA funding shrinking, it indicates to cial support of the field. Those that are them the uncertainty of continued fund- truly interested will find us. Comments on Building the Field 126

ing in these programs and they look • It would appear that one is getting more elsewhere for future employment. We results of broad application more read- must find a way of making science pol- ily in areas like genetics engineering and icy in the U.S. that can be reviewed/ molecular biology, also computer science. approved by Congress but that has time- It is my personal belief that particle lines longer than a few years in order to physics theories are not all that attrac- allow large projects the ability of being tive in their present, very complicated completed. Our European colleagues form. Simpler theories are needed. Easy have such a system and as a result they to say, hard to do. But these are the have been able to take the lead in build- lines along which I’m working, in cos- ing several important HEP facilities over mology as well as particle physics. the decades of the 80s and 90s. • Particle physics appeals to people who • The field is interesting and that should are driven more to discover new things be emphasized. Working for 40 or so and to have freedom and variety in their years in most other fields of work is not work than to make money. That is prob- necessarily attractive, even if the pay ably as it should be. might be better. • To be honest, I have very little con- • Salary and benefits being an attraction cern. I am convinced that within 10 to the field? You’re kidding, right? years, new fundamental discoveries will be made. If it were not to be the case in • A bright vision and a happy spirit of the coming 15 years, I would certainly (future) accomplishments will attract them leave the field of HEP! What makes a (especially those who might also be attracted research field interesting, in addition of to biology, computers, etc.) Permanent its intellectual content, is also the degree jobs are needed to keep them, of course. of exchange and of live inside the com- Also substance behind the vision. munity. On that respect, HEP is still in pretty good shape! • You catch them by giving well structured and ambitious lectures. You keep • Many interesting options available to them by helping them produce good results young physicists. To attract to/retain and creating a team-like work atmosphere. in HEP must address the work environment: salary, permanent jobs, intellec- • The mixture of freedom, large scale inter- tual challenge, and personal quality of national collaborations, and intellectual life. Too much time spent away from challenges is what attracted me most home base can interfere with success at into the field. I think we have to give university or other base and also with young people more of a perspective that family life. they can have a career in physics after all. This means more permanent jobs • We CANNOT build another cutting edge have to be funded, and overall more machine unless we have VERY BRIGHT flexibility is needed in employment of young HEP physicists working actively people. on accelerator physics. We cannot therefore sustain our field or achieve our goals • Communicate the excitement; ensure solid unless we change our attitudes. We must and diverse post-graduate opportunities; not continue to allow R&D work to be be willing to cede control downward to an automatic career dead end. Further- newer folk. more, the best physicists are well rounded Comments on Building the Field 127

people who understand their instrumen- at a major university or a national lab tation AND are active in data analysis. - small universities just seem not to be involved or are not welcomed.

13.6.5 Availability of Permanent • I have seen a significant number of young, Jobs: extremely talented physicists leave the HEP field because they could not obtain • Right now for software developers, the a tenure track position. I see this as a industry provides better opportunities. response to the narrowing of our field, In the long run, the possibility of a per- and as a continuing repercussion of the manent position is the main issue. closing of the SSC. I believe this is a • More permanent positions ! difficult problem that goes all the way to Congressional support. • The only way to encourage talented young • people to enter and stay in the field is There are not as many permanent jobs to have more permanent job opportuni- available as the number of graduating ties. Period. researchers. So most of them are eventually forced out sooner or later. On • In my experience (35 years) physicists the other hand considering the kind of leave HEP when they cannot get a decent training they get, they find things eas- position. A few leave for a better job ier elsewhere. (higher salary, startup, etc.) On the • other hand, it would be a mistake to I believe nowadays it looks almost impos- create a large number of permanent jobs sible to be an HEP (young) physicist ... a budget downturn would stop all and have a family. This is due to the new construction. not so much competitive salary but above all to the lack of permanent job oppor- • 1) Lack of permanent jobs, plus strong tunities. Nobody can tell what she/he’s drain from industry (we are employable) going to do in a couple of years after 2) We need to remember HEP training her/his PhD ... and many people are is applicable to a wide variety of career now taking two postdocs ... having at paths, NOT JUST ACADEMICS!!! least 5 years after graduation to spend around ... without any guarantee of a • The biggest problem young physicists permanent job. I feel it is very frus- have with our field is the very uncertain trating and many people leave because nature of its future coupled with the of it. Outside HEP after having gained obvious evidence of the lack of growth a PhD we get great job opportunity, over the last decade. Uncertainty plus maybe not that permanent but so many recent stagnation are deadly for people and so well paid that the situation doesn’t making choices about the future. compare with the academic career! Espe- cially pursuing the academic one, after • At least to me, as a young graduate a couple of postdocs a physicist is prac- student, by far the scariest thing about tically out of the market for other jobs HEP is the apparent shortage of per- because of her/his age! This is very manent positions. This is fueled by the bad, nowadays it looks like a faith/vocational lack (at least on my part) of a con- choice ... choosing physics no matter crete idea about how hard it is to get what. That has to be changed or young a permanent position. Unfortunately, physicist will keep leaving the field. it seems like to do HEP you have to be Comments on Building the Field 128

• The lack of permanent jobs is in my the U.S. sucks. People will stay if there opinion as important as the lack of com- will be permanent job opportunities. petitive salary. • If I leave the field it’ll be because I could • The number of permanent jobs have to not get a job. be increased. Often young people spend hardworking days as graduate students • I think that the greatest problem fac- or postdocs and still have no promise ing young physicists, and this includes of a secure future. So, naturally they myself, is the apparent lack of long term leave the field. Salary also is an issue, job possibilities in HEP. I really enjoy though not so major I think. the work, but for right now I don’t see much of a future for myself in HEP, and • I’ve been told at every step of the way, this is largely due to the fact that fund- from when I decided what my interest ing does not seem great enough to sup- was as an undergrad that I’d better not port a large influx of new HEP scien- get my hopes up for actually working in tists. I am very interested in job secu- the field. I don’t know if its a matter rity and I don’t see that right now. of getting people to stay in the field so much as getting people OPPORTUNI- • The lack of permanent jobs should be TIES to stay in the field. related to the need for good teachers in small colleges and universities and need • Lack of permanent positions seems to for regional centers. be the dominant reason for leaving the field when it comes to young HEP physi- • Permanent jobs have to be given at an cists that have proven to be very good earlier age. It is unacceptable to let physicists. Salary reasons are brought young people play ”Russian Roulette” up more by ”average” candidates. My till the age of 40. If at that age a research guess is that more permanent jobs - at career doesn’t work out, it is too late the intermediate level between postdoc for changing to industry. Also, accept- and Professors - would benefit labs and ing the usual combination of mediocre universities greatly. salaries and outrageous working hours requires a lot of idealism. • Permanent job opportunities are extremely important and there are many exam- • The field does not have ANY organi- ples of how people stay in the field for zational effort to make sure a balanced decades without a stable position. HEP (wrt hardware, software, management, community anyhow pays these people, analysis skills) set of people get a fair but nevertheless they do not have a guar- shot at the limited set of permanent anteed future. I think that young peo- jobs. There is little perception of fair- ple have to be convinced that there are ness or good sense in promotion results. places for them and the rest depends on • their work. Young physicists leave due to lack of perceived future for the field. • Lack of permanent job opportunities IN A PLACE WHERE I WOULD WANT • We need to come up with a long-term TO LIVE. (In a city– not in a suburb vision of the future of the field. With- or the middle of nowhere.) out that, I think that young people will look elsewhere for interesting problems • My biggest concern is that the outlook to work on. for permanent employment in HEP in Comments on Building the Field 129

• More job security and more opportu- Bethe retired at 67). Those who are or nity to have major roles in large collab- wish to remain active should seek the orations. emeritus status on a competitive basis.

• I’m actually an astronomer (wanted to • All jobs in theory are occupied by strings do that since I was 5), but work on cos- guys; they act similar to Napoleon’s idea mic rays led to work on more HEP-like ” there is only one way to achieve goal: topics. So, I sorted of diffused into the promise more and more and do not full- field. Lack of permanent jobs, and the fil them, but instead promise more”. corollary that the temporary jobs pay • a lot less than similar jobs in indus- NSF has effectively terminated university- try (particularly the computer field) is group Research Scientist positions; this what has sucked away many good peo- is a disaster, both for the field and for ple. the individuals. We need more physicists than can be justified as teaching • Job opportunities and the future of the faculty, and they should be university- field as a whole seems shaky at best. connected, with long-term job security. In medicine, engineering, and social sci- • Too many good, young physicists are ences, such positions are plentiful and not able to find positions in Academia secure; in HEP in particular, with the or at Physics Labs. If the job market requirements of long term presence at were better, they would be attracted remote laboratories, such positions are to graduate school and Post Doc posi- much more relevant and important. tions, but the opportunities appear to be dwindling. It’s important to have • We need fair access to job opportuni- shorter-term physics projects that can ties, not just those with connections. meet the time scale of a graduate stu- • dents or postdoc. Having a few big exper- Many young physicists see how hard it iments with long lead times is self-defeating is to get a permanent position. When because it erodes the possibility of a this is balanced against lucrative pri- graduate student or post-doc to make vate sector salaries the choice many make a noteworthy contribution (esp. before is obvious. the analysis is finished). • Lack of clear career paths to allow indi- • The permanent jobs need to occur after vidual young scientists to contribute uniquely one postdoc not three or four. to the field. • • More permanent positions, maybe even Again, we need job opportunities to encour- for people without a Ph.D. age young people to do theory in support of experiment. • The job market is a joke especially in Europe! 13.6.6 Leaving the Field: • One simple important change to ensure • young physicists have the possibility of The issue of most concern to me is how permanent positions is to very strongly a young physicist and his/her family encourage retirement of older physicists. build a life beyond physics, including Since this cannot be forced in the U.S., when and how to leave the field, whether it must be done by example (e.g., Hans at or after retirement or through an earlier career switch. I raise this issue because Comments on Building the Field 130

I think that the greatest societal con- intellectual atmosphere, and challeng- tribution of HEP is provided by highly ing problems that exist in this field can accomplished HEP physicists who switch captivate students, but they must feel careers to address major societal issues that all the work will pay off with a job. (even if only part time, as in the case of • Sid Drell and his work on arms control The jobs in the field simply cannot sup- issues.) port all the young people who enter grad school. Thus, we should not write off all • It must be stressed that EXPERIMEN- young people who leave HEP as ”fail- TAL HEP is a fantastic training ground ures”. Trying to keep more physicists for lots of jobs. I have had students than there are jobs makes conditions start up programs in medical physics worse for those who stay. reactor safety medical imaging business • consulting ALL do well. Their train- Why are young physicists leaving? A ing in HEP has taught them to think lack of a coherent vision in the HEP fundamentally, deeply, work in a group, community, and a sense of abandonment think about the latest technology AND of public interest after the SSC. have fun. Those who are lucky enough • One frustrating thing about the field is to get rewarding jobs in the field have all the whining that has been going on other rewards. since the cancellation of the SSC. We • The question should be how we can encour- need to get over this and move on. age young people to do work in HEP • I’m switching to medical physics indus- and then leave the field? HEP experi- try after I graduate. I have lost interest ments need large numbers of grad stu- in HEP and in being a post-doc. dents and postdocs to successfully build and run an experiment, but there are • HEP in the U.S. took a shot in the head not enough permanent positions for them when the SSC was terminated in the all. The field needs to specifically address fall of ’93. The future is very bleak this fact so that young physicists aren’t beyond the LHC. Post-LHC, there is (in simply used as cheap labor. my opinion) no sensible physics justification (viewed in terms of cost to build) • We need to restructure / reface the Physics for a U.S.-based NLC or muon-collider. Institution. There is STILL an over- By the time such facilities would be built whelming mentality that doing physics and made operational here in the U.S. is elite, and that applying the skills else- very little new information would be gained. where is a betrayal. No one likes that. Good young people will only stay in By accepting and training people in the a field if it has a viable future. This field and then LETTING THEM GO, requires a viable/ sensible project on a we form an immediate base of ambas- sensible time scale and adequate fund- sadors, sympathetic supporters, etc. in ing. all professions! • We should encourage talented young peo- • Don’t scorn those who leave after a PhD. ple to do graduate work in HEP that Use them as a resource. If students real- has the potential for applications out- ize that a PhD in HEP can lead to a side the field, so they are ready to con- good job, in HEP or not, then they will tinue in HEP or, given the realities of consider it a viable option. The physics, the field, find employment elsewhere. Comments on Building the Field 131

There is no reason to feel that some- • I think the lack of a clear long-term one who has done PhD quality work, vision for High Energy Phyics makes and has been published in PRL or Phys the likelihood of future contributions based Letters, and then gets a job in industry on an ”interest in physics” discouraging is a failure. That person is in fact a to many talented young people. I think great success. that young people leaving HEP is not in itself a bad thing. It has happened • I would not wish to continue in high for years, and in fact a Ph.D. in HEP energy physics beyond a doctoral degree is good training for many complex chal- because of the atrocious social atmo- lenges in life. But I think that more of sphere/ interaction I have found (as a the most talented young people in HEP female) in both the universities and at are leaving than before. the national labs. I can’t imagine spending my career in such cold and distant/preoccupied• I think the NUMBER of young people places. retained in the field is probably OK. My disappointment is how often the best • I know that I got into the field because people leave and the less good ones stay. of my interest in studying nature. As for why I am still here, my thinking • If they are truly excited about the field, varies from time to time. At this point they will make every effort to stay. The it would seem a terrible waste to leave graduate training system faces difficul- before I finish my degree. After that, ties, however, in light of the long lead I will reevaluate my position. Many of times of experiments, the size of collab- those influences you mentioned might orations, the reduced number of exper- cause me to leave the field, or I might iments, and so on. stay. At times I have felt that I am • I tend to think people leave physics because exactly where I want to be doing exactly of a mismatch between their abilities what I would choose. Other times, I and physics opportunities. wonder why I am wasting my life in a field where two or three projects would • Many of the brightest people I’ve known seem to be a career. That ”feature of entering HEP have left for different rea- the field” may be the worst. I am on sons. 1. Inability to obtain a perma- D0 now, and if I stay until it finishes I nent position. 2. Better salary in indus- would be here until I am at least 35. If try 3. Not happy with direction of field. I then join another collaboration from The first two reasons above are related the beginning and stay until the end and constitute the largest category of (something I would like to do, getting people I know leaving the field. Most in on the ground floor), then I would of my colleagues have worked in exper- probably be ready to retire when it fin- imental HEP developing detectors and ished. This is NOT appealing. ensuring that quality data is being taken when the detector is running. In these • I did leave the field. I am working in cases, lack of recognition of their contri- HEP related computing field now. I left bution to the experiment came because because there was no direction to what they could not demonstrate ”enough physics” I was doing and because there was little done during their postdoc, tenure eval- or no opportunity for me as a postdoc uation period. Given a larger salary in a large collaboration to forge my own and reduced hours at work in indus- direction. try help attract the bright hardworking Comments on Building the Field 132

folks away. Item 3 above is also corre- ular biology if I were in my twenties lated with item 2. The people I know again. who’ve left for this reason have done so • because they feel that they had little The distinct possibility that there will opportunity to do truely independent be no (or a limited number) of new facil- research. Specifically, with the advent ities or experiments to attract the best of VERY LARGE collaborations and exper- minds to the field. iments, they often felt stifled by the com- • I don’t know that we should encourage mittees which often run the develop- them. with no machine in the U.S. in ment of a detector or pursuing a par- the foreseeable future, we should leave ticular physics analysis. Again, a larger HEP to the Europeans. Plus, the salary salary and fewer hours at work in indus- stinks. I stay in the field due to inertia try help attract these people away. ;) • This is fairly complicated. I have seen • Salary scales vary widely between coun- many younger physicists leave over a tries. U.S. postdoc is pretty good com- 20-year career. Some I thought were pared to the UK’s $22,000, which is graded not talented enough to make the profes- by age, not experience! Lack of per- sor cut, saw it coming, and left. Others manent job opportunities - how many could have gotten jobs at national labs HEP professorships are there out there? in computing, for example, and since There are far more postdocs. What hap- they could make easily twice as much in pens when you don’t get a permanent industry for much the same work, left job and are in your mid-thirties? Length for those reasons. I doubt I would go of time to complete an analysis is very into HEP now as a new student because long. Huge collaboration size is also the collaborations are too large, the time an issue. It takes all these people to to get results are too long, and the spe- make the detector work but there are cialization is too great. I joined a col- far fewer analyses. Lack of profession- laboration of a dozen at the proposal alism can definitely put people off and writing stage and got my PhD on the overpower their interest in physics/ sci- analysis. I did every single part of the ence/ nature. Quality of analyses/ results/ experiment: beam-design, detector-building, peer review/ meeting presentations could trigger electronics, DAQ, MC, analy- all do with improvement. Note that it sis, and wrote the final paper. I went is not necessarily the best people who into HEP because it was demanding, stay in the field - a lot of them move on forefront physics which would exercise because they are good ... all my talents and intellect. I could be thinking about the most important • The worst thing about the field is that problems in nature while also figuring there isn’t enough room for people who out how to design phototube bases and just want to do science for a living. My model electormagnetic showers. How perception is that I have to have a par- can CDF/D0 compete with that? Why ticular career track in order to say in. would anyone want to be one of 1000 Question: Is there some way I can make people looking for the Higgs? The sense a stable living by doing science and not of continuity and ownership isn’t there worrying about grant-writing and sur- as it used to be. I would probably do viving university/ lab politics? I think experimental astrophysics or even molec- that a great deal of potential is lost because we have a very limited view Comments on Building the Field 133

of what a scientific career should be. • I have stayed because I don’t know what Alternative career models need to be else to do. People are leaving because considered. YPP is in a unique posi- that have figured that out. Our hours tion to be a ”think tank” on this very suck, our pay sucks, and what are the important issue. rewards? No social life, no family, and no recognition for a job well done. • I think young people leave the field primarily due to a failure to obtain degrees • Not enough interesting topics are the and secured positions prior to age 30. feature of the field which I think might However, it is not necessarily a bad thing most influence young physicists to leave that there is some talent and dedica- the field tion required and some winnowing of • I think many of the factors mentioned the field even during the graduate/post- in item 28 contribute to people leaving graduate periods. HEP. • It’s not clear to me that the most tal- • Strong diversified scope of research with- ented ones don’t stay. They can’t all out multidisciplinary boundaries; possi- stay, there isn’t room it would be expo- bility to develop and pursue new exper- nential growth which is unsustainable. imental ideas The negative attitudes and wining of people making it unpleasant is the kind • Lack of interesting topics and long times of thing that almost drove me away. between experiments. • I think the key to keep people in the • Make sure that there is variety in our field is to keep building better machines field. If every project becomes a mega- so that their are continual opportuni- project our field will die. Relatively ties to make new discoveries in move the small, quirky, experiments must be part field forward; experimentation is our lifeblood. of the mix. We should see HEP as a broader endeavor; HEP should whole- • No fundamental discoveries being done heartedly embrace particle astrophysics in the U.S. and all basic research being - this is our future. My main concern done abroad e.g. CERN. is the mega-collaboration and the inad- • 1) lack of permanant positions (in par- vertent squeezing out of the tangential ticular in Europe) 2) Small salary that thinker, the maverick, the young per- can be compensed only by academic free- son who simply insists on thinking dif- dom or intellectual atmosphere. If ”pol- ferently from the rest. I also worry that itics” is too important than it would be the ”rewards” system is too ad hoc and very hard to recruit new physicists. prone to the ”favorite son” syndrome. • To answer, one must do relevant research, • Some of the best young HEP physicists i.e., go ask a sensible cross section of I have known left the field because their young people. work was not appreciated and they were not given appropriate credit for what • The field in the U.S. will wither when they did, i.e., some senior person took we no longer have the highest energy credit and then did not further their machine in the world. career appropriately. • Most SHOULD leave! They get a great • Lack of intellectual challenge, that is to education, only a few should stay any- say ”fun”. way. Exp. Particle Physics is providing Comments on Building the Field 134

a very broad and rare education in all • The role played by the schools is very fields. important; more contacts should be done there, with the pupils and with the physics • Although all factors listed in 28 are valid, teachers. And in addition, that you do I believe the overriding force is that a not get any professional help in plan- good fraction talented people avoid physics ning your career. because more primal reasons. Physics is ”not cool.” Judging from Hollywood, • In questions 25 and 26, interest isn’t we are assumed to be geeky, poor, lack- strong enough. Fascination is more accu- ing in social skills, badly dressed, etc. rate. This is what we must convey, with- Computer science has a tremendous advan- out looking out-of-touch. In question tage in that it is perceived in terms of 28, there are many such features. A fancy cars, mansions, and retiring at 35. combination of uncompetitive salaries I don’t think there is a fix. This mate- and fierce competition for few places is rialism will continue until a major shift probably a contributing factor for many. in society occurs. And it’s not necessarily the competition for permanent positions. Many people • Many of the listed issue are equally impor- want this at some stage in their career, tant, especially salary, lack of perma- but for some younger researchers, a series nent jobs. And lack of enthusiasm from of short-term places would be prefer- ”older” physicists. able, if only these places were easier • People leave because the infrequency of to come by. Finally, a lot of people seminal results coupled with the diffi- who display a lot of talent in their early culty and time scale for experiments. years have sort of ended up doing this by default and leave partly because they • The big problems are permanent posi- are just getting bored - this is some- tions and – in the recent past – totally thing we probably can’t do much about. unreasonable salaries in the computing • industry. There would be a lot more The answers to 25 and 26 are really that permanent positions in universities if the it has been tremendous fun. I work on old guys would retire at a reasonable great problems with really smart peo- age. ple. For 27, it seems the field is not attracting the best people. This seems • Lack of first rate frontier facility. a larger problem than retaining people who are not sufficiently motivated or do • People leave for many reasons. Some go not enjoy physics research. More and for money, some get frustrated for not better undergraduate programs would being able to find a job. Both are reflec- help. For 28, it seems that some col- tion of the general public’s and funding laborations are so large that it might agencies attitude towards basic science. be easy to lose the big picture and get Outreach is important ! discouraged. • Where the jobs are, people will apply. • I strongly feel that the lack of perma- No matter what you do, only a self- nent jobs and the relatively poor salary destructive idiot or a rich fool would do great damage to the field. It also sacrifice five to ten years of his life with appears to be forgotten how much hard- no prospects to stay in the field, and ware skills are required to continue to only slightly better prospects to leave. build the best possible detectors and Comments on Building the Field 135

accelerators. This has been to my detri- big picture. Give a sense of history of ment in the field. I worked hard to particle physics, and where there place make a name for myself in building hard- is. Explain that it is an opportunity ware. My work ethics and poor finan- to do fundamental research while also cial compensation greatly contributed learning about hardware, software and to the demise of my marriage. Later, physics. Particle physics will not be for when my marriage fell apart, so did my everyone, but it prepares you for doing career. Afterwards, I had great diffi- other things at well. We should point culty in finding employment in the field. to statistics of where HEP people go I sincerely doubt that I am the only per- after they finish their graduate work. I son to which this has happened. It is a believe the employability and jobs are severe problem in the field and needs to very good after graduate work in HEP. be addressed. And, if they are dedicated, they can stay in the field and devote their life to • By offering new and interesting oppor- research, or perhaps get a faculty posi- tunities in the field and competitive salary, tion. of course. • I see little evidence that talented young • A perception rightly or wrongly that physicists who are motivated to work on the field is closing down. physics are leaving the field. In point of • Question 28: I think young physicists fact, there seems to be a lack of quali- leave the field because of lack of oppor- fied talent. tunities of all kinds. The future is cloudy • The fraction of physics PhD’s which stay at best. The collaborations are too big in physics is roughly unchanged since and it is difficult to make a name for the 50’s. I think, however, that the rea- oneself. The best people are often not son they leave may have shifted. Post rewarded for the best work, rather every- doc salaries have declined (w/rt infla- thing is politics. tion), and the typical post doc period • Since I can remember, some left some has increased. This means they spend stayed. Even the fraction has not changed more time at a lower salary. Given the ... from my thesis experiment (1969-72, current and historical uncertainty in find- about 2/12 students remain in the field. ing a tenure track position the trade off Competition to stay is a must... but I is less worth it now than previously. think that money is a miserable moti- • I left HEP because there is no room vator. to get involved in short timely experi- • Lack of posts - time scale of a single ments and a big ”hunting for the Higgs” experiment - lack of ’fantasy’ permitted experiments. The funding situations forces in large collaboration. one to a all-or-none participation. • • This is obviously a very difficult ques- Most important point driving young peo- tion. I think alot of U.S. students don’t ple away: perception that the field has like the idea of having to relocate to a NO FUTURE, and that the existing power national lab, and thus it is sometimes hierarchy is destroying HEP. difficult to attract U.S. students into • The young talented people should have HEP. I think we have to convey the ability to participate actively in physics excitement of the field and explain the research and have opportunity to use Comments on Building the Field 136

their creativity in much better and more encourage support for the people who organized environment. make detector work.

• Uncertainty in the future of the field is • Lack of competitive salary, scarcity of the largest deterrent in my opinion. professional positions (academic and at nat’l labs). • Lack of competitive salary, lack of permanent positions and workload one is • Give them a decent working environ- expected to do go together. The combi- ment. This means changing the culture nation makes for very unattractive long- ... I believe this is particularly applica- term perspectives. Allure of working ble to young women. I’ve stayed in the at HEP lab, the intellectual and, not field because I can work my life round to forget, the international and open it due to my particular personal circum- atmosphere in HEP are the strong argu- stances ... ments in favor of staying in field. • We will have to give young people the • Many things influence young people to context in which they can develop their leave: 1. too much work, too little pay best skills in an agreeable collegiate atmo- 2. too large experiments 3. forced to sphere, where excellence is remunerated live in places not of their choosing 4. by recognition and a competitive salary/set macho culture. Why was number 4 not of working conditions. We have to rec- on the list? It’s the number one reason ognize that money-oriented people will for WOMEN to quit. likely leave he field, but even they will have long-term interests in what they • Lack of opportunities for individual achieve- left behind; they are our outside sup- ment. Dearth of exciting challenges for port in many ways- even if their interest individuals. is in designing and producing products • I think that the combination of acces- that find application in our research and sible science and the structure of the have to be acquired from them. community make working in HEP sub- • Don’t put up labs in the middle of nowhere, stantially less attractive than it was in we Europeans cannot withstand coun- the 1970s. try life. Payment is always an issue. • In my view the limited perspective we • Both salary and the lack of permanent are able to offer to younger excellent sci- job positions are forcing many talented entists in particle physics is the biggest people to leave the postdocs are lower in problem of the future of the field. standard, and the best graduates don’t • Need to assure them (and all of us) of stay on to do PhDs. Long durations the long term future of the field. Note abroad can put off those with young that one would expect a substantial frac- families from continuing. No travel is tion of the HEP students to go onto not an option for both career progres- work in other fields. sion and financially. • • We [I] have been encouraged to work The long hours are not the main prob- on hardware because thats ”how I will lem - that’s mostly the same anywhere get a job”, but the truth is that its the if you want to have a career. The com- physics that get people jobs. Collabo- bination of lots of travel and the total ration spokespeople should do more to Comments on Building the Field 137

absence of economic security that post- people interested and make it clear that docs enjoy however would not be accept- there is a future for this field. able in any other profession. It speaks • for the idealism of our community, but Actually I think it is the combination not for our brains. At the moment one of all the reasons you list in question 28 can encourage young people to do grad- which compelled so many of my con- uate work in HEP also because they will temporaries to leave. What concerns easily find a well paying job afterwards me the most is that more and more physi- in the industry when they want to settle cists have spouses that work and they down and have a family. But we can’t want a family. The old way of doing really offer them much inside HEP. As HEP is not compatible with this choice a result some crucial expertise e.g. in and making this choice should not pre- computing is becoming rare in HEP. I clude a good physicist from doing HEP. believe that more permanent positions • The problem is really a combination of for researchers below the faculty level 3 factors you mention: lack of perma- should be created. nent job opportunities, lack of a com- • HEP is partly lost the flavor of a fun- petitive salary and the length spent in damental science, to my opinion. It’s graduate school. I seen many of my treated ”as any other job” currently, which peers leave school because they were offered is not true. The candidates should start 3 times as much as what their salary being collected and educated at schools would be 5 years from now. In a society rather then universities/colleges. And like the US, consumism oriented, it’s yes, too many talented young physicists clear that you were not going to retain leave to IT-related companies due to any student at all. much higher salaries. This of course • Have in each HEP laboratory an ade- partly kills HEP... quate number of short-term fellowship • Add question 28: the ratio (salary*safety positions for young post-graduates and of adequate future)/(collaboration size) enhance the mobility between HEP lab- is too small, which is a hint towards oratories and national research institu- higher acceptance of our work by the tions (like INFN in Italy) and Univer- public. The large collaborations result sities. Funding of initial research posi- in (too) hard work for the better people tions must be partly transferred from to drag the slow ones with. national to international HEP laboratories to have better initial selection in a • People would stay more if we focused field where saturation has been reached more on the exciting prospects for find- but the risk is not enough young and ing and exploring new aspects of why talented peoples replace a relatively old the world is the way it is, and the role population. they could play in that. • The 21st century is not supposed to be • There are several issues. Large collab- the century of physics. oration sizes and lengthy projects are • two. Other problems now are the lack The fact that getting funding for future of consensus and direction for the field, research is getting harder. Fundamen- mostly due to cost, I think. We really tal research is not seen by a priority of need a long-range plan to keep the young the government or the public. Comments on Building the Field 138

• Too much emphasize is placed on polit- this attitude turns off students, post- ical connections rather than raw ability. docs and young faculty. We *must* help promising young peo- • ple to be noticed. We *must* promote I guess grad students (but even more good science. post-docs) are way overworked while being underpaid. There are not too many per- • Streamline the process from graduate manent research positions and of course work to full- time positions in HEP, accept even less professorships. Considering more BS/BA employees where higher the chances many young physicists find degrees are not required (software, hard- in industry, consulting etc. they take ware), offer more training. the positions that allow them more reg- ular hours, better pay and career chances. • Question 25 - This ”allure” happened The wonderful thing that HEP has to because I grew up near FNAL and started offer though is the way in which individ- working there as an undergrad. 26 - uals get to identify themselves with an I sometimes think it was just luck. I experiment or collaboration. It seems like what I do (both day to day and more meaningful and rewarding to work the overall goal) and the atmosphere in HEP than in industry partly because (working with intelligent people and the HEP offers a non commercialized envi- academic environment), but as to why ronment... I’m a ”success” and others who seem to me to be much more talented are gone • Additional answer to question 28: Besides - luck. Question 28 - Or just a per- the difficulty in finding permanent posi- ceived lack of permanent job opportuni- tions, the lack of clear direction for the ties. There has been a big exodus of tal- HEP in the U.S. could be another fac- ented people - and it has fed upon itself. tor driving young people seeking jobs in But I don’t think people leave because other fields. of just one thing. I’d put length of time • in school, management (we were trained Uncertain future. Long time to build to be physicists, not people managers!), machines. Large experiments. large collaboration size, and travel (although • In my experience young people who leave younger people don’t worry about this the field do so because they have just as much until they have a family) high not found they ”fit in”. This is for a on my list. number of reasons. Anything from salary, • In the set of answers to p. 28 I think you to poor management, to lack of inter- don’t have one, which may be the most est in the ”whole” field (hardware, data important - the lack of public interest reduction, politics, funding, etc.) to the field. For young people it is very • Loss of interest/Too much pressure for important to feel that they are doing the money. If students were allowed to something which is strongly needed for work on important analysis and if the the humanity. I choose the salary, because work progressed and moved on I think salary is also the indicator of how soci- it would make a difference. ety rates your job. • Most have extremely good software abil- • Change the ”weeding out”, ”only the ity, or electronics training, but lack the best” attitude towards people - there is training to build detectors, big or small. no reliable measure of such a thing and Comments on Building the Field 139

• Need better HEP funding. Many peo- I don’t have time for other interests. ple left the field when the SSC was closed. A career in physics, though fascinating, does not seem likely to change the • Lack of future projects to participate world. I personally would be more enthu- in. We have priced ourselves out of the siastic about a career in physics (or sci- market unless we can convince society ence in general) if I felt that the scien- there is benefit in multi-billion dollar tific community took a greater interest HEP projects. in societal issues. Suppose I could be a • In the recent past we’ve seen too many scientist *and* a social worker - then I good people leave the field, not just because could sleep at night. Seriously. of negative aspects listed here, but also • Most HEP grads these days have extremely because of extremely attractive oppor- marketable skills in a number of high- tunities elsewhere. tech related fields. In my own personal • We need to accept that people want to experience, everyone I know who has ”have a life” but still be part of HEP. recently left the field has stepped into The field tends to consume and then jobs with double or triple my post-doc disillusion young people. salary (and I’m considered well paid for a post-doc!). Combine this with the • For question 28 I feel that I could have present lack of prospects for permanent almost checked every box. A question jobs in the field and it makes me wonder like this is never black or white but many why ANYONE stays in particle physics. people seem to leave the field to pur- In the past, I think there used to be sue a more lucrative career (and one perks (social status, academic work envi- that they often find less interesting). ronment etc.) associated with academia, If there were more stability, security, but this is now largely gone, and in a performance related benefits and bet- large collaboration environment, you might ter structure I would imagine many well as well be working for IBM and making qualified people who left the field may six-figures instead. not have originally done so. • There must be a long term future of • It’s hard to say what most contributes frontier research to keep young people to young, talented physicists leaving the in the field. field of HEP. The amount of travel required • is a huge factor, in my experience. For Answer given to question 28 above refers me personally, it is the biggest reason I to working in Accelerator Physics. Too am disenchanted with the field. Large much current research is oriented to spe- collaboration sizes and the long, long, cific existing or proposed machines, and long time-line associated with the fore- not enough is devoted to basic research. seeable projects are also a huge factor. • Are we finding any new physics? What Lack of pay is another factor, though if we find a Higgs thing... are we done substantially less important, as far as I then? Out of work? am concerned. Time & distance are the major problems with HEP today. • There are many very interesting and rewarding fields for a talented physicist to work • The reason that I might leave the field is in today. Competition from other fields that I have interests other than physics, has tended to move people out of the but physics requires such dedication that Comments on Building the Field 140

field. In good economic times we may nobody has a permanent job anymore - see a resurgence. it is the absence of choice to stay at one place for more than the usual 2/3 years, • We need to develop respect for a wide even though it is more than likely you’re variety of talents and accomplishments still communicating and working with for the field to succeed. Too many of the same people. Most depressing is the essential tasks to not receive suffi- the fact that the people who succeed in cient recognition to permit a self-respecting HEP these days are no longer the most physicists (or engineers) to expect his talented (ability is more or less a given) family to subsist on current wages with but rather the most stubborn, and even current recognition. political (in the academic sense). Do we • Why young physicists leave: often it’s really want these individuals to be run- the ones that are not number 1 in aca- ning Physics in the future ? demics or subjected to a ”bad” advi- • HEP is a little remote from everyday sor that quickly disappear, though the problems that challenge young people. lure of money in industry is probably We hide behind Cosmology (The Big the straw that broke the camel’s back. Bang), since that seems the most excit- Some people are not the best, but many ing aspect of our work. We have lost of them are excellent creative folk that sight of the importance of understand- just got unlucky in a lab or on some ing the structure and interactions among tests... and fizzle out over several years. fundamental particles. The theoretical Is there an easy implementable answer? ideas behind particle physics (Higgs mech- No. anism, super symmetry) are difficult to • Question 28: a combination of a) lack of grasp. Permanent positions are scarce, competitive salary b) lack of permanent and yet the really exciting work is often job opportunities c) weak or unstruc- done by post docs. tured management (worse in the case • The problem is other way round: it is of large collaborations). not the question how to encourage young • I guess it’s a mixture of lack of com- people to stay, the question is what are petitive salary, lack of permanent job the chances to stay. In some sense, HEP opportunities (depends on the subfield, community is manipulating the young of course) ... people - most of them (us) are rather idealistic and prepared to work much • Oh boy - I could fill several pages on all harder than they are really paid for - the bad things about HEP. The good but then, when they are 40, only a small thing, which kept me going, was the fraction could stay doing physics and quasi-spiritual point that this is some- the rest should go... To be clear, I think thing that is unnecessary to our exis- that it is not responsible to take much tence, and is therefore something noble, more graduate students or PostDocs than untainted even. Despite the obvious, there will be available permanent job and considerable, spin offs to the rest of opportunities in the future! (P.S. If you society, this is something we should not think that is normal that people with be afraid to point out again and again. PhD in physics mountain software or The above point about lack of perma- install local networks, then think how nent job opportunities only vaguely touches often have you seen medical doctor instead on the nub of the problem. In reality, of veterinary taking care of cows.) Comments on Building the Field 141

• Offer good perspectives in terms of salaries still can change if they like) environ- and job security; more permanent posi- ment must be much more professional tions instead of 2 year (or even less) management must be much more pro- contracts. fessional AND finally for all of you who still didn’t get it: The man power sit- • Not enough new and unanticipated results. uation in the big experiments is a joke! • There are too many people seeking fac- The global situation in a lot of exper- ulty jobs for the system to support. Mean- iments leads necessarily to a complete while, there is a severe manpower short- burn out of the encouraged people after age. At this stage, additional person- approx. 5 years. We have it in our nel would do more for the money to experiment and it is simple the truth. advance the field than additional hard- And I know a minimum of 5 new exper- ware. More post-docs staying for longer iments at which it will be the same. is not the answer. Another thing is that the leading HEP heads seems to have to have not at all • I think we are not attracting as many understood that next or new generation of the really talented young scientists experiments not only force some orders to the field as we used to. I think this of magnitudes more computer power or is because other fields (computers, biol- other technical stuff but also orders of ogy, astro) are looking more attractive magnitudes of better organization and these days. The best way to counter- better structures. In my opinion we act this is to get the field moving again need COMPLETE new forms of collab- with some major discoveries. oration organization. AND THERE MUST BE A QUALITY RATING SYSTEM • At times, there doesn’t seem to be much FOR THE MANAGEMENT with per- respect for young physicists in this field. sonal success responsibility. I.e. at the BaBar conference at SLAC at the end of June, a younger physi- • I worry about the uncertain future of cist giving a presentation would be cor- the field as a whole and about the neces- rected in a condescending manner by sity to do a nation-wide job search, com- the older physicists when the younger mute, etc. If you offered me a job at person would make an error or an appar- Fermilab (within the current range of ent error. I have not experienced this salaries/benefits) and promised me the behavior directed towards me, but I have lab would exist and do interesting physics seen it happen enough to know that this forever, of course I’d take it. But the could be a turnoff for some young physi- funding for a particular lab, or for the cists in this field. whole field, may dry up, and there’s no guarantee that accelerator-based HEP • The mixture of the lack of permanent will always be an interesting field in which job opportunities, lack of competitive to work (i.e. both interesting day-to- salary, and especially the fact that HEP day work and interesting scientific results). doesn’t attract the most brilliant people any more which is a down going circle. • Large investment (all types:: time gov- money etc) and little physics gain. • To let people stay we urgently need: better salaries (especially money com- • Each individual is merely a chain in an pensation for overload MUST come) per- assembly line - little chance to see the manent jobs must be NORMAL (people whole picture of physics. Comments on Building the Field 142

• The most destructive factor would be other professional areas, especially in the closing of all major accelerator facil- the U.S., but it’s clearly not positive. ities in the U.S. It is by the way saying that you didn’t even list this in your list. • Lack of competitive salary is only one of a vast array of items that needs to • Lack of optimistic perspectives for jobs, be addressed if HEP is to retain more projects, and the physics. ”Horganism” young people. Everything on your list has infected high energy physics. The is important. We have got to wake up illness was coined by Daniel Kleppner and act. (MIT) after Horgans book entitled ”The end of science”. It signifies the tiring of • Intellectual excitement waning and lack old physicist at the end of their careers. of individual to be able to have a major Particle physics has lost its optimism impact upon the direction of research. and its ability to work in the full breadth • I don’t think people leave the field for of the field. The concentration of all any one single reason. I think they leave resources on the Higgs, the neutrino mass the field (if they do) because they can and CP violation alienates young physi- no longer function in the environment, cists. These are all sensed as problems which has decidedly not improved with for the few big shots and little is left for the increase in the size of the collabora- the young to their own research. Why tions. I think the work environment has is particle spectroscopy or QCD related become more competitive, more buro- physics considered finished? cratic, yet with typically weak and often • Question 26: the main reason I have unstructured management, and in the stayed so far is really that the alter- end people get disillusioned and won- natives that appeal to me (philosophy, der why they should work for such a voluntary work) would give me an even low salary. I always used to say that more uncertain job situation and no or physics is 95 low salary. Still, I intend to leave physics • Other fields now have just as challeng- unless I get a more permanent job in ing problems as HEP. And, some of these a couple of years. I believe the post- fields have a shorter turnaround time doc round is killing people – it does than in ours. This makes these fields not allow a proper life outside physics. more attractive to some of the younger As a consequence, it is not the ”best”, scientists. but the most obsessed physicists that stay in the field. People with a more • We should give younger people more ”rounded” outlook are discouraged. It responsibility. I am seeing more young is also extremely difficult to have a fam- people giving plenaries at conferences; ily. It is necessary to reorganize the this is good! ”career path” so that people do not have to sacrifice their whole life every two • Another problem to keep some people or three years. Allowing people to stay in the field is the difficulty to combine longer in one place would be the most private and professional life. An exam- important thing. ple is the rumor that tenure track positions and divorce are highly correlated • We retain perhaps 1/3, 1/4? likely about (and I unfortunately know examples of right; I’d drive a taxi to do this and it). I guess this is a problem in many roughly expect that of others these are Comments on Building the Field 143

the people society should support how- Science at Universities. Many HEP ques- ever shabbily ; many don’t share that... tions (how to store so much data, how leave because they don’t find a sinecure to look through data, triggering, etc) and need that; etc. etc. or all those are interesting computing problems, that other reasons that sometimes work out... might better be handled by someone some find something that they really trained in CS, not physics. Certainly, need to do or that needs them enough these jobs should be open to physicists inspires them... I’ve always assumed I’d with interest and experience, but there follow my greatest interest it has never should be more of an attempt to inter- left this stream of physics I can imagine est CS undergrads, grads, and postdocs a number of ideas I might have or might in the work we are doing. The same follow if I had a great idea or oppor- goes for engineering and detector design, tunity... A great part of our societal though I see that happening now much worth is the people we spin off who find more already. a greater outside role than follow the • path of our mentors to the grave... This The essential answer for 28) may be lack is still my path... Intellectual transfer of chances/places where younger people really happens through people transfer; meet articles or other things related to Harold Varmus remarked we gotta keep HEP. If many young talents are will- physics going if we are going to have ing to come to HEP, the market will be progress in biology/medicine etc. Physics expanded. perhaps particle/astrophysics is the Plane • Stability and existing long term future Geometry of our scientific time of the field is extremely important to • Funding uncertainty leads many promis- attract young talents to join this field. ing young physicists to find alternative This field is in great risk to become a careers. The U.S. does a very poor job dead branch of science such as nuclear in attracting and keeping the brightest physics. and best for this reason. • Many physicist leave or don’t even join • Lack of excitement in the field may also HEP because they have the feeling that contribute to people leaving the field. almost everything has been done and that the new detectors are only built • The field (at least in the U.S.) has taken to rule out theories that are made to on the aura of hanging on by its finger- justify the detectors... nails in recent years. Even good, moti- • vated people spend a long time with lit- A discovery / deviation from the Stan- tle or no job security, leaving them ripe dard Model / some completely not under- for the picking. stood physics effect would certainly make the field more attractive ! (at least to • For question 28, I’d actually say that a experimentalists). mixture of poor salary and lack of per- • manent job opportunities is the prob- Particle Physics is also an excellent school lem - very hard to say which is bigger for young physicists that aim at becom- issue. ing familiar with a technique and then, if necessary, to move out of the field of • I don’t think there is enough communi- pure research to take a job in one of the cation between Physics and Computer highly diversified fields that the training in particle physics opens up. Comments on Building the Field 144

• Lack of appreciation of their work. Physics • Staying in the field 100% of the time is more than the (self)glorification of a should not be the HEP goal. Physicist few. are also trained to contribute to the scientific advances in all fields. No more • After LHC there is no long term future, than 50% should stay in the research except astro-particle physics. field, otherwise we have failed. • Allow them to produce something in • There is no single answer to the ques- any step of the young physicist occupa- tion of why young people leave the field tional career, especially support them after investing several years of training. in following their own ideas and dreams. Job opportunities is one. Sense that personal intellectual contributions are • One should encourage young people to difficult to make is another. Lack of work in HEP, I think then there will recognition is a third. be no need to hold them... they stay, I hope! • I would add to my question 28 answer also: - lack of competitive salary - length • That’s a really good question. of time spent in graduate school - weak • There is not enough opportunity for young or unstructured management. The issue exp. physicists to dream up an experi- which concerns me the most about the ment and do it. future of the field is the lack of a major U.S. lab on the horizon. This will strongly • I guess the problem is a combination curtail any new interest in HEP as a of a competitive salary, permanent job career. opportunities, and the possibility to have • a responsible and interesting position The field has become too competitive within a collaboration that still allows and ruthless. The competition is often creativity. based not solely on the intellectual capabilities, but on other considerations, with • Good projects will attract good people. the latter being weighted higher and higher. Lack of social life for many of our col- • 1) large collaboration, establishment and leagues and a very long delay between the success of the standard model are the idea and physics results in the exper- not appealing. The latter we have to imental science is another driving fac- live with for now, the first two we should tor. Inflation of theory surely drives think about. many young theorists away from this • Comment to 28: Lack of possibility to field. This all is going to change in the be creative and propose individual project next 10 years, with a plethora of new is a reason that young people leave the discoveries coming from the Tevatron, field. However unavoidable at the present LHC, precision measurements, and the stage of HEP. future machine we are going to build. If we have guts to put ourselves behind • Young physicists will leave the field if such a machine, which is clearly a linear reasonable career paths at adequate com- collider somewhere in the world. pensation are not available to them. • The interest in physics and the Aca- • Academic freedom/tenure is the correct demic life style which, I think, is con- motivator. nected with creativity needed in the domain are both reasons for having stayed in Comments on Building the Field 145

the field. The large collaborations size positions and stability for younger physi- might be a factor too. It does not allow cists. the right amount of contact and expo- • sure. As for the conjunction between Danger that field might be nearing an the length of time spent in grad school end may encourage young physicists to and the lack of competitive salary, it leave. might influence young peoples to leave • The inability of the HEP field to focus the field, but I think that it touch the on single major issues or to rank within more materialistic part of the young peo- the several topics addressed by the field, ples who are not as committed to sci- has lead to a severe ’balkanization’ of ence? the field. This in turn has lead to a loss • We have a problem of not having enough of funding and secure positions for even new experimental results. Presumably the best young physicists. this will improve when the LHC turns • Several people I know have complained on. about elitism of peers, especially more • HEP is dying - too few opportunities senior established physicists. for new discoveries. Large experiments • It seems rather hit and miss depend- controlled by few people at few large ing on who you end up with as advi- National Laboratories. No room for inno- sor/supervisor or even surrogate super- vation and excitement of discovery to visor. I’ve known several really bright excite young people. Young people come students who have left the field after from universities - and universities seem their PhD’s because of disillusionment to have no role in the future of HEP. with their advisors/training given. Sim- • Talented young people should have more ilarly I’ve known several bright post- chances to travel and work with dis- docs unable to get permenant positions tinguished scientists. Also competitive and then they leave - normally to higher salary have to be provided. paid jobs in industry. There needs to be more of a career structure and more • Unless financial support of the field increases, standardization as to the level of sup- we should not encourage people with port given by graduate advisors - its at other interests to stay in the field. Enough that stage that it seems make or break. people will stay without added encouragement to meet the diminished needs • I think that question 28 has many cor- of the smaller-than-present effort this rect answers; it varies by person. I know country will support. individuals who are so fed up dealing with the overwhelming hubris of physi- • Raise salaries, increase benefits, create cists that they wish they’d never entered more jobs, reach out to the public, cre- the fields. I know just as many for whom ate role models. salary or job security was an issue (either due to personal finance or family issues, • People who like physics, and HEP in or because they could do the same research particular, will enter the field and stay in industry and make 4x the money). regardless of the obstacles/incentives pro- However, I also feel that behind all of vided. this is a general malaise – that physics • We don’t work for high pay. But we just isn’t going to places where we are should offer the chance of permanent Comments on Building the Field 146

able to answer many of the questions any guidance” to ”I’m not learning any- raised in the last 100 years. thing by doing this” to ”I want to graduate someday, dammit” and a bunch of • I don’t see huge numbers of the most others besides. It’s even more impor- talented physicists leaving the field after tant in large collaborations or collabo- grad school – I’ve seen a few, but not rations spread thin. Advisors need to an overwhelming number. Most of the realize that their students are not only physicists who have left the field have vital resources to the field, but actual talents which are best utilized elsewhere. people with their own goals and needs. I see lack of recruitment of new students If young physicists don’t find a chal- as a much more serious issue – this is a lenging and constructive work environ- big problem and I don’t have any really ment in academia or government research, easy answers. Having lots of neat new they will undoubtedly leave to look for results (which we do right now) and a it in industry or commerce. reasonably attractive future (which we don’t) are critical. • Lack of apparent progress on central questions most influences young physicists • When I joined the field you could feel to leave the field. There is a percep- the passion that physicists brought to tion of little intellectual excitement in work every day. We are no longer that mainstream HEP. Of course, that per- kind of field. We need to get that back. ception is only partially accurate. The the problems you mention are generally field needs to maintain diversity. real and we need as a field to address them. We have much more flexibility • I believe the good times for particle physics than one imagines. Many of the bad are over. Society will not be willing things we’ve done to ourselves. to support particle physics at the levels we have enjoyed in the Cold War era. • Question 28 : I suppose it is really a Also, we seem to have run out of ideas mixture of reasons – no competitive salary to advance our knowledge with afford- for relatively very hard work, no future able experiments that can be carried in the sense of getting a permanent posi- out by small groups of people. These tion, no stability (moving! , theorists facts turn away the most talented young do not even know a year in advance people, and I cannot blame them. If I where to ) and security . A comment were a young graduate student today, I on the length of the grad school - don’t would not choose particle physics as a think this is really an issue. It takes career myself, but rather a field where only three years in the UK to get a I felt I could have a personal impact in PhD, yet many people are still leaving the foreseeable future. the field because of the above reasons • I think the work in this field is extremely • The strongest advice I can give (and interesting and challenging. I also appre- I’m backed up by Nobel laureate Steven ciate the academic environment, the free- Chu) is to pick your advisor/group rather dom found within the field, the multi- than a specific area. The most common national interaction, the intellectual atmo- source of disillusionment I’ve seen and sphere, the opportunities to do great experienced is mismanagement, which things, and the ability to travel to inter- can produce feelings ranging from ”I don’t esting places. Finally, I love teaching have any time to myself” to ”I don’t get students about science (and physics in Comments on Building the Field 147

particular), and I am hopeful that I will • Depersonalization. We can attract and eventually be able to do so at a uni- keep people if we can give them signif- versity. However, I do believe that the icant roles which make them feel spe- lack of competitive salary and benefits cial/responsible/important. The larger (especially after one spends 6+ years and larger experiments make this diffi- as a graduate student on near-poverty cult unless care is taken to place and wages) will cause people to leave HEP. support good people. This combined with the lack of perma- • nent positions available puts industry Why do people leave the field? Easy: jobs in a rather good light. Working as they get a crappy salary (after studying a postdoc does not even remotely guar- for 8 years or so) and they get fired after antee job security. This without begin- 2-3 years (i.e. NO job security). ning to acquire much in the way of a • Two things: 1. You should title the retirement fund. It seems many in this field Elementary Particle Physics and field assume that the work itself over- not HEP. 2. HEP (at accelerators) has comes any practical monetary issues. While not been exciting enough to continue to I believe the work is fascinating (and attract as many people as it has in the have chosen to stay and work toward past. This could change. Also the size the possibility of a permanent position of collaborations and the remoteness of in the field), I also think we need more the experiments are a problem. recognition of (and action on) practical issues like salary, benefits, and retire- • Where are the jobs going to be in the ment packages. Without this, we will future? The field looks like it is shrink- always have people leaving the field. Now, ing. This more than anything else drains that said, I think that an education in talented people away into more finan- HEP does prepare one a great deal for cially stable/rewarding fields. a job in industry as well as academics. • Companies want to hire smart people There have to be jobs available before who have shown the ability to learn quickly this is an issue. Ideally, the scheme and who can solve problems (of what- of having to do multiple post-doc jobs ever sort that industry has). I don’t each without tenure, of short duration think this message has been adequately should be revised. This encourages peo- delivered to undergraduates. I think ple to carry out research which produces most undergrads believe a degree in physics visible results regardless of their gen- necessarily leads to academic work. This uine merit, rather than carrying out true is not the only career path available to research which may not give a positive someone in physics, and should not be result to put on a CV. Salary issues vary the only possibility (we should not limit dramatically from country to country so the options available to HEP grads), and are not such a strong issue. we need to spread the word. This would • Although pretty much everyone in HEP bring more students into the field, and could make much more money in a whole once they are here, they will see the list of fields. That’s science. But many benefits of this kind of work. They will people who would have gone into HEP also see the problems, but more stu- regardless of the money don’t because dents in the field means that more peo- there are so few jobs. I think it’s as bad ple are available to stay. as trying to make it into professional Comments on Building the Field 148

sports. For the little money though I politicking and becoming visible gener- see why so many people don’t even bother. ally counts for more than does doing good physics, necessarily. It has been • I see not a bright future of High energy hard for me in some cases to see my physics I think next century will be on peers enjoy successful career trajecto- astrophyics and medical. I feel it is too ries, and to see particular models emulate to change the field Physicist are too lated, when in fact my career so far, arrogant. they thing the politician and in which I believe I have shown I am public are fool/stupid, I think it is oth- every bit or more the physicist of my erwise. tenure-track colleagues is not rewarded. • Hard to attract people when permanent I don’t believe I’m the only disgruntled job prospects are so dismal. ”Perpetual person in this situation. It might not postdoc syndrome” is probably main thing be unwise for the YPP to investigate scaring me away from pursuing HEP as this sentiment among young physicists, a career (after grad school). as it could be more common than imag- ined. It’s also true the travel is a limi- • Other areas of physics have very com- tation for me and my family, though I pelling interests and I believe the HEP don’t claim it’s necessarily wise to try may have difficulty competing with them to restrict travel in our field. It is nec- in several areas: technical & scientific essarily a component of HEP. I don’t merit as well as funding and future employ- mean to grouse too vigorously. It may ment opportunities. (these areas can be be true that I have recently taken stock as diverse as the development of quan- of just How badly I want to work for tum computing to protein crytsalogra- what I once thought I wanted. phy). • I’m thrilled that you offered the answers 13.6.7 Survey-Specific Comments I chose in questions 25 and 26. In fact, on Building: it is true that HEP satisfies a spiritual urge in me, and solves the same difficul- • Tick marks would be better in this sec- ties many academics experience in find- tion. It is not so easy to reduce the ing a place in the church/ mosque/ syn- answer to one point. agogue. It’s a strong reason why I got • You really need a rank order here, because into the field and why I have remained. a number of things contribute. Second The spirit of Academic inquiry is another. would be large collaborations. It’s an environment and lifestyle I don’t expect to enjoy anywhere else. The prin- • Question 28 it is too simplistic. I actu- ciple ”do no harm” is one I feel is at ally think many of those things will be least satisfied in our discipline. That equally weighted. So I would answer said, I am leaving the field in Septem- all. ber for industry. It has been a very difficult decision, and one which I’d hoped • Questions 25, 26 and 28 there are a I’d never have to make. The political number of answers and its not easy to process necessary to market oneself to identify the ’most’. get the next job, I find distasteful. It’s • also a slow and daunting procedure, for This is a terrible piece of the survey. which my family and myself no longer The answers are much richer than are have the patience. It seems true that allowed here. Comments on Building the Field 149

• I am unhappy to answer question 28 the • Multiple answers to 25 & 26 might be way I did, but it is my honest opinion. useful– e.g. love of hardware on top of I deﬁnitely think that lack of perma- interest in physics. nent job opportunities and bad man- • agement/ organization are large contributers I wish you had given the ability to choose as well. more than one option for 25 and 26. For me, ”most” depends on the day of the • I am not happy with response to 28. week.... Intellectual excitement, joy of discov- • ery, even if it isn’t your own ... is what It would be interesting to compare what will keep people in ... lack of excite- people think the primary reason for leav- ment, not salary, within reason, will drive ing is for others vs. for themselves. them out. We need to provide stimulat- • Well, what answers did you expect? ing activity while waiting for the new machines, as outlined above. • What’s ”adequate numbers of talented physicists in HEP” ??? How can anyone • Would have been good to allow for mul- deﬁne that ??? About ”issues facing tiple selections in 25, 26, 28. Several of young physicists” - THERE ARE NO the replies are almost equally valid. JOBS ! • Question 26: You’ve omitted some important options: Inertia and fear of change. Also, some of these questions do not have a single answer.

• You should provide the option to select multiple choices in question 25. For me additional very strong motivations were: - hardware work - strong mentor.

• Again, single answers often don’t say it all. In some of the above, I would pick several of the reasons and add more of my own. I am not a young physicist, so I don’t know what most motivates young people these days. But like the other issues, I think it is more than one thing. For example, it could also be that other areas of science may seem more interesting. Many have said that the 20th century was the physics century, 21st will be that of biology. There may be some truth to that. If so, a smart young science-oriented person may want to contribute to learning about the human brain, or cure some disease, or whatever. Comments on Physics 150

13.7 Physics the whole story, and if not what is the whole story? 13.7.1 Most Compelling Physics: • Most important is new energy frontier • I think that one of the most important colliders to give us a big discovery win- problems for the next 10-25 years will dow for exotic processes. be an understanding of quantum gravity (from either string theory or some • A better understanding of QCD and strong novel approach). In phenomenology it interactions is fundamental for extract would be interesting to see the signs of crucial information from experiments and unification and supersymmetry. therefore explain the mystery of EW symmetry breaking. Moreover the next • String theory is the most interesting topic generation of colliders may find new strong for the future. Surprisingly, it’s not one interactions and we will need do be able of the options for the ”most compelling to deal with them. More funding to lat- physics”. tice QCD is a must. • I think we’re on course to do the nec- • There are a number of questions as to essary Higgs/SUSY searches. I hope in the completeness of the Standard Model the next 10-20 years that the big machines beyond finding the Higgs. These ques- don’t preclude doing interesting cosmo- tions must be pursued at the highest logical observations. energy. There is almost certainly a new • vista to be seen at the TeV scale and Once we’ve learned a bit more about it cannot be exploited with LHC. The masses the next field must be astro physics. momentum of progress is much more Prepare! difficult to sustain now, but it is impor- • The most important physics for the field tant. These investigations will require is string theory. a new machine. The facility could be built in the U.S. based on (currently • I want to pursue the energy frontier (which stagnating) accelerator research at the in many ways includes Higgs/EW etc). U.S. labs. However, the facility need Lets build the VLHC. only be in the U.S., if the political winds are favorable, both for the construction • Search for non-Standard Model physics. and for the operation. • None of the fields you mentioned are • So questions 30 and 31 are very specula- interesting alone. For example, study- tive. I think the most important physics ing any of them at a hadron collider for the field over the next 25 years will without studying QCD is a foolish quest be looking for quark/lepton-substructure. because every interaction starts between Over the next 10 years or so it will be quarks and gluons. The interesting ques- EWSB, but hopefully by 2010 we’ll have tion is how does this all fit together. a much better handle on it than we cur- We need these divisions because with- rently do. Those are the things that I’m out them no problem would be surmount- most interested in precisely b/c I think able, but to focus on one to the detri- they are the most important. Or rather, ment of the others would seem utterly I think that these are the most likely foolish. Who knows where the next break- places to look for new physics and push through will lie? The only real ques- back the frontiers of the field. Neutrino tion is: Does the Standard Model tell physics is also a very good candidate Comments on Physics 151

for this, but neutrino experiments are ten years ago but is still unrecognized very hard to do and frequently very nar- though its several verified predictions row. However, we need to be open to (mostly in astronomy and astrophysics the possibility of something completely at present). It has also a bunch of theo- unexpected. It strikes me that we’re at retical predictions in HEP, among them a stage right now where we don’t know Higgs mass, coupling constant values, what the right questions to ask. And etc... not only that, but we may well not yet • have asked these questions at all. A 1. An important near/midterm physics major new facility does need to be built opportunity is exploration of the MNS in the U.S. if only b/c without such a matrix in the lepton sector. This requires beast, the U.S. HEP program will likely upgrades so large as in effect to be major wither away. We need to maintain our new facilities. 2. In the range of 10-25 momentum. years I very much hope that the most important physics is that beyond the • Physics beyond the SM. You mentioned present standard model – based on dis- exotic particles searches which is differ- coveries made during the next decade. ent. If we’re still doing the physics of the 1980’s over and over, we’re in big trou- • SUSY (if it exists!) since this would be ble. a huge extension to the SM and for once will be something we experimentalists • I am more interested in studying the can measure first without the theorists fundamental symmetries (in addition to spoiling the fun by telling us the answers CP) in the various interactions (strong, first! If the Tevatron and LHC don’t see weak, EM, etc). This will be my pri- SUSY then we will need a larger facility mary research focus in the next few years. - but a proton based one ... e+e- will As for the field, much of the acceler- be useful if we find SUSY. ator based effort is directed at 3 topics: 1. CP violation (Kaons, B sys- • I find biophysics the most compelling in tem) 2. Neutrino Oscillations/mass 3. the next 25 years Higgs/Electro-weak symmetry breaking. • Even with enough funding for the next These fields have adequate/over repre- collider the field will not really sustain sentation while I see that a true under- itself in the long term unless there is standing of QCD in the boundary region a major breakthrough in the acceler- between perturbative/ non - perturba- ator domain. Thus the most impor- tive regime is still in its infancy. The- tant physics for the field is accelerator oretical work is now beginning to yield physics. predictions (lattice, chiral perturbation) in many areas. Much of the experimen- • To questions 30 and 31: *new physics* tal work in these areas can be accom- (given that we find something new) if plished at energies within reach of exist- no significant deviations are observed ing accelerators. experimentally, or if theoretically no progress • is made beyond the Standard Model, I’m afraid I still do not want to con- everything becomes boring. sider astrophysics as part of ”the field,” even though it has some of the most • Also known as fractal space-time the- compelling questions to answer in the ory, scale relativity physics was born next 10-25yrs. In fact, I would have Comments on Physics 152

probably put down ”cosmological con- time scale and cost of new HEP facili- stant” for question 30 if I were tenured ties continues to grow. and could choose what I wanted to work • on. I think it is important to nurture Choosing one topic for the field for the diversity in the field. I am concerned next 10-25 years is not right approach. about putting all of our resources into All the fields need to be supported but the ”next machine,” because it does mean not all at the same level at the same that we will not be able to fund inter- time. No one subfield should be sup- esting, small experiments. I think it is ported at more than 50-60 less important where the next machine • The field needs to continue to work at is built (other than for my own personal the highest energies and to search for well-being). I would prefer not to spend what happens at those highest energies. my professional life traveling, but I will do it if the next machine is built abroad. • We’ve almost reached the point of con- firming one of just a couple plausible • With a limited time remaining I find scenarios to wrap up what we know at fundamental searches most appealing i.e. these energy scales. I don’t think that neutron oscillations and dark matter searches. will exhaust what HEP can do but we • EWK symmetry breaking is clearly top will have to start getting more creative- of the list ... except that we may be see- and reward some amount of risk-taking. ing the tip of an exciting iceburg with • Although I find neutrino physics per- neutrino oscillations ... so to flag this sonally interesting, we must explore the I put neutrino physics. In any case if possibility for new physics at higher center- oscillations provide enough fuel to make of-mass energies. significant progress on why there are 3 flavors, baryogenesis, etc then this is • Getting beyond the standard model is of equal importance to understanding probably the most important area of EWK symmetry breaking. research for the next few decades. I am unclear as to the definition of major. If • Many fields may be interesting includ- you mean 100’s of millions then I think ing but not limited to QCD, neutrino it is inevitable. If you mean billions of physics, EW symmetry breaking. I sus- dollars then I have reservations ... we pect that all of the comments will be should not put all our eggs in one bas- important over the next 25 years. ket. • In the near long-term (!) we need to • My personal goals for the next ten years survey, in depth, the 100 - 1000 GeV lie at the interface of QCD and flavor range and answer the questions we cur- and CP violation in the quark sector. rently have. Then we need a machine Ten years hence, there will be puzzles to answer the questions we’ll be ask- (from LHC data) in EWSB so around ing after that. Where these machines then, my focus may switch. will physically be is going to become increasingly irrelevant. • Compelling and important physics: experimental searches of new phenomena related • I think that there are a number of ques- to extra dimensions, searches for baryon/lepton tions in astrophysics have attracted the number violation; CP, CPT violation, interest of physicists in the recent past. I expect this trend will continue as the Comments on Physics 153

flavor violation, neutrino factories, under- specific signatures of supersymmetry, uni- ground experiment, cosmological exper- fication beyond the Standard Model or iments, muon collider. duality. As for the most important, I don’t think it’s possible to say anything • Note that ”the physics I find most com- is the most important. As scientists, we pelling” may not be the physics I would can’t be satisfied while there are still want to work on. any unknowns, so it is important to keep • I’d like to think I am a physicist, not attention on all areas. ”nuclear” or ”particle” or ”electron” or • Clearly the area of EW symmetry break- ”proton” or EW/Higgs physicist. You ing is the most pressing area in the field. options target 5 year time scale, not However many other questions are closely 10-25. Understanding how the universe related to this – so searching for new works is what the fundamental science physics like SUSY, doing precision mea- is all about. Sometimes this includes surement in the EW sector etc are all solid state or atomic physics ! Right equally important. However they are now we are just trying to peek outside essentially driven by the first question. the Standards Model window. What comes next is not entirely clear, and • The problem of EWK symmetry break- that’s the beauty of it. Unfortunately ing and the origin of mass is the most we have to commit funds 10-15 years pressing one in our field, and arguably before a major facility can be built – one of the most important in all of sci- but that only means that we have to be ence. What’s exciting to me is that flexible and best equipped to be able to within the next ten years we should know answer questions that suddenly pop up. a great deal about the answer, thanks to the Tevatron and the LHC. But the • My choice of question 30) really depends LHC can’t do it all, and for this reason on what will be found in the other fields. I believe that an e+e- linear collider is If supersymetry is found I would surly the necessary and correct next step to join the researches there, but meanwhile advance the science. It’s desirable that we should not forget other topics which such a facility be built in the US, but can be, as in the QCD case, long time the main thing is to build it, with what- work. I do not know what will become ever technology, SOMEWHERE, start- the most important. It’s a surprise. We ing SOON. have to keep our eyes open in all fields not to bias the researches. • It’s all important.

• There are still many open questions on • All parts of physics are important, but heavy quarks spectroscopy. With a neg- the most fundamental thing is work on ligible amount of money (with respect the unification of knowledge (not only the huge experiments) a much better unification of forces). understanding can be reached. • I worked for 5 years in HEP (with quite • Personally, as a theorist, unification top- good success). But now I prefer to work ics have always engrossed me. At the in a subject which has more direct con- moment, string theory is the hot topic. sequences for mankind. I am fascinated In terms of experiments, those I would about the possibilities of FELs. be most interested in are searches for Comments on Physics 154

• Questions30 and 31: it is really diffi- explore, and I will be happy to work on cult choice in 10-25 year progress in cos- any of them. 33) It’s important that the mology/ astrophysics/ cosmic rays/ can next major facility be in the US, but I not be achieved without the research wouldn’t risk the long term health and at the accelerator experiments, in my solidarity of the field, or our relations opinion. Let’s say that at Snowmass with Congress, over this issue. If the meeting some experiment will report dis- LC is built in Europe, we will collab- covery of some supersymetric particle- orate on it, and will also build many sor establish masses of neutrinos or dis- other smaller experiments in the US, cover new families or ... impact on other from which we will extract rich physics. fields is at once. • Dark matter, dark energy. Matter seems • The problems I work on involve several to be of minor importance. Supersym- of the topics you listed in 30), and I metry must be established (or eliminated). honestly don’t what will be the most • important physics for the field over the The most important physics in the next nest 10-25 years. However, I am trou- 10-25 years may well be something totally bled by the fact that despite the enor- unexpected. High energy frontier facil- mous efforts over the past half century ities have the best chance at this, but I’ve been in the field, one can still not this physics may come from elsewhere answer the question, of the mass of the and we need to maintain diversity in electron, what fraction is due to its inter- experiments and facilities. action with the quantized electromag- • I am most interested in the develop- netic field? Why do the masses of some ment of mathematically coherent and of the elementary particles exhibit such easily explainable pictures of nature. When simple regularities? The fact that in physicists give explanations that don’t molecular biology we learn that molecules make sense, or only make sense in the store information, pass that on to other context of a wealth of unquantifiable molecules, which use the information intuition and experience, the recipient to construct other molecules, including of the explanation is not richer, they molecules that repair the information- are more confused. The view of physi- storing molecule is so fundamental that cists as know-it-alls will in the end be we have to wonder whether the elemen- harmful to the field. tary particles also exhibit similar properties, and how would we determine this • Personally I would be most interested by suitable experiments? in the discovery/study of charm mixing. Babar/Belle data will likely suffice. • The Higgs field, SUSY, CP violation are fundamental properties in Physics. We • We have to be able to react to the most indeed are living in exciting times and recent information obtained. Understand- the future promises to be even more ing Electroweak Symmetry Breaking is exciting (especially if even one the above clearly the most urgent problem before mentioned phenomena turn out to be us. What we see at the Tevatron next true). week may point the way - or we may have to interpret other new data in a • Questions 30-31: All of the above. I way that indicates our most promising am excited by a broad range of physics. next steps. Open-minded curiosity will I think the field has many avenues to have to set the stage. Comments on Physics 155

• In reference to question 31, I think the clue right now what will truly be impor- most important experiments are those tant in the next few decades. which will indicate beyond-the-standard • model physics. This may require a higher Owing to the nature of the work I have energy machine, better machines for pre- been doing, I am getting more drawn to cision physics, or both. computational physics. All the physics fields are important, but perhaps empha- • The most interesting physics fot the field sis on the fields that can be used to probably will be astrophysics as a whole, generate publicity should be strongly including dark matter, inflation, MWBR, encouraged, as this would lead to greater neutrinos. public awareness of HEP and greater support for funding. Given the way the • Question 30: at the same level, I would Net/Grid is expanding, a new facility also select ”astroparticle physics” (which can be put virtually anywhere is not offered - cosmic rays is not the same). re 31: I consider it most impor- • Even when MINOS and OPERA are tant that activities are supported which done, we won’t have a clear picture of allow for progress in all these fields. In the masses and other characteristics of my view, it would be the end of HEP if the neutrinos. It’s important that we we disregard fundamental questions to get to know as many things as we can concentrate on one or a few key points. of this mysterious particle that might hold the key to more clues. • EW symmetry breaking, neutrino physics and dark matter are certainly most impor- • I do not know what will be important tant to the field, in particular I believe 15 years from now, and I wager that that strong interaction phenomena (sim- no one else does either. Consider two ilar to QCD) play a major role in the plausible alternatives: * LHC finds, and EW symmetry breaking. Also, QCD NLC confirms, MSSM. Dark matter is plays a strong role in understanding results identified. * Neither Higgs nor SUSY is from the new accelerators. Hence I think seen below 1 TeV. Dark matter remains that while experiments should be focussed mysterious. Our plans in 2016 will be around the above phenomena theoreti- vastly different in these two cases. cal research should be more diversified • than just ”beyond the standard model” Need a ”new machine” to go beyond the phenomenology” or just ”superstrings”. Standard Model. Hopefully clarify the Accelerator wise we need the Large Hadron nature of the ”ultimate theory”. Collider for discovery of new particles, a • There needs to be fascinating new physics linear electron-antielectron accelerator to stabilize the Higgs scale, possibly super- (or alternatively a circular muon col- symmetry. The goal of HEP in the next lider) for high precision physics experi- 20 years should be to completely quan- ments and a neutrino factory long base- tify all the particles and interactions at line experiment. In addition, astro-particle the TeV scale. The LHC alone cannot physics detectors should attract more do this, because an e+e- machine is a attention too. necessary complement for precise mea- • Everyone seems to think the most impor- surements. Since the LHC is already in tant physics is Higgs. In my perverse Europe, it is desirable to have the e+e- way of thinking I’d love it if we had no machine in America. A nice reversal of the 1990’s :) Comments on Physics 156

• For CP violation in neutrino physics (not ”exotic” particles. If SUSY is discov- the only important part of the issue of ered it will probably require a new machine course) it is probably necessary on physics to fully explore the spectrum and get at grounds that the experiment span con- the underlying theory. This need not tinents. necessarily be in the U.S. if it is a truly international machine and people can • It’s really impossible to say what will be fully participate through regional cen- the ”most compelling” field of HEP 25 ters. years from now. It is true that a great deal of strong interaction physics, non- • I think that the most important and perturbative QCD, remains unexplored compelling goals of the next 25 years is even at current collider energies. Cos- the the precision testing of the standard mic ray experiments suggest that there model at high energies ( higgs search/ is indeed interesting physics and prob- discovery and developing in parallel the ably surprises here that merit study. capability to test and discriminate non- standard model processes. In parallel • I think the most compelling physics will we should be pursuing precision tests at have to do with hints towards the high lower energies (cp violation, rare decays energy theory of which the Standard etc) attempting to reach all the stan- Model is a low energy effective theory, dard model limits for these processes. such as SUSY. • • Personally compelling physics: genuinely We need to look for the unexpected, not new, discovery physics For the field: EW just do the standard model testing and symmetry breaking must be attacked Higgs searches. early in this time frame; the longer time • By exotic particle searches, I am refer- scale is appropriate for the exploration ring to SUSY particles. I feel that the of the energy frontier most important physics for HEP over • I am very interested in some specific the next 10-25 years primarily concerns: physics issues for the next 10 years, and Higgs physics, cosmological constant, and they will be addressed in large measure exotic particle / SUSY searches. with current or planned facilities. But • Supersymmetric particles, dark matter, what comes next will depend on what the Higgs field and extensions of the we find in the next few years. That standard model are clearly the focus of doesn’t mean, however, that I wouldn’t the future. At the same time, the chal- plan the next accelerator based on our lenge to understand the structure of the best current guesses about what we will visible matter surrounding us (protons need next since we can’t afford to wait and neutrons) from first (QCD) princi- ten years to find out what will pan out. ples is still very exciting (and not solved). We have to take some risks and make some gambles just to keep experts busy • All of these physics topics are impor- and making steady progress. tant and compelling. But my bet is that, since we think the standard model • It is all interesting depending on what is not the correct/complete theory of we find out as time goes along! EW symmetry breaking, the most impor- • I include SUSY searches as part of EW tant thing is to get evidence of what lies symmetry breaking. I would not clas- beyond the standard model in this sec- sify these with less motivated random tor. It could help point to the solutions Comments on Physics 157

of some of the other problems listed, implies that we build the energy fron- such as CP violation, dark matter etc. tier machine – and only one qualifies for the continued health of the field inter- – the VLHC. It should be built in the nationally the U.S. should take on the U.S. because the superior site if avail- responsibility of hosting the next facil- able. To describe this as an exotic parti- ity. The commitment would, however, cle search is not unreasonable but prob- somehow have to be in the form of an ably too restrictive to be appropriate. international treaty that is not easily • broken by congress. It would be a dis- By picking one, I have to not pick the aster if an approved project with 50 others. I don’t care what (I’m in accelerators), but look for something. I think • Astro/ particle is probably as impor- it’s wise to trade off with Europe every tant as Higgs, etc. 5 years with the largest and/or newest accelerator.... Of course that means plan- • Politically, we need a major discovery ning for post-lhc now! At the same time, at the energy frontier, to guide theo- not collaborating (eg, the U.S. at cern) rists, allow experimentalists to target is childish. Am I asking for too much experiments, and most importantly, to money? generate sufficient public interest to justify funding future experiments. • 1) the four related ’super questions’ are (a) the origin of mass (b) the origin • If I knew what physics would be most of the generations (c)the origin of CP- interesting in the next 10-25 years I’d violation and (d) the nature of the Dark drop out of physics. Matter. 2) the priority is for a linear e+e- collider, preferably with an upper • What will be most important? It’s a energy limit without major engineering crap shoot where the next discovery will upgrade of at least 1 TeV, and prefer- come. I would bet AGAINST the QCD ably 1.5TeV. Should LMA be the cor- and heavy ion/quark gluon plasma fields. rect solar neutrino solution, the next • My answer to 30 and 31 is a combina- highest priority is a neutrino factory. tion of QCD interactions, EW symme- • Question 32: which one, 30 or 31 ? W.r.t. try breaking, CP violation, and hadronic 30 the answer is yes: It is amazing to physics. I think we need to use all of see how little is spent (on the theory those to better define our understand- side) on dedicated machines for lattice ing of QCD, to find out where it breaks QCD – our lack of precise knowledge of down and if there is a ”better” version strong interaction effects precludes, at of it. Why is it apparently OK to renor- this time, any definite conclusion from malize? etc. the BNL g-2 experiment; the frequently • We need more testable alternatives to quoted 2 sigma incompatibility with SM the standard model, particularly in the physics is fake, theoretical uncertainties Higgs sector. It is also possible that are grossly underestimated, it seems to string/M/ brane theory may provide new me only lattice QCD can help. ideas. • I regret, my choice is not unique, but • The most important physics for 10 - the form doesn’t allow to select more 25 years from now is the discovery we than one topics. I would have like a haven’t necessarily dreamed of yet. This choice of ”beyond the SM”, which encom- passes several topics in your list. Comments on Physics 158

• The field lacks direction. Unfortunately measurements. We need to keep forg- I have no clue either where it should be ing ahead in all of these areas. I cer- going. tainly don’t think all of the new facilities should be in the U.S. but one big • Neutrino physics is still quite an open facility should be here, as well as a ”base field. We understand so little about it. program” of smaller but equally impor- It requires many accelerator, cosmic ray tant experiments. and reactor experiments. The accelerator program should not be limited to • I think all are compelling. Many peo- long baseline efforts, but should include ple will argue that their subject is the measurements important for reducing most compelling. I am indifferent at backgrounds in cosmic ray and long base- this time. line experiments, as well as searches for • new physics with high flux, narrow band Many of the topics are vital to the field, beams. not a single one. • It’s clear that the EW symmetry break- • The most important question for High ing mechanism is the next frontier for Energy Physics is what is beyond the probing the standard model. Much of Standard Model. Whereas no one can the program will be done at LHC, but say for sure where this is likely to be a linear collider may also be needed to found, understanding the Higgs sector sort out the details, especially if the and looking for new particles at the high- Higgs sector is more complex than that est mass scales achievable are excellent of the minimal standard model. The places to look. new facility should be built wherever • Looking back the history, a lot of dis- possible, where ”possible” has both tech- coveries were not foreseen, personally, nical and political components. If we any effect to understand the nature are insist that it be in the U.S. or nowhere, interesting, and may end up with a break the risk of not having a new machine through. increases. • Question 30 : I find it hard to choose • QCD is the big theoretical challenge, one. this is going to change over time, and I don’t see it going away. But I depending on the results of the ongo- am an experimentalist, and I see several ing experiments, so I guess I don’t want experimental challenges to be of equal to answer this question. Ditto 31. 33- importance: certainly QCD and Higgs while I’d like to say this is true (i.e., it physics; but also cleaning up CP vio- isn’t important that it’s in the U.S.) I lation and the CKM matrix, neutrino fear that politically it *is* important. physics, and probably a few issues we However, I feel this is an attitude that haven’t thought of yet. needs to change. I don’t think that • I don’t think anyone can say which physics fewer (or less high-quality) people would is the most important for the field, I go into physics if the experiments were, would say that we should continue work- say , in Europe or Asia. ing in a variety of new places for the • best chance of finding what’s behind the B factories and the next generation exper- standard model. It might be neutrino iments are expected to solve most of the physics, it might be the energy fron- long standing puzzles of CP violation. tier, it might be precision ”low energy” So now it’s high time the SM is put to Comments on Physics 159

its ultimate acid test, i.e. the test of strengthened by the advent of radioac- the Higgs phenomena. tive beam facilities. New data will be a challenge for theory on one side and • I think it is short sited to ask us to chose experiments dealing with low intensity what ”the most” important physics is. beams. We should have a diverse program and seriously question any program that is • The most important field is the test- so expensive we can only have one focus. ing of the SM. If we find new particles (like SUSY) the most important thing • I’m interested in many things myself, would be the study of its properties oth- so I just picked one for question 30. erwise it would be the precion test of As to question 31, it depends on what the SM, e.g. Higgs parameters elec- you think the field is. If you think it troweak parameters and the unitarity includes astrophysics and cosmology, I triangle. think that the next most important results will probably come from astrophysics. • Important physics: experiments that impact But in order to answer questions 32 and the whole range of astrophysics and cos- 33 the way I think you mean them, I mology: solar physics, nucleosynthesis, chose the subject that requires a major supernovas, dark matter, dark energy new e+e- facility, because I think that (quintessence) and more Major new facil- is what is needed to keep accelerator- ity: Two are needed (1) Major Under- based particle physics a part of ”the ground Lab. The U.S. needs an equiv- field”: if we don’t build one soon, there alent (improvement) of Kamioka mine may not be such a facility for a very and Grand Sasso labs. (2) High flux long time (never say never), and ”the neutrino source in the 10-50MeV range field” will comprise only astrophysics. (decay at rest) for studies related to I think it is not really that important solar and supernova neutrinos. that the new facility is in the US, but if • we want to convince the funding agen- I include SUSY in EW symmetry break- cies and congress that we are serious ing when answering 30/31. Actually when we say that a particular facility is further unification, gravity etc. should just what we need, then it would surely also be on the list (our theoretical col- look strange if we didn’t at least prefer leagues always link SUSY to that any- the machine to be in the U.S. way). As for location, no, I think the quality of the facility is more important • All are interesting and important; how- than location (except not dumb loca- ever, too much effort may be directed at tions like Waxahache, Texas...). a fashionable problem to the detriment • of others which seem less urgent. For ”other” I think that physics beyond the standard model is important. At • If the Higgs is the only new particle the present time I would emphasize string found in the next 10 years (no susi-particles theory (or, as it is sometimes called, the etc.) it might be a possible death sen- theory formerly known as strings), but tence for HEP but certainly hard to sell I would not like to restrict myself to one new even more expensive projects to to particular approach for the future. the funding agencies. • The fundamental nature of space-time, • I am personally most interested in the the vacuum, and quantum gravity might structure of nuclei. This field will be be of interest. Comments on Physics 160

• Specify a single physics topic in not appro- symmetry breaking CP violation Neu- priate. The goal of our research should trino physics cosmological constant/dark be always pursue new discoveries and matter. also to enhance our understanding the • physics laws that governing our universe. Question 30: would also add dark matter searches as example for fundamental • Variety of research is important. questions attracting me. Question 31: for me no difference to 30): stop work- • Compelling physics, that is the ques- ing in a few years. Question 33: could tion. Personally I do not find any of well be outside U.S., if U.S. contributes the physics topics currently on the plate still. so compelling to justify the huge efforts required to explore them. But unfortu- • If I knew the answer to 31, I would lose nately I do not have the magic wand of interest in the field. a solution to this question. • I think theories like supersymetry with • More attention should be paid to recent no current evidence, while they should developments in alternative accelerator be investigated, are taking up a dispro- schemes, in particular based on high- portionate amount of research. power lasers. • 25 years: too long timescale. • I think, if one decides to spend more • efforts on cosmic ray physics, this should I think that all are choices are impor- be done at established labs (since the tant for the field in the next 10-25 years expertise is available there already) and that the U.S. should lead the way. • • Personally I find fundamental interac- I believe we will learn the most by push- tions and symmetries most interesting. ing to higher energies.Push to higher For the field interdisciplinary work and energies. The particle physics/cosmology openness to new idea will be crucial. connection is the aspect I find most excit- The field would be dead, if I could say ing. now what will be important in 25 years. • It is essential for the field to start see- If that an be done, we better stop right ing answers to the mass problem. Not now and enjoy fishing or so. just observing the Higgs, but actually • The most important point is that a num- getting a glimpse of a deeper structure ber of fundamental experiments be pur- beyond the Standard Model sued. These range from searching for • I am amazed that one of the most impor- electric dipole moments of the neutron, tant physics direction of the next 10- electron, muon and atoms, to study- 25 years: physics that stabilizes EWSB ing the nature of EW symmetry break- scale at 1 TeV, has not even made into ing. There has to be a balance of top- this survey. Clearly, faculty should do ics under study, since nature has often a better job teaching young physicists given us surprises, rather than what we what’s of crucial importance in this field! were sure we would find. (This neither Higgs physics/EWSB or • In my opinion there isn’t ”the field” but Exotic particle searches; this is physics rather a wealth of things to do: Higgs/EW BEYOND 1 TeV!) Comments on Physics 161

• I think that it is important that we main- to a physicist who has devoted the past tain a diverse physics program, this includes 20 years (or whatever) to a particular physics at lower energies for QCD, B subdivision of particle physics. physics and CP violation, and physics • at the energy frontier for EW symmetry All of the above plus extra/hidden dimensions. The next 10 years will help reveal/uncover breaking, new particle searches, as well new phenomena that will help drive the as non accelerator based experiments for neutrino physics (for example). I physics opportunities of the next machine. don’t really know which of these will be • EW symmetry breaking, neutrino physics, most compelling for me ten years from astro-particle physics and cosmology are now. equally important topics. The discoveries which will be made will decide which • It’s not possible to pick just one area one is most important. as being most important for the field. Instead I would pick three– CP viola- • We know here is new physics, physics tion, electroweak/Higgs, and neutrinos. beyond the existing models, today, in For CP violation a new facility is not the lepton sector. You don’t have to needed. For neutrinos, a new facility build a new machine to find that new would be needed. For EW/Higgs, its physics. We need new facilities and per- not yet clear if a new facility is needed haps new beams to address that physics. beyond the LHC. But at a small fraction of the cost for a new VLHC or NLC. • About 31): there is a whole bunch of physics subjects which are important • While we are pushing hard to probe for the field. Answer to basical ques- dark corners of the Standard Model, noth- tions : e.g. CP violations , neutrino ing breaks the mold like a new particle. physics, cosmological constants/dark mat- To accomplish this it seems reasonable ter. Once answered those questions will to argue that accelerator physics has open completely new fields for research, to be pushed to smaller, more power- and other basical questions will rise and ful technologies. Instead of turning a open new domains of physics. Nailing blind ear to those who have novel or down the standard model and giving ”impossible” ideas about new accelera- and answer about the Higgs is equally tor technologies, maybe its time to toss important if found in the energies reached a little venture capital their way. All of by RunII or LHC, it can open the door this begs for a new facility, either in the to new domains of research as well. How- long or short term, at which such R&D ever if not reached at that energy level can be nurtured. it can drag physics (forever) in direc- • tions where it should not go. I selected CP violation but would say that I was interested in flavor physics • Important physics may not be located – especially why there are three gener- in one specific field. It is important to ations. The U.S. needs to have a large be competent in several topics. facility – as the world’s richest country • it should be willing to invest in this kind I would most like to see the continua- of research, which generates fundamen- tion of particle physics as a whole. This tal knowledge. will allow for the discovery of new physics over the next 10-25 years. The type is • Most compelling fields – black hole physics, not as important to me as it would be quantum gravity, string theory. I am Comments on Physics 162

intrigued that some issues in these fields non-accelerator ones. Longer term, cos- may even be addressable in near-future mology (dark matter, possibly dark energy, high energy machines such as a linear etc.) will be the important area. collider. • I thinks the biggest thing in Physics will • There’s plenty of great stuff going on. I be moving beyond the standard model personally find myself attracted to pre- and then trying to incorporate gravity. cision (and thereby, as it happens, mass And since the U.S. lead the world in production) astronomy such as SDSS, particle physics research the entire length SNAP, LSST and a whole bunch of other of the previous century, I feel we should four-letter acronyms. But astrophysics take our time and see what comes out in general is the way forward, and specif- of the LHC. ically, I feel the future will belong to • those who come up with increasingly The Higgs sector is likely to be our best clever ways to let nature do the accel- window to what’s ”out there” beyond erating. Cosmic ray detectors, neutrino the SM, if anything. Some Higgs boson telescopes, and the like could provide a is almost certain to be found at the LHC great deal of information on new physics or the TeVatron, but may be poorly (esp. hadronic interactions) at absurdly measured. SUSY particles may be there high energies. and will be the best long-term bet for HEP if they are there. If the Higgs • I find any physics that addresses the comes in too light or too heavy, then questions - why is there mass - why are something is ”out there” and we should there 3 families - why is there more mat- look for it. The LHC can do much of the ter than anti-matter compelling. These discovery work, but precision measure- are questions that are independent of ment may require an e+e- linear col- field. lider. With good global participation, it does not matter where the laboratory • I think that neutrino physics is becom- is. With poor funding ability in some ing much more interesting and impor- countries, the U.S. may be financially tant, and I think it is not receiving the the most capable of hosting the project. recognition it deserves. However, when (this may change as some countries’ economies I say this science requires a new facil- improve and they become more willing ity, I do not mean on the same scale as to finance HEP, or less, who can tell the linear collider (for example). The what the politics will do?) advancement of neutrino physics can happen much cheaper, and potentially in • Depends on what is found: if progress parallel to other work in the field. Now, on EWSB is made ”soon” the solution eventually, if one needs to build a full may/will probably raise new important neutrino factory or muon collider, it will questions. Almost certainly continuing be expensive. I also weigh the last answer development of major facilities needed against what I see happening world-wide, to answer these. Q.33: Politically prob- meaning that this path would enable us ably yes, to retain the strength of com- to maintain useful action in the U.S. mitment of U.S. physicists and funding while participating in a facility elsewhere. agencies. • In the short term, I think neutrino physics will still teach us a great deal, and I have less faith in accelerator results than Comments on Physics 163

13.7.2 Does the Physics Require • If a new neutrino facility is built in the a New Machine?: next 10 years, it would be very wise to have available beams from all stages • LHC is being built. That is what we (low to high energy). need to do it. • There should be a reasonable mix of • LHC may find the Higgs, but how much non-accelerator and accelerator exper- about it will they be able to measure. iments. Neutrino mixing, Higgs, and Vacuum for U.S. based physics after FNAL supersymmetry are the most important Tevatron closes? physics goals over the next few years. There will still be many unanswered physics • The LHC will address most of the next questions after LHC and FNAL Run II round questions. are finished. We will need new machines • New experimental ways of probing the to explore the energy frontier. Symmetry breaking mechanism are required • We may learn quite a bit from the Teva- other than just building bigger and big- tron Run II and the LHC. This has to ger colliders. Ingenuity and new ideas be seriously understood in planning a are strongly necessary, especially due to new facility in the area of EW symme- the shrinking budgets for coming years... try breaking, for example. The U.S. • It is precisely because nobody can answer does need a new high energy facility, the question about which experiments but we have ourselves to blame for the are going to provide the next big break- current situation. We didn’t we ratio- through that we need progress on many nally plan for the SSC to be an inter- fronts. We need a LC, but also a neu- national facility at Fermilab and then ∼ trino factory. We also need the U.S. to plan for a 2 TeV e+e- linear collider be strongly involved, and that probably to come on afterwards? Instead we act means (for political reasons) that one of like a bunch of little kids, fighting each the new large facilities should be sited other, and the DoE has made serious in the States. mistakes. The DoE should not be trying to manage the field. They are far • The primary scientific justification for from being wise leaders in high energy the SSC was the elucidation of the mech- physics. anism(s) responsible for EWK symme- • try breaking - the origin of mass. The The present proposals for some of the LHC will (hopefully) address this, but next machines are evolutions based on may not, because it may be too low in present technologies. The muon beams, energy. Post LHC, it makes no sense for TESLA and the low field VLHC are the U.S. to build an NLC or a muon col- exceptions. The first offers the possi- lider, because by the time they become bility of something completely new, the operational, there will be little to add second uses a more efficient technology, to whatever is known from LHC experi- and the third is the best way to get back ments, which will have been running for to the energy frontier. Simply evolving some significant number of years. In my present technologies - apparently beyond opinion, the only sensible thing now for their scope - by feeding them more and the USA to do is to build a p-p acceler- more money is not a responsible way to ator with energy >> LHC. spend the taxpayers’ money. We need to support new ideas and implement the Comments on Physics 164

new concepts, or our machines will always with different kind of machines. In the be costing more and more without becom- meanwhile there is PLENTY of physics ing more efficient. at lower energy that can be exploited with less expensive new facilities or upgrades • The opportunity of the underground lab- of existing ones. oratory (given its scope and cost) must be pursued independent of the collider • I think we should get moving on VLHC decisions. to cross a new energy frontier, or else go get real jobs in San Jose, leave behind a • I feel that the next machine needs to few hundred people to finish up ongoing be an electron collider to study the EW work on neutrino properties and EWSB, sector along with the LHC. I feel that and hope our friends at CalTech see grav- a VLHC is necessary to study energies ity waves. beyond LHC and carry the physics further. I feel that it makes the most sense • HEP has a long record to shut down to build the VLHC in the U.S., based facilities much to early - LEP being the at FNAL, since much of the infrastruc- last of the list. ture exists. The electron-electron lab • can be built in Germany while the stud- There are already major new facilities ies and planning is being completed for either planned or in operation both for the VLHC. QGP and cosmological constant (CMB). I do not know if any major new facilities • My suggestion of accelerator physics is will be needed beyond those already on born of desperation as I don’t think we the table – probably not. presently have a fiscally viable new facil- • ity on the horizon. The hope would be For Question 31/32, I think that the that accelerator R&D might produce a LHC at CERN should find something cheaper alternative. new. A new experiment, probably an e+/e- collider, will be required for pre- • Current proposed new accelerators are cise measurements of this new physics unrealistically expensive. We need smarter, in 10-15 years or so. more versatile in physics potential, cheaper • machines if we ever expect to get approval If there is to be a future in accelera- from the government to build a > 1B$ tor based HEP then we must invest in facility. accelerator R&D to identify and develop affordable new technologies. • It is clear that the LHC will not pro- • vide all the answers we are seeking but Although I would like the next facility should help us toward the next step for to be a neutrino factory, I am resigned both experiment and theory. It is impor- to the fact that the momentum in the tant to complement the science to be community is behind a linear collider done at the LHC with another type of and I think there are good reasons for machine that will provide further insight this decision. Given that, I will support into the foundations of the standard model. the best design and fastest timescale to build a linear collider (TESLA) and • If ”major” means so expensive that all push for R&D for a neutrino factory. the rest will be down sized, we better • put more effort in acceleration technique Should try to put more effort into R&D, so that higher energies can be reached both accelerator and detector related. Comments on Physics 165

This will make it possible to make a is going to win out) will merely delay better case. Also it should be made the acquisition of a neutrino factory, since very clear to powers-that-be (politicians) it looks as though TESLA will go to that R&D is an integral (and essential) DESY (as it should). DESY did the part of our activities, and that special R&D! funding should be provided for this eﬀort. • A new facility in the U.S. is crucial to keep young physicists from leaving the 13.7.3 Location of a Frontier Facil- ﬁeld. ity: • A new facility in the U.S. does NOT • Stop being cry-babies about the U.S. mean it has to be a ”U.S. lab!” losing their leading role in HEP, and • start thinking what you (the U.S.) can From a science point of view, it doesn’t do for world HEP. matter where the new machine is located. From a political point of view, however, • I would only support a new machine at thinking that it doesn’t matter is worse Fermilab. I do not want to go through than asking for too much money. the same procedure used for the SSC. • Without these 2 constraints I do not Preferably the facilities should be dis- support the construction of a new machine tributed equally throughout the world. in the U.S. But this should not be used as an argument that the LC should be build in the • I don’t believe the U.S. can maintain U.S. a vigorous program without a frontier • facility. It needs to be in space! • • I’d like to see a U.S. national under- Several new facilities are needed. It is ground science lab built very soon. important that one be in the U.S., but I don’t think it is important (from a • The U.S should have a major under- physics point of view) which one. ground experimental facility for HEP. • To survive, we have to get past the com- • U.S. National Underground Laboratory petition to host machines in the sense is necessary. Please, no Homestake. Who that Congress decides it isn’t worth sup- is going to work in South Dakota? porting HEP unless the facility is local. The space station is not in any state of • It may not be important for physics that the USA. the facility be in the U.S., but it’s important for U.S. physics. • The U.S. needs no less than to have the highest energy machine in the world. A • It’s not important to HEP in general sub-TeV lepton collider will not provide that it be in the U.S. The Europeans that. can do the discoveries. but, it is important to U.S. HEP. • I have decided to do physics in Europe because, after the SSC, I believed that • Incremental upgrade of Fermilab will deliver the U.S. would not be able to pull it the neutrino factory and maintain a healthy together. The NLS business is evidence HEP in the U.S. Going for the linear that I am right. But the U.S. must collider (it looks like the TESLA option Comments on Physics 166

have a program or the European pro- of respect by this country for scientists gram will flounder. This is clear from from other nations is alarming. the time slippage of the LHC without • an existing SSC: recall SSC was sched- The location of the next machine should uled to run in 1999 and lhc in 1998. We not depend at all on national pride. Much now see LHC in 2006? 7? 8? more important is that it be located in a truly international lab, as CERN is (I • I would prefer a linear collider in the am not saying it has to be at CERN...). U.S., but feel that it is more important • that we have one somewhere. Just get some funding and build one *good* accelerator with some decent (at • I would only support a new machine at least 2) detectors on it. Location doesn’t Fermilab. I do not want to go through matter, joining forces does. the same procedure used for the SSC. • Without these 2 constraints I do not It is very important to have some major support the construction of a new machine facility operating in each region. For in the U.S. Fermilab, the most promising suggestion I have seen is by Peter McIntyre, • I believe it is a major mistake for the to increase the Tevatron beam energy U.S. not to have a major accelerator in to 3 TeV. place during the reign of the LHC. The • HEP community here will be marginal- HEP will die in a continent that does ized in important ways. We can partly not have a machine (well, there will be offset this by as-strong-as-possible par- a few small university groups). ticipation in LHC and other interna- • I don’t think the performance of the tional objectives. machine will depend on its location, given • U.S. people should get over the fact that that the basic resources, such as con- we can’t have everything here. Other stant electrical power, are guaranteed. countries, while not having the same There are some obvious problems at SLAC money as us, when combined can do with the brownouts, and the phones not very well as collaborations. It is also working ! Seems like it would be easier good that there is international pres- to run SLAC in Mexico ... sure on individual governments to con- • I think that a new e+e- collider built tinue support. The U.S. cannot guaran- soon would benefit the field. I’d prefer tee that its government will always be it be built in the U.S. so that I could HEP-friendly, but an international col- more easily work there and for the inter- laboration always has some HEP-friendly est in physics it would bring to the U.S. members at any given time. Therefore, However, if the U.S. doesn’t want to we should get used to the idea that the pay so much, we should still certainly next big project could be anywhere in support a linear collider wherever else the world. Of course, being from the it may be built (e.g. Germany). U.S., I would like it here. But there are other factors against the U.S. - It is so • There is a natural tension between being damned hard for foreigners to get visas a good internationalist and being a U.S. to stay here. It is scary for some to PHYSICIST. You read it in the various leave the U.S. because they don’t know Gilman etc. reports which instruct us if they will be allowed back in. The lack to be international in our planning but Comments on Physics 167

to be sure that we maintain U.S. lead- reorganization of U.S. ﬁeld; not impos- ership. I believe these are not incom- sible, but there will be resistance. patible. The TEVATRON has given • U.S. leadership for 20 or so years. I I am a U.S. citizen, and want my coun- believe it makes sense for the U.S. to try to be the leader. continue this with VLHC. High energy • As a European I think it’s important in the domain of multi hundred TEV that a new facility should be in Europe. will expose new phenomena rivalling anything in our history. That is the use- • Again, I am from Europe and I think fulness of the astrophysicists and even that it is important that a new facil- they may be as children, throwing peb- ity be in Europe (for Europeans) and bles into the surf of a vast ocean of igno- in the U.S. (for Americans), etc. Of rance. In some sense the Higgs, super- course, this would not prevent strong symmetry are ”tired” discoveries. But exchanges between the various continents. what the hell is dark energy? • Every country wants it to be in their • The facility should be the best for physics country. We need a better argument ... in whatever site gives the best chance of • worldwide funding and participation. The most important property of the new facility is that it be economically viable. • To clarify, it is even more important While it would be better for U.S. physics that the U.S. try for the next than it if it were in the U.S., one should not rule succeed. Not trying is tantamount to out a foreign site if it appears that this abdicating a major league participation. is the only way to make the machine happen. • The U.S. needs a frontier machine after the LHC starts up in 2007 (more likely • Priority is that a next facility a e-e col- 2009!). It is not necessary for the next lider in the O(1TeV) energy range is machine (probably a linear collider) to built somewhere. Location is of second be built in the U.S., but planning for importance. the machine after that is essential, and • R&D must start immediately. We have to give up that science will die if the U.S. doesn’t have a facility. Of • A facility is better than no facility, no course, as weather research has learned, matter where it’s built. if you are willing to form collaborations broadly, your research will die. In their • Location in the U.S. would give a sig- case, computers did them in. niﬁcant boost to the U.S. program; for this, location is important. If, on the • The new facility should have interna- other hand, putting it in the U.S. means tional character and could be located it doesn’t get built, this would be a anywhere in the world where there is tragedy. reasonable infrastructure.

• We need to have the Tesla LC design • The location of a new e+e- collider is built near Fermilab. not as important to me as it used to be. • It is preferred that new facility be in the U.S. A new facility abroad (i.e., no new • It appears to me that we should have major ones in U.S.) requires substantial a new e+e- collider somewhere. Surely Comments on Physics 168

it is best for U.S. physicists if it is in Germany, so be it. I would be will- the U.S., but the location is a matter ing to take part. Whether my present for negotiation. employer would be willing is a different question. A linear collider is an • The physics reach should be the pri- essential tool for pursuing the physics. mary objective. The location should be It would be nice, but not necessary for decided based on logistic and funding that machine to be in the U.S. For the possibilities rather than national argu- health of the field IN the U.S. it would ments. be very good if it were built here. Oth- • Being in Europe I naturally find it more erwise there will be a decay of the infras- compelling to have the NLC in Europe. tructure to remain viable in the long I also happen to believe that TESLA run. If the machine is build abroad, the is the best concept around, therefore I U.S. must be an active participant. We think that TESLA at DESY would be must also learn from the SSC, for which the best thing to happen with TESLA the U.S. was not really serious about it at Fermilab still being better than any being an international machine until it other NLC somewhere else. was in trouble. I see many signs of this recurring. • With the current political climate in the • USA I find it very hard to believe a I think a new facility has to be built in truly new project has any chance of being the U.S. It is unreasonable to imagine funded. that the support will be there to train enough graduate students in facilities in • Good physics can be done anywhere in Europe. Or for more than a few senior the world, if the resources are available. people to spend a reasonable amount of Whether the U.S. government will pro- time there. vide good funding for the field if the • next accelerator is built in Europe or Prior to WWII, most of forefront physics Japan rather than in the U.S. is an open was centered in Europe. America was question. It may be possible if there is known for its engineering might. After a consensus for a plan which includes WWII, elementary particle physics was a facility in the U.S. subsequently with rewarded with several facilities in the a European/ Japanese commitment to U.S. because of the critical role they participate. played in the development of the atomic bomb. They were recognized as a national • The only reason I suggest that we need resource that needed to be maintained a facility in the States is because of real- and developed. As we have moved away ity. The university system is not yet from cold war, so to has America moved prepared to offer graduate students over- away from supporting basic science in seas access. If it were just the science favor of applied physics with shorter term that we needed, we could stick the new pay back. This has lead to a) a drain of machine ANYWHERE. But we also use graduate students and postdocs in the the field for training, and for that we physical sciences into professions that need people to have access to the project. have strong industrial support (i.e. dot com programming and networking, chip • It is most important to get the new design). More senior persons in the field machine. If that means building it in are leaving U.S. facilities to work in Europe (i.e. formally LEP, now LHC) which Comments on Physics 169

will capture the energy frontier since the next couple of decades that means the death of the SSC. a linear collider.

• The U.S. will have a larger role if it is • It’s important that the U.S. HEP com- in the U.S. munity survives and thrives. If this means they need a facility in the U.S. then • We don’t need everything here, but we my answer to 33 is ”yes” - but as an do need something here. outsider I don’t know. Maybe interna- • It is important for the field to move tional facilities based wherever are as ahead with the appropriate new facil- good/better (the UK works like this). ity, anywhere. It is also important that • The U.S. certainly needs to remain a the U.S. have forefront facility, and this major player in the field, but it is also is the only reason to say in Q33 that the important that Europe and Asia main- facility should be in the U.S. The U.S. tain strong programs. So, while I cer- should play a major role, wherever it is tainly think the U.S. should be prepar- built. ing for a new facility, it need not nec- • Any new lab doesn’t necessarily have to essarily be the NEXT facility. We could be in the U.S. Why not build it some- build the next-to-next facility, for exam- where else (other than of course money) ple. ? • If the next lepton collider and LHC are • Physics is worldwide the same. I don’t both in Europe, what major facilities see any point in insisting that future would the U.S. have probing the energy experiments have to be conducted in frontier? the U.S. • I am European, so I would actually pre- • I believe we have to talk international fer that large facility to be in Europe ;) now and the U.S. has to truly join the • It is obvious that any new, large machine effort of anybody else, Japan, Europe, will necessarily be an international facil- Asia, Australia etc. etc. to build the ity, but the U.S. needs a new facility to ”next machines”! keep domestic science strong (perhaps • U.S. is currently far behind Japan and make it stronger) and to keep some of Europe as far as the facility to carry out the younger people who are leaving the numerical calculations in lattice QCD is field. concerned. • The credibility gap engendered by the • New facility should be somewhere with SSC debacle still exists. Large project some existing infrastructure for the type management in the U.S. has not improved of accelerator chosen to minimize the much since. Even though I am U.S.- cost. based, for me this risk weakens the case for the next machine being the ”U.S.’s • It is vital that the USA remain a major turn” enough that I answered ’no’ to player in HEP and that many of the 33. brightest students are attracted into the • field. That will only happen if there is a I don’t believe that all the world’s HEP laboratory with the resources to under- facilities need be in the U.S. take the most important research. In Comments on Physics 170

• The Tevatron and LHC will hopefully • Naturally, the next big machine should cover much of the EW symmetry break- be in USA after Europe got the LHC. ing mechanism, but probably a linear • collider will be needed to do this accu- I think a warm technology e+e- linear rately. Given that there may only be collider should be built at Fermilab, with one such linear collider in the world, I a gamma-gamma option vigorously pur- don’t see any particular reason why it sued. should be in the USA. • It is not important for the quality of • The importance of placing a new detec- the SCIENCE that the next accelerator in the U.S., in my mind, is that tor be in the U.S. However, if the next of continuing to attract people to the accelerator is elsewhere, the U.S. will fields of physics in the future in Amer- cease to play a leading role. This may ica. The young adults just entering col- be inevitable, but will be unfortunate lege for the first time are the ones who for the careers of high energy physicists need to have a solid reason to expect in the U.S. work in physics, and their youth and • There are countries other than the USA. childhood should include exposure to HEP as something they could do when • The major reason I think it’s important they grow up - it is often seen too much to put the facility in the U.S. is per- as an endeavor which only some very sonal. I would rather do work at a lab few can participate in. in the U.S., so that travel would still be a N-day thing rather than N-week • The location does not matter much. Groups thing. working in large collaborations are already used to being located far from the exper- • A linear collider in Germany would cost iment itself (Tevatron and LHC for exam- the U.S. 1B$. If built in the U.S. it ple). Even if the new facility is not in would require 1/2 of the cost and, using the U.S., U.S. institutions can still have U.S. accounting, 6 B$. So we pay 3 B$. a very important participation in it (cf Saving of 2 B$ if done in Germany. LHC). • I strongly believe that U.S. should main- • If a new accelerator is not built in the tain leading role in high energy physics. U.S. in the intermediate (10-25 yrs) future, If no new major HEP facility is built in the field here risks serious stagnation. U.S. soon, that will be hardly possible. The senior scientists will travel abroad • to the experiments and important con- Michael Witherell made a convincing ferences and travel funds will be insuf- case for the LC, although I don’t think ficient for postdocs and students. The it necessarily should be at Fermilab, though field will be very unattractive to many I agree with him that it is important for bright young people. American science that it be in the U.S. • • Why do you want to know if it should It is important to take back the lead in be in the U.S.? Maybe people feel it energy frontier machines and therefore should be elsewhere. Anyway, to be to build an e+e- machine that comple- convincing I think we should work on ments and expands on LHC sensitivity our physics motivation and than deal to new physics. It is important that with politics. this machine be in the U.S., for obvious reasons. Comments on Physics 171

• The U.S. should try to take the lead on established earlier by the fate of ISABELLE, the next big step beyond the standard but not sufficiently understood by enough model, not the incremental approach of people at that time.) Ergo, the next the next linear collider. mmajor machine MUST be built in the U.S. if there is going to be a next machine. • It seems like TESLA is a great plan, This principle supercedes any other in and that DESY really has their act together. deciding what machine to build and where But, it also seems important for U.S. it is to be sited. involvement (and funding - Congress seems to like spending continously, rather than • If reduced financial support in the U.S. projects interleaved with times requir- continues, the best option may be TESLA ing no structural investment) that it be in Germany. There may not be Con- sited in the U.S. gressional support for any large accelerator project in the U.S. in the forseeable • The most important thing is the intel- future. lectual input into the subject. This requires bright students and postdocs. They are • If a LC is not to be built in the U.S. attracted by research facilities that enable soon, then it becomes important to sup- them to learn fast in a dynamic and port TESLA in Germany. challenging atmosphere, and contribute to the subject. The facilities need to be • Looking back at the decisions concern- accessible and not a continent away. ing projects and its seeming financial guarantee made in the U.S. in the last • To keep the field of HEP alive in the few years, I would rather pick an option U.S. it is obvious to me (even as a Euro- anywhere outside the U.S.! pean working in Europe) that the aim should be for a LC in the U.S. To reach • I would choose an e+e- collider. I believe the end of the Tevatron without the we should bid to host the machine in next big step in the U.S. planned would the U.S. but be willing to enthusiasti- risk to destroy HEP in the U.S. cally support it if it is sited elsewhere.

• Build VLHC in the U.S. please !!!!!!!!!!!! • Linear collider programme is an essential next step to complement LEP. It • Concensus seems to be that no country, would help world HEP if the collider including U.S., is going to go it alone for were sited in the USA in order to bring future big accelerators. Important that forth the next generation of particle physi- we plan for the possibility that it will cists. It would be a terrible loss to world be a long time before the U.S. has the HEP if the USA did not host a major frontier machine here. new project in the next decade. • Unless the next machine is in U.S., the • U.S. ﬁeld will collapse (by 30-50%). If I believe it is fundamental that the U.S. this happens, HEP worldwide will sim- always host a frontier machine...either ilarly shrink, although more gradually we should have the frontier linear col- (perhaps). This will threaten whatever lider or hadron collider, but if both are new machine is under construction, and outside the U.S., U.S. particle physics the SSC proved that big new accelera- will die. tor projects can be canceled once sup- • The U.S. should aim to maintain at least port for them diminishes beyond a cer- two accelerator labs. We have had BNL, tain point. (Actually, this principle was Comments on Physics 172

CESR, Fermilab and SLAC and that • Location of TESLA is unimportant. Build- has been healthy. ing a linear collider should be top priority regardless of location. • Some large physics experiments in Aus- tralia or Spain would be nice. Those • No machine in the U.S., have proven would be interesting countries to live in. not to give reliable schedules.

• As written earlier, the geographical loca- • It’s just a wish - I don’t expect it to tion is a non-issue. materialize. We will be damn lucky to ever see another facility in the U.S. • Benefit NOT being in the U.S. due to funding problems in the U.S. SSC is an • Let physics decide what is needed. Then example why not to have the next facil- build what is needed (no matter where, ity in the U.S. the point is that the best machine is to be built, again no matter where). • I spent decades working at CERN, so a facility doesn’t have to be in the U.S. • In my view the location of the next machine to be useful. On the other hand there is not as important as the question if it must be some facility in the U.S. or will be build or not. the field will simply die. With a career • The big worry is that if the U.S. does choice of ”this hole in the ground in not host a major new accelerator over Switzerland” or ”that hole in the ground the next 10 years, we will lose precious in Switzerland”, the field is dead. know-how and our technology base. That • Question 33: regional centers is an excel- will also contribute to the attrition already lent idea to keep more countries involved, taking place, especially with regards to so that it no longer becomes an issue the young people leaving the field after of nationalism (which is too often how their PhD or a few years of postdoctoral major programs are sold to the public!). work. But, by far most important, is Of course, I would like to see the next for HEP to come out with a clear plan big initiative at U.S./FNAL, however it for the future that we all should sup- is more important that we make a deci- port. If that means that my preferred sion that will move the field forward. option is not selected, that’s fine as long as there is a sense that the physics at a • Higgs is important only for the morale new facility is exciting and we will learn of the field. In some ways we’d be bet- a lot from it. ter not to find it, so we could start some • new theoretical work. The facility needs The U.S. should strongly support simul- to be in the U.S., again, for morale rea- taneous world-class e+e- and hadron facil- sons. ities – one of these two facilities should be in the United States with strong inter- • The next discovery is equally as likely national participation, the other should to come in any area. If a large new not be in the U.S. but it should have facility does not exist in the U.S. by substantial involvement and investment the end of the LHC, then the U.S. will by the U.S. as a fully committed part- become a third-world nation in funda- ner. mental physics. The sacrifice of any • major field of research hurts all science. I don’t see that the post-TESLA world by definition has to be in the U.S. It could be anywhere ! Comments on Physics 173

• It is very important for the continued generation of physicists. health of our field over the next decade or more to have some project in the U.S. 13.7.4 Survey-Specific Comments which is in a position to take a lead- on Physics: ing role in hep research. I am not sure whether this is an NLC type machine • Well, to question 30 and 31 I would or something else. This will depend have added neutrino physics, one choice heavily on the proposed energy of the is not enough. machine. To make this project really worthwhile will require a center-of-mass • The list of topics to choose from is very energy of ∼ 0.5-1 TeV, and at the present uninspiring. None of them are partic- time I understand that this is higher ularly important or compelling. There than what is being targeted for at the should be something along the lines of present time. Further, given the time- seeking the unexpected. For example, lines for other big projects like VLHC we need more young physicists to fer- or Muon Colliders, we need something vently believe that the standard model in the near term to keep our programs/ is poor and inadequate and have a physics facilities/ personnel in tact until such plan to research this particular topic. time as one of these big projects can • be designed and funded! What that I think your lists are too restrictive! What near term program is is difficult to say. we desperately need right now is to map There are proposals to upgrade the energy out the structure. Is SUSY there? What of the Tevatron ring to allow for a com- is the dark matter and energy? Extra petitive pbar-p program running in par- dimensions? These general questions allel with the startup of the LHC. This are much more important than the width would make sense if it could be launched of the Higgs or precision measurements! soon and have beams in a few years. • Most of the items on your list are impor- With an upgrade of the magnets to 12 tant and compelling. I hope we can T, the energy of the beams could be have efforts in all those areas. tripled and the CM energy raised to 6 TeV, which would give this machine • All of the science topics given in the a chance in competing with the higher list are important, so my answer is - all energy LHC pp machine. My feeling is of the above. We will do U.S. parti- that we need such a shorter-term project cle physics considerable harm if we try if we are to be able to make it through to specify one aspect of the field at the to the next level of new machines like expense of others. the VLHC, etc. • Question 31 is misleading: Flavor physics • The field needs to spend a larger per- and Higgs Physics might be two distinct centage of its resources on R&D for accel- approach of the same problem. GUT erators and other new technologies. This might become a reality → must do both! is even more important as the next-next machine will be even harder to build. • Again, a bit U.S.-centred. This shift in resources will delay the • Is this now a young physicists panel or next new machine being completed by a young U.S. physicists panel? a few years but is important for keeping the field alive beyond the current Comments on Physics 174

• ”REQUIRE a major new facility” – is weighting. There are three or four fields an inappropriate phrasing ... ”impor- that are important to the future of fun- tant” to whom – me, the field, the U.S.? damental (or particle physics) one of these is cosmology (broader definition • I find question 31 very ambiguous. I of cosmological constant), symmetry break- do however think that a new facility is ing, accelerator physics. Others such as totally necessary, probably an e+e- col- cosmic ray and neutrino physics while lider. topical are unlikely to produce a major • This is a naive and old-fashioned list. I advance in understanding frontier physics. cannot choose one of them, and I hope • I found your options TOO LIMITED most active people cannot. What are for a 10-25 year from now window ... ”exotic particles”? These will be radically different in that • Question 32: new with respect to what? era. I am driven by personal ideas angles is LHC seen as new here? Then yes. If on how to approach some aspect presently not, then, maybe. involved in CP physics, QCD, Gravi- tation wave physics, think hard about • Question 30: The list of options you EW sym Higgs notions; I want physics give tells me how bankrupt the think- and intellectual reach in a new facility ing in the field is. Would you think beyond the Regge Poles of our time... finding a 2nd cosmological relic excit- • ing? Question 31: The ”field” for is This section is ill-conceived. Clearly, investigations into the fundamentals of any thoughtful physicist would consider how nature works... the ”what’s it all the full scope of HEP challenging and about?” questions. For me the big one interesting. is a looking out from our lab’s to see • Why this last stupid question? I repeat: how the processes we’ve uncovered at U.S. is not the only country in the world!! accelerators are manifested in nature. • I am not sure that selecting one from • Question 32 is poorly written. Does the available options given in this sec- ”selected” refer to question 31 or 30? tion is particularly meaningful. • I think this is poorly phrased: instead • Questions 30, 31 – don’t think these there are perhaps two time periods to questions should ask for only one answer. consider ... one at 5-15 years and another Compelling and important have many at 15-25 (30?). It seems to me there are meaning, e.g. ”important” as ”neces- likely different physics goals and machines sary” is QCD, ”important” as ”essen- involved in these two periods. tial for the future understanding of HEP • I find questions 30 and 31 unuseful. There physics” is Higgs physics/EW sym. (as are a number of important subfields, and well as QCD). Most challenging? Less picking out only one does not fit with HEP-mainstream: neutrinos, cosmic rays taking a broad view of our field. and cosmological constant. • • You are missing supersymmetry in this This list had a large hole. It left out section! nucleon lifetime and other high-mass interaction signatures. • You should have allowed a ranking of the importance of the physics fields with Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 175

13.8 Picking a Plan and • I opt for the VLHC hadron collider at Finding Consensus the present time as that is the only ”next machine” that has a ”guaranteed” poten- 13.8.1 Selecting the Next Machine: tial for discoveries and reasonable time scale. • You assume a ”next machine”, but is it really the right path? Maybe we are • I believe that e+e- linear collider should just traveling on the paved road for lack be the next machine and to be built at of new ideas. Fermilab site.

• We very much need to prioritize on what • Brite neutrino source. is THE ”next machine” we want to build and promote that with the backing of • An e+ e- linear collider at cm energy the whole community. We can turn the of 500 GeV coming on in 2012 is obvi- focus on another facility after this is ously not at the energy frontier since approved to make progress step by step. LHC will have already been running at Trying to ”push” everything at once with- a higher equivalent energy since 2006. out priorities is a signal to the funding It is only a ”clean-up” machine. agencies not to fund any of them. • Focus on ONE big machine for entire • Snowmass is a rubber-stamping exer- world. cise that is meant to support the deci- • sion already made by lab directors to The highest c.m. interaction energy observ- build NLC. This is done in the absence able in the laboratory is the main value, of any other good ideas, particularly on to be recognized worldwide and pursued how to build accelerators. It ignores the with any limited budget. fact that not everyone in the ﬁeld can be • I am in the opinion that we should build on a BaBar sized experiment with LHC an e+e- complement to the LHC ... i.e., size costs. I voted with my feet and a 1 TeV e+e- machine. moved to Europe to do physics in the next phase. There will be no physics to • Ultimately physics output is very impor- do (and no money left) in the U.S. tant. So, theorists, phenomenologists and experimentalists should jointly decide • I believe that, owing to the progres- which experiment is most important and sively shrinking HEP budget, the focus build a facility according to that. in the accelerator-based HEP should be on a limited number of projects world- • The ”next machine” should be a Linear wide, among which mu+mu- ought to Collider. The important next questions be given the priority. As an advice to are: where ? and which technology ? young researchers, I am afraid that the job openings in HEP won’t be that numer- • I like the idea of the ﬁrst choice because ous during the few coming years. I don’t know if the muon collider or the VLHC would be better and it would be • Support antiproton physics. nice to have the e+e- here in the U.S. • I believe the only presently sellable machine But since we need world money, we got is the proton driver. Since we haven’t to go with world consensus on the loca- discussed why our dream machine, the tion. SSC, failed to be completed, how can we assume we won’t fail again? Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 176

• I think we should support TESLA in • The location is not important to me. Germany, with increased high-gradient Do the physics anywhere. accelerator R&D support here. Not sure • Wait for LHC and neutrino oscillations about muon collider. experiments results. Then decide on • If HEPAP makes a recommendation dif- LC, VLHC, neutrino factories and mu ferent than you would prefer, will you colliders. Expand R&D on all of the support the HEPAP decision? At this above, trying to reduce costs and main- point I think that consensus to back any tain diversity. Build a U.S. underground of the several very good options is more lab now. important than which one is actually • A muon collider would be comparable chosen. to TESLA, with the additional possi- • A Neutrino Factory should be built when/ bility of high intensity neutrino stud- if possible. ies. I think a machine like this would be useful AFTER a new discovery machine • A new linear lepton collider would be like VLHC. beneficial to the U.S. However it almost seems too late for it to happen. If TESLA • A new facility should be carefully designed becomes reality in Hamburg, the U.S. to have potential to evolve, or flexibility- community should strongly push for a which I think limits the appeal of the muon collider. In the meantime we need muon collider. Heavy investment should a decent underground lab, e.g. San Jac- be justified by long term pay out as into Peak. The future will see more well as academically rich opportunities. non-accelerator experiments and we don’t This ”richness” may be a mixture of want to miss that flight either. science and non-science opportunities. The HST, for example, is good for stu- • TESLA in Germany soon, and the next dents, physicists, and the general pub- generation linear collider (CLIC-like) or lic, too! muon collider somewhere. • While I understand the point of choos- • I think there should be a facility in U.S. ing options a point needs to be made. A that will start to operate approximately U.S. choice against a new e+e- collider when LHC program comes to an end. I located in the U.S. may have dire conse- don’t think the argument ”since LHC is quence for all other efforts. Politicians a pp-machine we should build an e+e- like the argument, ”If our international machine” is right (i.e. VLHC is a good colleagues did not think it was worth option too). As for TESLA in Germany doing why should we spend our money – isn’t that a decided matter already? on a project they considered not worth the investment.” I could expend much • TESLA in Germany soon, but VLHC more verbiage on this topic. and neutrino factory are not mutually exclusive (neutrino factory is much cheaper, • I fully support an NLC/TESLA/CLIC and goes to say BNL). somewhere, as well as LSC and VLHC. • In terms of cost and range of physics, I • I believe the choice of the next machine see no benefit to another linear collider. can not be made on a pure logical / I think that either the VLHC or a muon mathematical basis. My opinion is based collider in the U.S. are the best ideas, on my physics, politics and ”reality” the VLHC being the most plausible. positions. Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 177

• I think it’s important to have (at least) and put us back on the map of ”excit- one large facility in Europe and (at least) ing science” as far as the general public one in the US. I can’t decide between is concerned. a VLHC and a Muon Collider for the • U.S., but it is important to build TESLA TESLA is leading LC technology today soon. and should be built ASAP. I’m not sure that VLHC makes sense at all, but muon • I favor moving ahead briskly with a e+e- machines might open up new physics. LC; if that means ”cold” TESLA-like • technology, then fine. It does not have My own current opinion is that if the to be in the US, but it does have to have collective particle physics community decides reasonable ”expandability” in energy. I to build a new machine it should prob- am not sure what ”reasonable” is and ably be TESLA, since the NLC faces hope that Snowmass can better deter- some really difficult problems that in mine this. the short term are difficult to see the solution to. Personally, I don’t really • I think the VLHC is the most impor- care where it gets built. However, for a tant thing we can strive for. This is the next generation machine, to really probe energy frontier and I find it very excit- the energy frontier, I think we should be ing. I would rather pursue this than the thinking muon collider, for the future. NLC if I had to choose only one, but • reality is such that I think the NLC has We should propose an e+e- linear col- to be build first or we wont be able to lider in the U.S. at Fermilab ... take a form an international consensus. Any global view of HEP ... decide between new machines (NLC, VLHC) will have this machine and TESLA (perhaps a to be built by an international collab- new concept comes out of this) .... con- oration because of the cost (although I struct 1 machine. note with some interest that the expan- • Question 42: TESLA where-ever soon, sion to O’Hare airport will cost the U.S. upgraded to accelerate muons in a multi- taxpayer six billion dollars, and no-one TeV muon collider; followed by a facil- is batting an eye...if we could attack the ity with a 200-400 TeV VLHC in an VLHC with the same enthusiasm that adjacent tunnel to a 100 TeV muon col- we had for the moon shot, for example, lider, and also with a 140 TeV mu-p col- we could do it ourselves). We need to lider. Eventually a 1 PeV linear muon get the public excited about this kind of collider if this turns out to be feasible. physics, and for this I think the VLHC is a much easier sell that the NLC (every- • Let’s get on with it. one can understand the concept of search- • ing for something where no-one has looked Question 41 is ”definitely no”. A muon before, its much harder to explain to collider sounds really cool (low synchrotron people why precision measurements of radiation, clean collisions, high energies). theoretical quantities is exciting (some- I have no idea, however, how the muons thing I have been trying to do for years). could be relativistic enough to be ”stored”. Bottom line: I think the NLC will do The value of a VLHC depends on what important physics that needs to be done, discoveries are made at the LHC. but the VLHC will be much more excit- • A neutrino factory in the U.S. would ing. I think it could revive the sense also help !!!! of excitement that drew me into HEP Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 178

• A large facility for the study of rare cos- feasibility and cost that the linear col- mic ray physics or neutrino physics that liders have. We must look past the cur- may open a window on new physics at rent problems and questions, progress high energies. can be expected in the intervening decade (or more) before a new facility will become • Too old to have a word on that (66). available. Our goal should be to explore • From a physics point of view: Is the the new energy regime as carefully and Europeans want to build TESLA the completely as possible. U.S. should join the effort, but US should • I don’t think we should push for a facil- also push a new machine at the energy ity that we are unlikely to get funding frontier. I would like to see a muon col- for. lider but I do not know how far away this is. VLHC could be an alternative. • We do need an electron collider b/c of If the Europeans cannot bould TESLA the importance of a broad-based approach. without U.S. funding than forget about And we need a VLHC to maintain the it and make sure plenty of money into HEP program in the U.S. This is a diffi- research for the next 10 years. It is cult question, b/c we don’t really know clear that TESLA is much better than what we’re looking for. On the other NLC therefore I do not consider the lat- hand, we can’t really afford to wait and ter an option. ¿From the politics point we don’t have the luxury of being as of view: Here location become impor- broad as would be ideal. CAN we do tant! Europe is becoming leader in par- the TESLA/VLHC approach or is even ticle accelerators. A particle accelera- that too expensive? tor should be seen as a microscope and • Assuming there are a few billion dol- therefore this technology is crucial for lars available to build the next machine, the economical development of the U.S. we must make sure that this machine It is also crucial for the image of U.S. If will be able to adequately address ques- we know for sure that Europeans can- tions relative to physics beyond the SM not build TESLA than U.S should push (whatever it is). Having little or no a new frontier machine in U.S. and for- information on what is beyond the SM, get LC. If the Europeans can build it it is hard to build a machine that we anyway than the U.S. should make an know will be able to address the rele- effort to have it here. Particle acceler- vant physics. It may be necessary for ator and frontier physics are much more demographic or political reasons to go important to the U.S. technological supe- ahead with the next machine without riority (and therefore to economy) than knowing what lies beyond the SM, but the Missile Defense project is. I would as I said, the physics case is not con- like to see this stated clearly to the politi- vincing. cians. • With TESLA now being built in Ger- • There certainly should no be duplica- many we have, with the LHC, I believe tive facilities. The planning and the all we need for the immediate future construction should be done globally – in terms of ’main stream’ HEP. A neu- but with a lead country etc. It is very trino factory sounds very interesting as important that the requisite R&D be does a muon collider and I would like done on the other options. The other to know more about both and would be options appear to lack the credibility of interested in seeing them developed. A Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 179

VLHC is a definite longer term acceler- Physics and probably unveil new ones. ator but we need to see the results from Therefore, although a lot of technolog- the LHC first and give the theorists a ical obstacles are in the way, it seems chance to chew on them for a while to fundamental to build a muon storage have an idea of what to look for at even ring, with higher priority than an LHC higher energies. I think what we really upgrade, I would say. need though is a better way of acceler- • ating particles: accelerators (and hence I think TESLA is the best choice for collaborations) are becoming too big. the next e+e- machine. I would like to see it built in the U.S. because that is • No collider physics anymore. where I live and work - a purely selfish consideration. • My opinions are current options are most strongly influenced by current level of • My comments are biased by working funding. Now is not the time to con- on the VLHC design study for the last sider new facilities. Now is the time to few months. But I have a much firmer working on improving current (or cur- opinion now that a superferric magnet rently being built) facilities and research VLHC is technically feasible. TESLA programs. appears to be closer to being ready than NLC. I believe there are still lots of tech- • My choice for HEP would be: Energy nical challenges facing a muon collider, upgrade for an existing hadron collider maybe a neutrino factory is easier. (VLHC) and continuous research for a muon storage ring/collider. NOT an • I do not think the Germans will let TSLA e+e- collider since it cannot discover go easily to the U.S. Why should they? something that LHC cannot find. If the U.S. had developed TESLA, would we let it go? Would we have built the • I think it is important to keep a facil- TEVATRON in Hamburg, after making ity running in all major labs. The U.S. the magnets work?! with Tevatron starting up just now and BaBar only on for a short time with • The choices are strongly coupled to (geo) possible upgrades coming, do not need political situation. What country can/ a new facility soon while DESY does. is willing to host what accelerator. What Building the next facility after the lin- is the impact of a particular choice on ear collider in the U.S. is the best option the other accelerators, i.e. does one for me. particular choice then exclude other accelerators? • A muon collider should give much cleaner events than the VLHC; however, I would • Given that Congress is preoccupied with also support the VLHC. (Fermilab would other matters the likelihood of a new be a great place for either one.) I don’t project in the near future, started by see a need for a post-TESLA linear col- 2005 is small. Better to have a more lider. complete picture of what to build and HOW before bugging the Congress for • This will be the outcome of Snowmass the money. ... anyone want to take me up on a bet? • TESLA at Fermilab now, with a neu- • Muon storage rings will provide means trino factory at CERN. to probe intriguing aspects of current Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 180

• My answer to (42) is based on what I • It seems clear to me that the maturity would like to have happen. Realisti- of the physics goals and the technol- cally, however, I would say that a LC is ogy strongly indicates a linear collider more likely to be accepted politically for as the next step. construction within the U.S. The pro- • posed 1st stage VLHC is too similar to A LC is probably necessary. However, the SSC. I’m afraid that Congress has even if built in Hamburg, it won’t come enough of a memory to realize this and on line till 2012 (50 fm-1). This is 5 would not support it. years after the LHC will be running. Is the Higgs width going to be the cut- • The neutrino factory/muon collider is ting edge question then? It may be necessary for the field. Mapping out the important, untangling SUSY stuff may MNS matrix is just as important as the be interesting and necessary. However, CKM matrix. I also think linear collid- I think that it would be a disaster com- ers are not the right machine to build mit the long range HEP program in the from a physics standpoint. The case is U.S. to the construction of an LC in this weak and the payoff is possibly zero. country. The physics is limited and is When you don’t know what you will that of measurement rather than map- find you should build a hadron collider ping out the grand structure. at the energy frontier – LC’s are then • the best thing for followup. I have read TESLA in the U.S. soon. many of the documents for the LC’s • I would emphasize ”soon.” TESLA (not and the physics case is wishful thinking TELAS!) can be built now; CLIC is far at best. Furthermore, e+e- machines in the future, and the NLC still requires don’t have much of a future because of more R&D. the technical problems. If we knew how to build a muon collider now I would • The above choice is really rather arbi- support starting that as my first option. trary as far as physics goes. The impor- It would be intellectually new and chal- tant thing is that we have an LC some- lenging and MC’s are the beginning of where ASAP and that the U.S. remain a road, not the end. What we should major players in HEP. I have invested do in the U.S. is go for a muon col- considerable effort in TESLA in Ger- lider + VLHC and let the Europeans many, hence the above answer, but would build TESLA. The problem is that we happily have TESLA (or NLC, CLIC is essentially ”skip a step” and I’m sure a generation down the line) somewhere DOE + Witherell are concerned about if the above two conditions are fulfilled whether that will kill U.S. HEP. Ratio- in that case, but not with TESLA in nal people can disagree on how much to Germany. weight that vs. the second-class physics • case for TESLA. The NLC is a joke, We should pick anything that people the technical plans make zero sense – will fund. Of course, right now nobody at least TESLA will work. is funding anything. • • TESLA or NLC soon; Major underground 400 GeV circular e+e- machine in the lab in the U.S. Involvement in astro- U.S., followed by a (probably European) physical studies using satellites and ground- > 1 TeV e+e- linear collider and a (prob- based facilities. ably American) VLHC. Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 181

• Upgrade the Tevatron Collider to 3 + 3 the LHC experiments. The only viable TeV (i.e., build the Tripler), then pro- long-term plan for honorable U.S.-based ceed to build a site-filler ring at Fer- physics, I see is a p-p type machine with milab to accommodate the then best- energy >> than the LHC. Anything else available magnet technology. This is is/will be back seat to Europe. more sensible than to propose a $9B • project on a new site that will likely I am uncertain what the best move is. not be funded and will most likely be If I had to choose ... I guess I would go strongly opposed by the public. This with TESLA in Germany and a muon field of study needs to gain some com- collider/storage ring soon. mon sense and come to realize that there • With the present price tag, we cannot is much to be gained below the energy afford any of these machines. frontier. • Regarding 42, one might want to cede • TESLA in Germany. FORGET the NLC!!!! the muon storage ring and associated Putting our ”eggs” in the NLC basket is R&D to another region. the least interesting thing (with current proposed parameters) that we could pos- • I think the start of R&D for the next sibly do. Continued work on VLHC major (post-LHC) collider should be start- and the neutrino factory/ muon collider ing very, very soon. I do NOT think (with R&D in the U.S. for now). Because that this collider should necessarily be the timescales for ”turn-on” are some- in the U.S. The future of HEP is a lot what different, I believe that the HEP more important than in what country community as a whole can maintain VLHC it’s going to happen. and Muon programs, but we need to • allow for the possibility that both of The problem we face is the following: those programs may not be U.S.-based. an e+e- machine at 500GeV or so has so little reach and is so expensive that • I work on CDF. I am also working on it’s usefulness can be questioned. The ATLAS, only because the SSC was trashed VLHC can’t be seriously designed until out 8 years ago by the U.S. Congress the LHC tells us where the next scale of (but we (HEP) deserved it, since the physics is expected to be, and so can’t SSC was badly mis-managed by DoE, be started until e.g. 2009, and finished URA and at locally at Wachahatchie, perhaps in 2020. By that time all young Tx). There are many in the interna- high energy physicists will have left for tional HEP community interested in build- more exciting fields! Finally a muon ing an NLC. Only one such machine collider is a good idea (since its reach should be built. It would likely get built is high) but noone knows how to build far sooner if it was built in Europe than one. Thus we face a serious problem here. Post-LHC, I seriously doubt there that seems to have no easy solution. will be any significant physics discov- • ered at the NLC that wouldn’t already TESLA in Germany soon is the option I be long known from LHC experiments. choose, independent of whether there is For similar reasons, building a muon a VLHC or a Muon machine afterwards. collider in the U.S. is stupid. By the That question is probably the subject of time it becomes operational for the first another survey ;-) time, it will be extremely unlikely to compete with physics results coming from Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 182

• Not very convinced of answer 42). Pick- vs. X-band) as soon as possible. We ing a plan should be done with the max- have wasted a tremendous amount of imum consensus hopefully without any money on NLC R&D and we are still other criteria than physics. not ready - obviously bad management or the wrong idea - stop throwing more • TESLA in Germany, with small U.S. money at it. Since the 500 GeV e+ e- financial impact. Stop the SLAC-FNAL linear collider is not a forefront machine, competition and get on with (probably) it will be very difficult to convince any an e+e- linear collider. Forget the muon government to spend $6B. The only pos- collider. sibility is a full international collabo- • I think the TESLA should be built. We ration building the accelerator. Best need to work on the problems of the to make Fermilab an international lab. Muon colliders, neutrino factories. The Even this is just ”bells and whistles” - VHLC will never be built. but there is a constituency in Europe (not in the U.S.). We have to convince • TESLA in the U.S. soon (no other LC them to come to the U.S. - not so easy. option). The NLC people are not the leaders in the highest energy e+e- colliders - there • I have actually participated in work on are North Americans who are/were lead- each of these options. These are not the ers in the LEP2 searches - why are they only options. It’s important that we not active for the NLC? - must be a rea- identify the scientific imperatives that son! We need to continue to do serious face the field, and pursue each of these, R&D towards neutrino factory/muon col- not just a select few. I see no need for lider and VLHC - this could lead to a linear collider. The muon collider or a future forefront machine in the U.S. a VLHC may be relevant in the future. The neutrino factory/muon collider offers However, a great deal can be accom- a very rich program with physics at every plished with existing facilities, and with stage - this should be seriously pursued!! cosmic rays. We need more creativity, and less dependence on large, expensive • The physics requires an e+e- soon. TESLA facilities. is a superior accelerator to NLC for up to 1 TeV. Getting the U.S. back on the • I have been around for many years. The energy frontier requires a VLHC at Fer- lab where I did my PhD thesis closed milab. And CLIC will be CERN’s post just as I finished. I worked on an SSC LHC project. KEK starts now on a experiment for many years and am now neutrino factory based on JHP with detec- in an LHC experiment. Mostly I have tors in Asia, Europe and/or the U.S. done e+e- physics, at three different labs in two different countries. My own expe- • TESLA soon in Germany with greater rience, plus discussions with others, has effort in U.S. put towards Muon Col- most affected my current opinions. I do lider and VLHC-and perhaps more into not think that any 500 GeV e+e- will be novel acceleration techniques. a forefront machine. We already have • the LHC coming on in 2006. After that I think that TESLA can ”clean up” the has been running for a few years, we discoveries made by the LHC, much the will know more. I think we can plan for same way that LEP did after the SPpS a 500 GeV e+e- machine, and that we experiments at CERN. To quickly explore should choose the technology (TESLA the next frontier, one needs to explore Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 183

at higher energies than the LHC. I strongly given, I think. believe that if the United States wants • to have a prominent role in HEP, it must TESLA soon, reserve judgment other- have the VLHC built here and invite wise. international collaborations to form the • VLHC at Fermilab should be built next. experiments. Whoever builds the facility, will be perceived as the principal • A joint Europe + Japan + U.S. effort player and leader in the field, whether to build the NLC in the U.S. would be we (physicists) like it or not. I real- ideal, but I don’t think you can con- ize that this statement is more politi- vince the Europeans to commit money cal than scientific, but ultimately, that when the U.S. Congress could cancel will be the driving argument that will the project at any time. move our congressional representatives • to build the VLHC built in the U.S. TESLA anywhere in the world ASAP. Continuous research in all other fields. • Given the immense amounts of money No decision for a new machine after first we’ll have to ask for to build ANY machines, LC before first results from LHC. and the fact that any precision mea- • surement machine (LC for instance) should I learned about the NLC, TESLA, VLHC, be tuned to exploring the physics that is and muon collider from many different discovered by LHC, it seems ludicrous sources. However none of this infor- to me to start building a machine that mation changed what my first 2 opin- may not be able to measure the discov- ions were. Which are A) now is not a eries! The proper course from a science good time to build a big machine here in standpoint is to figure out where the the U.S., and B) that the ideal machine new physics is with a discovery machine that we should ultimately build (many (LHC) and only THEN to build a pre- years from now) is a neutrino factory/muon cision machine (an LC). Simultaneous collider. with construction of that machine, we • This is a tough call. I am not enthusi- should start ramping up for the NEXT astic about the funding prospects, so it discovery machine. And so on and so is hard to be serious about the choices. forth. It makes no sense to spend money We need to go after realistic targets, on a machine when you don’t know any- but in trying to choose based on the thing about the physics it will be study- expected physics results, keep in mind ing. that none of the Nobel Prizes that resulted • I have looked at the LC very carefully. from any of the existing facilities were The case is not perfect, but still strong. even vaguely hinted at in the original It seems to me to be the best combo of proposals to build those facilities! This scientific value, technological readiness, is what I call the ”Columbus Effect” – and political feasibility. Given that it i.e. tell me first what you will find and should (and probably will) be done, I then I will tell you whether or not you would like to U.S. to lead instead of fol- get the jewels... Columbus got the jew- low. els by promising Japan... • • A new LC (TESLA,NLC or JLC) some- One major machine of each type in the where in the world soon; continue research world; more efficient international coop- for VLHC. This option should have been eration; machine priority: 1. TESLA in Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 184

Germany 2. neutrino/muon factory in to a linear collider will be any different? U.S. or in Europe or in Asia 3. VLHC If so, why? in U.S. or in Europe 4. muon collider • in U.S. or in Europe. In the next 10 years the muon collider may succeed in solving its many prob- • I believe we should be choosing between lems but at this stage, we know how scenarios, NOT simply a specific machine. to build an VLHC. We need to work I believe the U.S. choice risks being sui- on cost reduction and on public accep- cidal in the absence of parallel discus- tance. sions in Europe/Japan (i.e. despite the • lip service to internationalism, this pro- A linear collider somewhere, and con- cess is clearly national. while that is tinued R&D in both VLHC and neu- naturally a Congressional perspective our trino factory/muon collider. deliberations need not be so restricted). • Bill Foster summed it up rather nicely • Response to question 42 involves a guess today. Alas, he has a stake in VLHC ! about funding. But facts are facts. • • Three feasible projects, three regions: If Europe is willing to fund TESLA they how complicated can this be? should. There is guaranteed interesting physics in the SM to observe. If • Definitely research now. TESLA in Ger- the U.S. is willing to fund any of the many makes sense since it fits their pro- options, it should do that. If Japan gram well. I think that there are a lot of wants JLC it should find the funding. open questions on Muon collider/neutrino All options are good, and the more we factory but it has a very attractive fea- learn in the next decade, the more cost- ture of offering physics at various points. effectively we can choose. We must have Here I think that we should implement enough other options to maintain the physicists doing accelerator and parti- size of the HEP community. cle physics at the same time and with • that get rid of the 2 cultures. I dont see TESLA in Germany soon and some other how NLC fits into the U.S. program of hadronic machine later on somewhere tevatron/babar followed by LHC. (CERN?) • • This is very difficult because this is really I would improve several fields of the HEP, more of a political decision than a scien- not only the very high energy. I find tific decision. The linear collider will go interesting the asymmetric colliders. – if it goes at all – to the country most • TESLA in Germany seems the most likely willing to put up the money. I think way to get a 500 GeV facility soon (which that TESLA in Germany is much more I find very important). A muon stor- likely than an LC in either the U.S. or age ring is very attractive, though very Japan. One of the reasons for this is challenging. It might be that VLHC the fact that DESY has brought the is after all a technically more realistic synchrotron radiation community into scenario. More research I think should the picture in a major way. We need be done before finalizing this step – but political allies which we do not have in I am convinced we know enough to go the U.S. – remember the opposition of ahead with a TESLA like facility. our condensed matter colleagues to the SSC. Do you think that their reaction Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 185

• Question 35: All of the above is essen- CLIC is not a feasible option for 10-15 tial! I picked one answer more or less years) in the U.S. because it would be randomly. I know a bit more on neu- most personally attractive to me (not as trino factory, since I joined that effort much travel, etc.) But the most impor- since its inception, however, we still have tant thing is to build it SOMEWHERE. quite a bit of work to do to optimize the I’ve come to this conclusion through almost cost vs physics. I was not charged to do all of the routes mentioned in the ques- extensive reviews of these project, and I tion above... reading, talking, listen- am not informed enough to make a deci- ing, working, thinking. To the extent sion. However, let me point out that all I think there is a consensus in our field, Collab. have still extensive R&D to do it’s not ”LC good, VLHC bad”. Rather, before they can spend wisely a few bil- I think it’s ”LC now, VLHC later”. I lion dollars... also think that ”LC never” means ”VLHC never”, ”neutrino factory never”, ”future • Unless the linear collider can be made of our field never”. We simply cannot to be near 1.5 TeV so that it comple- defer addressing important questions for ments the LHC, I would advocate going another 10-15 years; people will leave, directly to the VLHC. A super LEP in universities and labs will wither, public the VLHC tunnel may be a better way support for us will erode. In order to to do the physics of the NLC (e.g. a make the LC happen, the project will Higgs factory). In any case, a 240km have to be realized in a truly interna- tunnel for $1B would give at least three tional way. Failure to do this was one options for the future; low-field and high- of the major mistakes of the SSC. Look field pp, and e+e-. at the consequences... if the SSC had • My choice is TESLA SOMEWHERE worked out, we would *already* have SOON. Where depends on the best like- found the Higgs, maybe SUSY, extra lihood of adequate funding. dimensions, etc. Instead, the best the VLHC people can do is offer us the SSC • Hold for the muon collider, focus on in 2020, the obvious difference being that LHC and neitrino physics and RD for the LHC will have been running for 14 muon colliders. years already, which makes the value added by a 40 TeV machine much less • An LC would be useful to supplement apparent. The real usefulness of the the LHC physics program, but the cost VLHC lies in the high-field 200 TeV of a LC is too great at this time to jus- extension, which may happen around tify building a new machine that is only 2030. So in my opinion the VLHC is supplemental – that is, until we know out of the question as a realistic near- more about any new physics that may term option. Machines happen when appear at the Tevatron or LHC, we are three factors come together: 1) A com- not justified in asking ordinary people pelling physics case; 2) A critical mass to spend their money on a new machine. of worldwide interest, necessary to gar- I also worry that its energy is too low ner financial support; and 3) accelera- to cover all the new physics that may tor technology capable of doing the job. be found at the LHC. Politics and soci- Only the LC has all three of these in ology seem to be the major reasons for place at this moment. WE can help starting now, not physics. make it happen. Let’s do it!!! • I picked a new LC (TESLA or NLC; Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 186

• My only reason for not picking the muon • I think that we should proceed with the collider as the next U.S. machine is that TESLA design. I think probably Ger- the research is a long way from com- many is the best location to get to the plete. We can begin to build the VLHC physics in a timely manner. However, I within the next few years so as to have am not clear on what the next facility it within 10-15 years. By the time that should be for the U.S. I think that one it is up and running, we should be build- solid possibility would be to emphasize ing a muon collider. I believe that there several smaller projects (e.g. SuperBeam is every reason to believe that we will at either BNL or FNAL, SNAP, Under- always need discovery machines. ground Facilility– with nucleon decay experiments, perhaps a double beta decay • TESLA seems to be attractive but I am expt.), along with extensive R&D, which for a more conventional e+e- collider along with the above projects, and a (keep it simple). globalized TESLA, should help to pre- • That is the wrong way to look at it. I serve the infrastructure of the labs. buy Wagner’s thesis that all potential • I think TESLA is the obvious choice, players should bid on whatever is on but I don’t have a strong opinion on the table. The chances (based mainly where it should be based. Regarding on politics) that any work out is small the technologies beyond TESLA, it is enough that we should maximize the hard to tell, since most of them still OR of the probabilities at each oppor- need a few years R&D work. tunity. (I think that there is only one on the table at the moment. It might • I would advocate a TESLA-style e+ e- not have been my first choice all things collider at Fermilab, knowing that the being equal, but they are not.) odds of raising the money to do it are very slim. • - muon storage rings of interest and deserve R&D - muon colliders a dream .... - • We need to stage the muon neutrino VLHC deserves real work as one day it factory: a proton driver, muon cooling will be needed. and finally muon storage ring. Several top of the line experiments will be per- • I don’t know enough to make a reliable formed at the end of each staging, like judgment; however reflecting on Thurs- the muon EDM at the end of the muon day night’s forum, I worry that if one cooling stage. By the end of the muon doesn’t build something, one could lose storage ring stage we will know whether the interest of students. But it should we can build a muon collider or not. be something that leads to important discovery, otherwise that will also be a • 35) Fifty years of experience in this and turn-off. Very novel accelerator design, related fields. There is, at this meet- as well as other directions in which to ing, an attempt to stampede the herd go, could help a lot here. into pressing for a 1.5 TeV linear collider. This might, if successful, wreck • TESLA at Fermilab, with strong (> 50%) this field. European influence: in this way, Euro- pean physics (phenomenology) has the • I think that Germany should host the chance to become more popular in the next electron collider but not based on U.S., where fashion plays a major role. the TESLA model. Rather a more easily expandable model should be used Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 187

to extend the possible lifetime of the also worried about betting our future machine. I feel that the VLHC should on assuming Congress will give us 10+ be built in the U.S. using the existing years of funding without changing its infrastructure at FNAL. I think that mind. the problems with clean beam inherent • in a Muon Collider need to be studied Ideally, we would already have been con- much more and on a time scale beyond structing a LC as LEP is being torn what is most easily feasible at this time. down, to complement the physics we’ll However, it would be a good candidate be doing at the LHC. For as much polit- to replace the electron machine in the ical and social reasons, the next ”big” future. machine needs to be in the U.S. • • 200 TeV is a very nice number. Most I consider first option as the best one for young people enter HEP for its poten- U.S., but I chose third as a most real- tial of discovering something new about istic and not bad for U.S. too. Unfor- our understanding of nature. The VLHC tunately, U.S. lost leadership in ”col- is the machine to fulfill those aspira- lider physics”, by loosing many talented tions. shooting for a discovery machine, ”phenomenologists” in recent 5-10 years over what is essentially a measurement (by giving jobs to string guys). The machine, is more akin to the dreams current situation shows that USA is far that got us into the field in the first behind Germany in ” physics study” (I place. participated last 10 years in LC communities in Germany/USA). I am sure • The choices presented above are too restric- next all major discoveries will be made tive. If Germany can swing the fund- in Germany in the next 10-20 years. ing for TESLA, they should do it, oth- U.S. became an ”astrophysics/ NASA” erwise we should wait for TeV II and - nation (which is not bad at all). Tax LHC to tell us whether it is needed and payers in U.S. will buy strings ”science what the energy should be. We should fiction” only – and that is a tradegy build VLHC after LHC results become of U.S. physics. Even leaders of U.S. available. We should continue muon physics community can not find courage R&D with goal of proposing neutrino to say that ”string theory” should be factory once the design is more solid considered as mathematics and it is not and better optimized. Linear Collider related to physics. Only heroic Veltamn in U.S. would be a 20 to 30 year trap says ” .. this stupid and senseless string that would doom us to precision mea- theory ” (final talk on ”SPACE AND surements and delay our regaining the TIME ...” conference in Ann Arbor). energy frontier. Fortunately, there is Europe! Go Ger- many, and build LC-TESLA. Go U.S., • TESLA in Germany soon, CLIC (e+e- and build stringy ”faculty positions”.... multi-TeV) in U.S. or Europe. • Given that we double funding over ten • Three strikes, and we’re out. We missed years (which we need to ask for, not for on Isabel, SSC. I don’t know what the us, but for the kids in high school now), answer is, but if we miss one more time, we should build LC and neutrino fac- I’m afraid it’s the end of our field. Any tory, either in U.S., Europe, or Japan, machine we build must have a good dis- with international participation. covery/cost ratio. We can’t bet our future on a single model (eg., mSUSY, ...). I’m • TESLA in Germany with major U.S. Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 188

participation and a very long term plan a 1.5 TeV c.o.m. energy that was tun- for another machine in the U.S. would able by a factor of 10 I would be all be the second option. for it. This would be an energy frontier machine with discovery potential • I think the field needs at least an e+e- that I could support. Otherwise, I think collider, and probably a larger hadron it defies common sense to build a pre- machine several years down the road. I cision machine (e+e-) before we know would like to see HEPAP make a strong where the new physics is. Muon Col- statement that we need to start on these lider and Neutrino factory are nowhere projects immediately. Stagnation is death! near technically ready to be considered • Importance is that a e+ e- ala TESLA, in the category of near term ( next 10 at present the only technology ripe for yrs) machines, and I think it makes sense early start of construction is built with to wait for LHC results to indicate where a time-overlap with the LHC. It will be the next frontier energy scale is before the LHC and e+ e- collider complemen- building a VLHC. tary which in my view view will advance • It’s mostly driven by what time scales HEP most in the near future. are achievable. But we may have to face • A lepton collider will be needed as Teva- only having one working machine at a tron II comes to an end, whatever the time, probably alternating continents. results are. Given the funding climates Meanwhile, I will look at astro/ under- in Europe and the U.S. a linear collider ground/ cosmic for shorter timescales. is more likely to get built in Germany • IMHO, construction of VLHC and the - particularly if it stops, in my opin- muon machine in the U.S. are not mutu- ion, wasting so much money on HERA ally exclusive. which is not going to tell us anything new. • Having soon a linear collider in U.S. (SLAC) and Europe (DESY), running • Question 38 would be more amusing if possibly during LHC. Focus in parallel ”too much” were one of the options. on the development of a muon collider In general, I’d say that I don’t know (with its associate neutrino and muon enough about anything. factories) both in Europe (CERN) and • On question 42: the best option is to U.S. (FERMILAB) and maybe also Japan. develop an international plan; TESLA Think of a VLHC after LHC prelimi- in Germany and VLHC in U.S. is likely nary results and also after precise elec- to have international appeal. However, troweak results at linear colliders). other options may arise and the U.S. • All choices face daunting political chal- should work with international labora- lenges. We need leaders who can unite tories to choose the best option. the field and present a coherent strategy • Cancel the e+e- machine, support LHC to governments and funding agencies. as much as possible, go to muon collider • TESLA in Germany offers a very good as quick as possible opportunity to forge the first real inter- • TESLA is the closest to a machine I national collaboration. It also fits the would consider worthwhile, however, the available HEP budget in the near term. c.o.m. energy is too low. If TESLA had We really need to increase R&D in VLHC Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 189

and get on the stick with public out- further interest and should be funded reach. enough to keep them as future options.

• 1-1.5 TeV, high luminosity linear col- • Question 41: guess I know enough to lider in the U.S. - superconducting or make up my personal choice, but cer- not is not an issue. It’s the energy and tainly not enough to advocate a partic- luminosity that matter. I think the 500 ular future vision in the HEP commu- GeV case is a bit overstated. nity (which requires a lot of political, sociological and infrastructural thought). • The muon collider option has received too little attention, while the neutrino • TESLA in Europe (looks like Germany) factory has received too much. At the NLC in the U.S. as well possibly a bit moment, we don’t really know if a detec- later VLHC at CERN after this. tor can do pattern recognition at a muon • collider – I don’t think a neutrino fac- One might prepare for TESLA type machine tory is worth building if the muon col- in U.S., Germany or Japan. I would lider that is unfeasible! So can it work postpone a definite decision until results or not? I don’t buy into the idea that from LHC are available. the field will die if we don’t choose an • In my view, given the prospect of LHC option right now today. I think we will at CERN, the combination of a next know more in a relatively short time linear collider with a neutrino factory and I don’t want to bet all my money would be the ideal combination for the until I see my last card. The LC options next 15 years. In order to realize these won’t go away, in my opinion, and the projects without major delays within VLHC and MC options become more the available resources, the combination mature. What’s a few years to wait to of TESLA at DESY and a muon stor- make sure we get the right machine for age ring (eventual muon collider) in the the right price? Let’s see if that Higgs U.S. would seem to me to be an ideal is really where the ”true believers” say combination. If realistic, the option of it is. a linear collider in the U.S. (with DESY • CLIC in the U.S. makes no sense. there as a regional center) and a muon stor- should also be more research into muon age ring at CERN should be seriously colliders, both in Europe and the U.S. considered as an alternative. VLHC is an option which should be pursued on • A linear collider very soon anywhere in a longer timescale. the world. After first LHC data decide • upon the next step(s) i.e. LC upgrade/VLHC/muCResearch on a VLHC should be continued but a decision prior to first LHC • There is a clear need to come to the results would be premature. Hence, con- realization that we have to choose our centration on an experiment complemen- next facility in this country. Our inter- tary to the LHC is adequate. One such national collaborative stance is well doc- exciting alternative would be a muon umented by our LHC participation. The collider but it could probably not be Electron Linear Collider is technically realized on a time scale less than 10 well enough advanced to propose it to years. As for linear electron colliders: the Government. It is complementary my personal preference is the TESLA to the LHC. Other projects should receive concept Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 190

• I think that also TESLA in Germany covery machines. In terms of discov- soon, with to goal of an eventual muon ery reach, a 500 GeV e+e- collider is storage ring/muon collider in Europe is about 1/3 of LHC. The case for a LC is a valid option. based on Higgs and other new phenomena (such as Supersymmetry). Unfor- • TESLA includes more options than com- tunately, neither has been seen. There- peting designs (FEL, fixed target, pho- fore, it is important that we wait for ton beams) and is technologically far Tevatron/LHC results. sexier. A muon collider (likely to be located at Fermilab) would be an excit- • The rest of the world (Asia and Europe) ing option for the post LHC time. The is converging on an e+e- collider. It’s tendency of internationalization in our about time that the U.S. should start field should be continued, with TESLA uniting behind the LC project and be a being a ‘world laboratory’ and not a truly global player. German or even European facility. BTW, • the same should apply to any future Europe financial effort on LHC is already large scale facility in the U.S., which large. A new e+e- collider is the only includes that the nature of National Labs realistic and true complement to LHC in the U.S. and the control by the DOE for the next 15 years. also should change (by about the time • TESLA in Germany, a possible next next the muon collider comes along). generation collider based on the results • I think one of the main point to keep of TESLA and LHC. the field alive and moving is not to let • The answer to question 42 requires a too much time pass between different lot of political maneuvering (ie, is not project. So my opinion is that an LC determined solely by science). (TESLA) should be built somewhere as soon as possible to complement LHC. • I believe the U.S. economy can and should Where it will be built is less important, support two machines in the U.S. We even if I think Germany is a good place. should build an e+e- machine now and a post-LHC VLHC. We should continue • TESLA soon, muon storage ring in Europe research on other options, like a muon (Europe, because only Europe will guar- collider, as well. antee that the construction process will be stopped like SSC) • It will be important to have an e+e- complement to the LHC, and I think • TESLA/NLC might well be the last machine it is important for the image of U.S. that the HEP community can build in science that not all HEP take place in the foreseeable future, maybe we should Europe for the next 20 years. know some results from LHC before finally deciding how to spend our money. • But the best current option is TESLA in Germany, with VLHC in the U.S. • International collaboration is a must! • I certainly agree that the e+e- collider • TESLA in Germany soon with future program is timely and very important neutrino study facilities anywhere. (as a LEP physicist over the past 15 • The linear colliders (TESLA, NLC) cur- years). But, to me, the high-energy rently under consideration are not dis- frontier is still the most exciting and intriguing. Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 191

• A linear collider soon, it doesn’t mat- experts in one area of physics/ exper- ter where but considerations should be imental technique/ technology. Rela- made to the future funding scenario. A tively few people are spending most of consensus from the worldwide commu- their time educating themselves in areas nity should be a top priority. Simi- where they are not experts. So most larly for future generations of machines, of us are not developing the expertise VLHC, neutrino factories, muon collid- and knowledge to make the critical deci- ers, etc. sions. You should be very wary of the results from this survey, especially those • I am very discouraged by HEP. I wish which are opinions about what should there was a better exit path. All that be done next. talk about good training for other fields was bull! • I think that there is too much focus on just increasing energy. I believe the • It’s not clear to me what the succes- field needs to think about more creative sor to TESLA (NLC) will be (VLHC or ways to investigate phenomena. The muon collider). This will be affected by limits of economics seems to imply that technical possibilities. I don’t think we eventually we won’t just be able to build can judge this conclusively at this time. a bigger collider. Also it seems that I think it is *very* important that the many of the interesting theories such as U.S. HEP community can form a con- string theory will most likely be forever sensus on what they want. Comparing out of our energy range for direct exper- TESLA and NLC it seems clear (at the imentation. We need to come up with moment) that Wagner is doing a much new ways to test these very high energy better job of planing, promoting, and theories. pushing than anybody in the U.S. • Question 36: I assume the question is • We have, and have had for a number of related to the state of knowledge NEEDED years, a major opportunity at Fermilab. now. I do not know a lot about the We have not taken it seriously. muon collider, but it is quite sufficient • Although I have some familiarity with to know that is is not a serious option all of the proposed machines, and with on the current time frame. VLHC is a the physics issues, I do not know any- messier case. It is certainly not a viable where enough to form a sound judg- option in the 10 year frame; it is sensi- ment. Furthermore, I would guess that ble in the 25 year frame. very few people in the field have a suffi- • Building an e+e- machine in the U.S. cient overview of the physics and detailed should be of the highest priority, fol- understanding of the options to make lowed by neutrino physics and particle an educated decision. Asking people astrophysics. VLHC and muon collider at Snowmass, or other respondents, to are at present fanciful, and should not express an opinion is potentially dan- divert resources. gerous; it reminds me of student coun- cil elections in high school. They were • TESLA soon, because the field is behind popularity contests only peripherally related in having a new facility on the hori- to any substance. Most of the people zon. A muon storage ring/collider next at Snowmass are experts in their own because it seems to hold the most promise brands of physics, and highly partisan. for a variety of physics topics. And Most of the working groups bring together Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 192

because a VLHC seems too much like • Neutrino source in the U.S. with under- the SSC for political reasons! ground lab for experiment.

• Tough choice - there are technical prob- • We really need to access the highest lems everywhere, but the big hurdles possible energies. are going to be political and financial • - not clear that the world is ready for We need to assess the readiness of each this, whether or not we are. proposal, recognizing the work accomplished and remaining R&D needed. The • The cost, effort and time frame are still countries should commit before site selec- too large to justify another LHC $-class tion with an agreement on the proce- facility. We need to be cleverer at a dure for selecting a site. The host coun- time of fiscal conservatism, and power, try should be asked to pay a larger por- CO2 concerns. tion of cost for the privilege.

• A future machine at the energy frontier • Muon collider is not yet ready for seri- will not be ours unless we can restore ous consideration, though it may be 5 funding and growth to U.S. HEP com- years hence. Neutrino Factory as interim mensurate with our ambitions. project at Fermilab is worthwhile as a ﬁller if possible. • There is strong public support for TESLA in Germany. TESLA seems to be a solid • In my opinion, the linear collider is a design and well advanced. wrong path to persue.

• Start soon several upgrade programs; • I don’t think that a linear e+e- collider do strong research in accelerator physics; is the right choice for the HEP future, build soon a prototype NLC collider able because: - its physics is too much depend- to produce several Giga-Z and wait for ing on LHC outcome. Any reasonable the LHC (or CDF) to tell if there is an government would ask for waiting LHC Higgs how we now believe it should be, results; - it is almost a one experiment how many of them, which mass(es), etc machine, which is bad for sure. before building the ”major” next facil- • ity. I don’t think the puzzle of electroweak symmetry breaking is simple enough that • Non-accelerator experiments are more we will completely unravel it either by interesting to me at present. pure thought, or by the LHC alone. We need the complementarity provided by • I think it is clear that a new LC soon a lepton collider, and the e+e- linear will help us a lot. It should deﬁnitely collider is the only proposal which can be built at an existing site to make use be carried out in the time interval we of existing infrastructure etc. Whether need it, the next ten years. Therefore the site should be in Europe or U.S., it should be our ﬁeld’s highest prior- I can’t judge really. For longer range ity. We should not, of course, foreclose plans I think we need more research and research into other types of accelera- more information before we can really tors, since further developments in accel- evaluate ... (At least I do). erator science will be required to go beyond • It is important to strengthen the neu- the LHC/LC era. (CLIC is one such trino research in the U.S. option; I don’t think research on it is at the stage where it can be built ”soon”, Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 193

though it may make an excellent ”after- no matter where and how it occurs, out- burner” or higher gradient version of a weighs the good of fostering U.S. sci- TESLA or NLC, exploiting the same ence. tunnel.) • I’m young yet, and feel that there are • My primary emphasis would be on NLC some significant advances in accelera- and muon storage ring for neutrino physics, tor physics on the horizon that could with equal emphasis on each. Whichever let us leapfrog to high energy acceler- technology is ready sooner should be ators without the enormous size which the choice for the next facility, but with- can put off not only the general pub- out diminishing effort on the other. lic, but scientists who might work on such accelerators. That said, we need • Its stupid to consider VLHC before the to maintain enough experiments at any LHC even turns on. The world only given time to keep the population of needs one e+e- collider, and whether trained HEP Physicists up. I think a it is in the U.S. or Germany SHOULD very good argument can be made for NOT MATTER. The TESLA design is building a new collider here, or being not ideal in my opinion, but we should sure the U.S. works in a major way with definitely not have both NLC and TESLA TESLA or CERN on these grounds alone. unless the baseline NLC design energy significantly exceeds the maximum TESLA • Do we need VLHC anywhere in the world? energy, and they definitely should not We should look at micro-, nano- scale to run at the same time. find a bigger picture. Big doesn’t solve everything. • Fermilab needs a big project soon after 2006/7 but VLHC is not yet mature/well • I would amplify on my response, but I defined enough, VLHC may also not said ”definitely no” to my any credibil- be interesting enough in the starting 40 ity of my response. TeV range =¿ only e+e- remains, it is • that simple... I would choose a proton-antiproton machine at intermediate energies to study all aspects • I would support U.S. participation in of low energy QCD and the origin of JLC or TESLA as part as an overall mass. plan that included a future facility in • the U.S. I am more comfortable with a We have to minimize the cost and maxi- NLC or JLC option. We didn’t need 2 mize the utility for other (nonHEP) physi- B factories, PEP-II and KEKB, and it cists. We should also make sure the would be a disaster to repeat it with 2 budget for the new machine does not or 3 linear colliders. kill smaller HEP research eg fixed target and astro-particle experiments. • My answer to question Item 42 above is • based on 3 assumptions: 1.The German 1) A linear e+e- collider [ 1TeV] some- Government will proceed with TESLA where, some technology 2) A neutrino in a timely matter. 2. Compared to factory 3) R&D on CLIC, muon col- raising funding a U.S. NLC, it will not liders, VLHC Time scales: LC needed be too hard to persuade the U.S. Gov- operating around 2010-2012 NF needed ernment to provide some U.S. $ for TESLA. operating on similar timescale, may be 3. The overall good of fostering science, later multi TeV lepton collider unlikely before 2015-2020 VLHC? unlikely before Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 194

2020 [no real physics case sustainable ala Sputnik: ”We’re falling behind! The until 2007-2010, except ’higher energy, U.S. needs to reassert leadership!” possible surprises’]. • I think that we should encourage Ger- • Muon collider is the highest priority. many to build TESLA, and reserve judgment on what to do in the U.S. for a few • TESLA in Germany or elsewhere soon, more years. It’s hard to believe that if otherwise R&D but no decisions to actu- the ”US doesn’t make a bid to build ally build another machine until first TESLA, it won’t get built”. On the data from TESLA (and possibly LHC) other hand, there seem to be more folks allow to target the scale (and, hopefully, interested in building TESLA abroad the most promising channels) where new than here. One thing I don’t under- physics shows up more precisely. stand, though, is how many non-FNAL • All the mega-projects should only be folks want to build or do physics at a pursued, IF there is enough money left VLHC. for small machines to do precision mea- • I like the idea of a VLHC in the U.S., surements and keep the community active. because we have the real estate for such Students need data, the field needs data. a machine, while other countries may A muon collider is a wonderful dream, not. However, I am ambivalent about unfortunately the time is not ripe. I do the idea of ”staging” such a machine, not believe it can be done right now. because I am not sure one can make Simply blowing up current ideas and a case for 40 TeV. (Incidentally, if the technology should never be done after U.S. administration has any memory, LHC. Actually LHC is in my opinion they will think that this is just the SSC the wrong way. again, and it will not fly. That is another • There is a strong (though not airtight!) reason to just go straight to 100 or 200 case for a linear collider already, and or whatever.) TESLA is the most advanced design. • Answer to 42 could have been just as So, if we need to begin the campaign easily TESLA in Germany with muon for a new machine now, TESLA is the collider in U.S. best option. My personal ”best choice” would be TESLA soon (either in U.S. or • Regarding question 42), I think the VLHC Germany) with continued research into is more likely to work and produce good VLHC and perhaps muon colliders. physics. The location of an e+e- collider preceding a higher energy hadron • I do not see that VLHC and a muon or muon collider is not crucial. collider both being built in the U.S. are incompatible – the muon collider might • The important thing is to build a Lin- be built in such a way as to ”slip under ear Collider somewhere in the world. A the radar” of the major-project mental- good VLHC should be developed. (40 ity. It is important that both be built, TeV, L=1034 parameters of SSC is not and at least one be built in the U.S. Per- a good option for VLHC). haps the best method (in a consciousness- • raising mindset) is to temporarily allow 10 years ago, while I was a student, the leading U.S. facilities to slip off the I was surprised to hear that U.S. was frontier, and then panic the Congress starting SSC, and Europe was planing LHC. In my mind I could accept that Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 195

only if we expected one project would • A TESLA like facility (e+e- linear col- fail, otherwise, we should aim at one lider) somewhere in the world soon. The project, putting all effort together. Years community must then decide, based on later, this became true, U.S. joined LHC LHC data and data from current accel- project, and dropped SSC, after a lot erator upgrade programs, what the longer of lost in human sources and money. In term goals of the field should be. the future, I hope all physicists in the • world can join their force together, and I can’t say which item has most affected don’t limit them self by their citizenship my opinion. I know little about the of a certain country. specifics of the proposals – when my experiment ends I leave the field (see • 42: A TESLA-like machine somewhere, above) so I haven’t made an effort to not necessarily in Germany or in the keep up-to-date. But in terms of physics U.S. Your options all tied TESLA to reach I support a TESLA like proposal Germany or weren’t specific enough about with e-e e-gamma, gamma-gamma and the choice of technology. synchrotron radiation.

• TESLA-in-Germany is not so much a • TESLA in GERMANY soon. A muon preference as an acceptance of the likely or VLHC collider anywhere in the world coupled with the need to then plan for after LHC has been in operation for a the next facility. few years.

• The most important ingredient needed, • In your wording... VLHC starting now to formulate a policy for the future, is This is what we do well and know how an understanding, among the lab direc- to do... at whatever level TESLA or tors and the HEP community, that short- JLC/NLC as possible ...Can’t be our term compromises and sacrifices are needed, whole field And the proponents gotta to assure a long-term future. go to work ON THE MACHINE not the detectors ( a las SSC ) till 0 - 2 • Any of the options 2,3 or 4 or combi- years any idiots can built detectors the nations of them would work. Nothing machines are everything. wrong in pursuing the TESLA in Ger- many and think of next collider facili- • An e+e- collider is essential as a part- ties in the U.S. We can also make the ner to LHC. It is clear that such a col- judgment later when time is more appro- lider is on the near horizon. VLHCand priate and we know more about how to muon colliders are much further in the achieve those goals (muon collider etc.) future. Considerable technology development is needed for these to be suc- • It is completely clear (an objective truth!) cessful, and their physics programs need that what we need is a new e+e- collider better definition. a la NLC. We can no longer afford to do a lot of ”consensus building”, yet, we • I do neutrinos but most people don’t. must have a consensus on that. I would I think we should go with the physics go so far as to say that the consensus most people find interesting, even if it is more important than what particu- slows me down a bit. lar facility, and a consensus that doesn’t • have too many nay-sayers causing trou- VLHC, let the e+e- options duke it out ble down the road. But as I said, it is between themselves. clear what the facility should be. Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 196

• I think it would be nice to work on in exchange for their support for the something besides TESLA or VLHC. VLHC in U.S. Sure, somebody has to do it, but don’t • expect me to stand up and cheer for After having stopped SSC and joining either, since they will come at the cost LHC the U.S. are well advised to go of other options. for the next big machine and not wait for the overnext, which might take very • Why list CLIC as an option for ”soon”? long to come. CLIC is a post-LHC option, surely? In • any case, I’d advocate a new e+e- machine TESLA in Germany soon, a muon col- on a short timescale as the priority (which lider wherever it is favorable to build it is then a choice between TESLA and (why the hell should it be in the U.S.?). NLC). I’m absolutely neutral on loca- • A muon collider would be extremely nice tion. I would prefer to reserve judgment to have, but I don’t think it will become on what should come after that. operational before I retire.. • Do everything. Lobby to get the money • TESLA in Germany. Makes no sense to we need to do it. Consolidating is severely build such a machine with little involve- hurting the field in my opinion. ment of the inventors and spiritual lead- • I do not buy the complementarity sales ers. Further there should be somewhere pitch as the history is there for all to a big proton machine developed. Forget read. Plus the enormous cost of an e+e- the U.S. nationalism. Build it where it collider is not justified on physics grounds. can be build best. Maybe CERN. Then I opt for a very large tunnel populated decide what you need at a time: low with an e+e- collider initially and the energy muon machine, Muon collider, VLHC following 10 years of LHC oper- neutrino factory, spallation source, ... ations. This scenario satisfies a multi- • Leave out TESLA, go directly for a muon tude of physics and physics community collider. Also: any new accelerator should goals. be a BIG step. It should be an interna- • First, make shorter e+e- LCs at two or tional collaboration. U.S. versus Europe more places. After the qualification of type of thinking has to be abandoned. them by experiments, extend one of this • TESLA in Germany, but in any case a to the higher energies. ep and eA linear accelerator (ELFE @ • TESLA in Hamburg does not allow the DESY). investment in the infra structure (tun- • As I mentioned in the previous section, nel) to be in 20 years for an upgrade the LHC will need to be backed up even- at higher frequency. As far as we know tually, but we should wait to have some today! The consistency of the soil north results before designing a new e+/e- machine of Hamburg might not even be good such that it can be optimized to the enough for TESLA parameters. We nee new interesting physics/energy. Mean a ”Lehman” review for TESLA. while, other searches should be conducted • I support to start focus the future effort such as on the dark matter... in the U.S. on VLHC design. If Ger- • JLC in Japan and possibly muon col- man government approves TESLA, the lider/VLHC in U.S. U.S. HEP community should support Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 197

• I believe that we do not know enough upgrade to a multi TeV machine (2.5 now to build anything except TESLA, TeV or so) is feasible both technically which the Germans have brought quite and financially. Although a 500 GeV far. I believe that it is too soon to try to linear collider is certainly useful for EW get an international mega-project in the (and possible SM Higgs) precision mea- U.S. To tie the future of the linear col- surement, the energy required to study lider to the U.S. political process at this possible new physics will only be known time is foolish. It will delay things by after several years of running at LHC. years! The SSC is still strongly in the Neither TESLA or NLC can guarantee minds of Congress, and with the tax cut such an upgrade right now thus R&D it will take several years to set things should continue. back in balance. We should support the • Germans on this one, and do the multi- 1) The next machine should allow a vari- year ground work for a future **inter- ety of experiments. E.g. should not national** project in the U.S. later. make neutrino physics impossible. Even though the main direction is/should be • TESLA in my eyes is a very good machine EW symmetry breaking. 2) The deci- but can not cover all available physics, sion should be based on scientific argu- so pp physics too is a topic to be cov- ments. 3) The new machine has only ered. In my opinion e+e- and pp com- to start up after LHC is done. To have plement each other well enough to sup- again experiments stopped in favor of a port both. new machine is a disaster (LEP/LHC) and only hard to explain to the public. • Start building a staged neutrino factory At the moment the community is any- NOW. Proton driver/super beam tech- way moving from hot spot to hot spot. nology is as ready as anything else. The near startup of a new machine leaves • We should take the fastest and most the old experiments deserted without technologically advanced track to get us fully exploiting there capabilities. The the physics regardless of machine loca- decision should be based on results gath- tion. Because of this, I think TESLA ered by Tevatron or even LHC. Then is the best option for a linear collider. the necessary energy range is known(?). They are technologically and politically The project should be expandable. Until farther along than the NLC collabora- a final decision is taken R&D should tion. There is no reason not to con- continue for all possibilities. A start up tribute to their effort. time of 2020 is not too bad. I would think that the U.S. would deserve the • Obviously the U.S. would like a new next machine. But the labs can learn facility (post Tevatron). CERN will be from CERN how to build an interna- busy with the LHC, and I think TELSA tional organizational structure. is the best candidate for a linear col- • lider. So a VLHC seems to be the best Working at intermediate energy physics option. Unfortunately I do not know accelerators I think TESLA as a multi- much about neutrino factories or muon physics machine is highly desirable now colliders. but I cannot judge which other machine should be installed in the U.S. as a post- • A linear collider should be built as soon LHC machine. as possible (the location does not mat- • ter), but only at the condition that an I do not know enough technically to Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 198

choose between TESLA and and x-band There are compelling arguments for sev- e+e- machine, but I know enough to eral locations. I also think that we should understand that we need to build an plan for a VLHC in the post LHC era e+e- collider and we need to start imme- now. And continued R&D into muon diately. VLHC, neutrino factory and colliders. I also think that a neutrino muon collider should all be studied, but factory should be considered. Finally, those that imply that any of these options let’s not neglect the low energy machines are viable in the next 10-15 years are for beauty and charm physics. misleading us. An e+e- machine does • not preclude any of those machines. TESLA is a well worked/shaped project and fills a gap between accelerators and • A neutrino factory might be an afford- physics projects. It was conceived in able domestic project in the relatively Germany , it might as well be built there short term. and the efforts and man power should be turned in the U.S. to VLHC with • A 500 GeV NLC will have less energy some participation (if possible) to TESLA. than LHC and is probably not justifi- The physics prospects does not justify able. Muon collider - we do not know another LC. The experience needed in how to build. VLHC needs a new method accelerators to make the gap for VLHC as SSC has shown us not to be work- might be gained from TESLA and the able. other existing projects. As far as physics • A thorough physics program of the LHC and detector developments, U.S. should + long baseline neutrino experiments participate to all the ongoing projects now. An e+e- machine soon (US), fol- those in America and abroad. lowed by CLIC + muon collider at CERN • later. Also need to pursue a near-term program of diverse physics at the national • Bring back the SSC. labs and universities.

• I am for an e+e- collider somewhere • Rebuild the university programs and look in the world. The Germans/Europeans for new ideas while we wait for results cannot afford TESLA by themselves, and form Fermilab and CERN. Pursue R&D I seriously doubt that American fund- on the muon collider, VLHC and other ing agencies will commit enough of a new technologies. contribution for yet another machine not on American soil. On the flip side, if • In order to balance the field it would a non-TESLA option is built in North probably be the best to build TESLA at America, I doubt whether the Europeans Fermilab. Building it in Germany, how- will then commit enough funds. It seems ever, could be realized on a shorter time one of the few ”workable” (politically) scale (which I think is very important) options is to build a TESLA type design and chances for getting major funding LC at Fermilab. However, I remain con- from the German government seem to cerned about the present top design energy be better at the moment than from the of TESLA of 800 GeV. We need more U.S. government. headroom in energy expandability (i.e., • This option: - politically more feasible; to 1.0-1.5 TeV) to ensure the physics. - it gives optimal distribution of basic • I do think that we need a LC soon, but facilities around the world. I don’t know where it should be located. Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 199

• TESLA in U.S. or Germany, as soon • This is a somewhat curious question – as possible. Continued R&D in VLHC yes, I’d like an accelerator in the U.S., and neutrino factory/ muon collider. but it’s ultimately a political decision, • and not ours. If Congress decides we As noted above, I am not as concerned *won’t* build one, I would put all my as to the type of facility. I do believe weight behind TESLA. I will send in that research needs to continue with or more comments separately, thanks. without a facility to continue pushing the frontiers with the latest technology. • I think TESLA should be given the green Personally, I have worked with hadron light/funding to go ahead in Germany colliders so I would like to see more work ASAP. The U.S. should stop its R&D in that area. In the larger picture, con- budget on this and look towards the tinuation in some form is the most impor- next generation. Maybe best to wait till tant piece of the puzzle. after the LHC turns on to see whether the way forward is VLHC or muon col- • An unspecified LC (i.e. TESLA, NLC, lider. But whatever, we must ensure etc) in an unspecified location (i.e. Ger- that the lessons from SSC are learn’t. many, U.S., Japan, etc), with continued studies on other facilities without • Because I am distracted by my duties specifying what they are or where they to the BaBar collaboration and by my should be situated. The available choices responsibilities within my group struc- (except ”other”) couple the near term ture, it is difficult for me to form any and the long term in ways that do not opinion about any one technology or always make sense. They also couple site due to the simple lack of time to physics driven choices (e.g. LC) and conduct the research. As a physicist, I politically driven choices (such as loca- would be a fool to claim I could form tion) in ways that are not universally any opinion about any of the proposed accepted. I suggest that they be split projects. apart if there are future surveys. • I want to see the most productive global • A second choice would be TESLA in physics program evolve. This to me Germany with a vigorous program of means that there isn’t any duplication smaller efforts (e.g. neutrino) in the of the largest accelerators. Most impor- U.S. tant, though, is for us to take advantage of all possible funding streams. If the • Furthermore, I favor the warm technol- German government is really willing to ogy, as I think it’s the most promising put up $2B towards TESLA, the debate and I think reach in energy is the most should be over and the U.S. should take important thing in the end. them up on the offer and participate • A combination of many of these items while taking the bulk of the U.S. pro- rather than simply one alone. gram money and spending it on other efforts. If we push ahead for a U.S. • There should be a viable physics pro- LC so hard that the German project gram in all regions of the (particle physics) fails, then we will have kissed off a huge world. There should also be a viable influx of new money which will then not physics program in B physics, neutrino go into particle physics – and the world physics and astro-particle physics. A program will be poorer. decision on a next LC must keep these two points in mind. • If you count responses, I have to say Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 200

mine should count as 1/2. I am con- U.S. What German in his/her right mind flicted. Whatever we do, it will take would want such hard-won technologi- 15 years and I strongly want a strong cal advances/innovations to become a domestic accelerator based HEP pro- reality in another country?! While I gram while we are constructing it. don’t advocate that we pilfer their technology, and I don’t think we should build • I do not care where the collider is, I NLC (it’s not remotely ready yet..nor would like it to be built and physics be has site preparation been done in earnest), done there. It should be a linear collider I do think we should participate in TESLA first, then ( without a doubt!) a VLHC- if the Germans build it. If they decide type machine. against the project, then perhaps we • See above and my answers in part VI. should try to build it here..having given I’m basically an astronomer; I haven’t them the chance first. I also think build- even taken a course on Standard Model ing two linear colliders in the world would particle physics. So I don’t feel qual- be a mistake. So, assuming that Ger- ified to say which accelerators are and many will build TESLA and we will are not good for the rest of the field; my participate, we still need forefront activ- comments in part VI above are based ity in HEP in the U.S. This is why I only on the suspicion that engineering chose the path to a muon storage ring. difficulties will eventually prevent accel- This path offers much diversity and the erators from getting to energies where ability to step toward the final goal in some fantastically interesting things are specific, physics-rich, well-defined, not- happening (esp. quantum gravity). I exorbitantly-priced stages. A proton driver encourage particle physicists to explain as the first stage would provide a great to me, as a non-expert, the advantages deal to the neutrino physics community of their particular brand of collider and (as well as the hadron collider folks if why I should fund it with my tax dol- built at FNAL). It could also provide a lars. lead-in to the VLHC if that path were eventually determined to be the best for • Although it was not an option, I don’t the field. care where the LC is built and would • like to see continued research in VLHC So much depends on the unknown fund- and muons. ing and political climate, that the choice is not simple, and may have little to do • I am very skeptical that the taxpay- with what I consider the most desirable ers will be willing to come up with the machine, the NLC. amounts needed to build any of the pro- • posed machines, especially if the scien- No new facility. tific community is not unanimous in its • I came to Snowmass ready to support a support. linear collider with the TESLA design • It has become clear to me that TESLA in Germany with continued research in is far more advanced in technology, out- VLHC and muon collider. After attend- reach, budget, and politics than either ing the consensus building presentations the NLC or CLIC. It also seems quite I find that I can NOT support a lin- likely that TESLA will be built by Ger- ear collider because the physics is not many. And I don’t think it makes much there. The linear collider has the same sense to try and build TESLA in the discovery potential as the LHC and it Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 201

comes 5-8 years later. The statement precision). Cut that ”in the U.S.” crap was made that the LHC will discover - who cares, R&D is spread over the things and the linear collider will be world already, so jobs are not the issue. needed to understand them. I can not ”If we fund, we want it here” is ridicu- believe that we will sit around for 8 lous, too: Physics is decentralized, and years with discoveries that we can not so should its labs be. It’s participation understand. It would probably take much that counts. Nobody can buy physics. less money and time to fund theorists to • figure it out! I find giga Z physics rather There could be unsuspected surprises in boring. If there is nothing new in the the next decades that change future pri- reach of the LC then it will have been a orities. terrible waste of money - at the expense • Given the time lag between experiments of many small experiments. This is not and to keep many aspects of HEP viable, a risk I want to take. I think small it is clear that one would like to begin experiments which cover a wide range construction of a new facility in the next of topics are the best way to keep a few years. However, I personally do not healthy field and to keep young people know which type of new facility would interested. offer the best chance for discovery or • Linear collider in JAPAN. The U.S. is illuminating an existing problem in HEP. too politically unstable to entrust with In the time between now and the first such a large project. (Remember the data coming from the LHC, it is not SSC!) clear to me that the parameters of a new facility can be adequately deter- • 42) GSI-proposal of an European heavy- mined to best optimize the physics out- ion-facility. put of the facility. I have listened to arguments from proponents of each facil- • A new e+e- machine somewhere ASAP. ity and have trouble comparing the physics With continued research for the next reach of each facility on the same foot- step. ing. What is clear to me now is that • TESLA in Germany is also a good idea without consensus of the whole field and (but without a new project in the U.S., attending support/ mandate from the the U.S. laboratory and university pro- public, an aborted attempt to construct grams will shrink. – TESLA in the U.S. a new facility will likely mean acceler- may cause the German program to shrink, ator based HEP will suffer an unrecov- but perhaps less so due to the close prox- erable contraction worldwide. imity of the LHC). • Wait a while after hearing results from CDF and B-factory and even LHC if 13.8.2 Decide to Wait: necessary. It’s good time to decide after 2005, I believe. • Wait for first results at the LHC (Higgs • + SUSY), THEN decide if we need a With the LHC starting in a few years, VLHC (only if s/th unexpected comes it is a bit early to be lobbying about it from LHC). Muon ring (don’t underes- yet. Thinking about it, yes. timate R&D + costs!) and TESLA is • Will the findings from LHC affect the too much for a 30 year period, but we choice? need TESLA ASAP (for Higgs + SUSY Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 202

• Seeing what Run II and LHC tell us is worked out at the governmental level. important before commiting to the next By this I mean that an organization big machine. should be established which will be funded through international treaties and that • After LHC, the field may take a direc- would have the ability to manage the tion that we cannot guess at this time. construction of new facilities whenever An even higher energy of say 10 times and wherever they are required. more may not be very productive. • The LHC results are very important to • LC physics is not compelling for such a decide for the future. big machine unless relevant discoveries are made in Run II or at the LHC. • Don’t think that waiting a few years and then joining/building major facil- • I think the field needs to focus on deter- ity is possible – what will young par- mining if there are one or more Higgs ticle physicists do if we are going to bosons. This may be done (or started) wait 5 years to spend 2 years decid- in the FNAL Run II program but cer- ing to spend 8-10 years building col- tainly will be carried out at LHC. I think lider? ”Wait 5 years” is tantamount it is a bit premature to think about the to eliminating HEP as a major compo- ”next” accelerator although the advent nent of U.S. science program. Would of LHC brings the question to the fore- rather decide honestly that we are going front in the U.S. If anything, the ques- to wind down than pretend that we are tion underscores the tragedy of the SSC! going to wait. • I believe that we need the results from • Perhaps we should wait for the physical at least Run 2 at Fermilab before we results of approved, but not yet started can make an intelligent choice for our projects to see which way to go. next option. • Catch-22: If you don’t start now, you • I think before we seriously start talking won’t be done ”in time” but right now about a neutrino factory or VLHC, it you don’t know enough to know what would be good to finish and get some would be best. physics results from the neutrino oscillation experiments that are now in the • 1. The environment for international stage of construction and from LHC- cooperation needed for projects of the a,b. TESLA is good, but we need a new magnitude of an e+e- collider or a VLHC facility in the USA. So for me this is just does not seem to be in place. Therefore, a choice of NLC versus muon collider. I impractical to embark on such projects do not know enough about muon collid- now – since it appears that no single ers to estimate the potential of such a country can fund these devices. 2. The machine. But NLC would be undoubt- physics case for precision studies of elec- edly very useful. troweak symmetry breaking is not yet strong enough to start construction. As • I would not proceed on any expensive an experimentalist, I think there should new accelerator without doing the fol- be more tangible evidence for new physics lowing .. 1) TESLA/NLC should wait before one contemplates high-precision till we know exactly where the Higgs measurements. For example, astrophys- is. 2) The logistics of establishing truly ical detection of WIMP’s whose charac- international collaborations should be ter is supersymmetric would be a tremen- Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 203

dous boost for the case for an e+e- col- built in the U.S. to ensure that there lider. HEP should be doing much more is a strong HEP community in the U.S. to support astroparticle searches that Without the next machine in the U.S. would have a critical bearing on our I believe that the slow demise of HEP future accelerator program. 3. In the (at least in the U.S.) is inevitable. mean time, nature seems to be provid- • ing us with very strong encouragement I think that research into all of the above to study neutrino physics in much greater options can continue however until the detail – with particle accelerators. While results of Tevatron Run 2, LHC and the the total cost for a complete program is B factories are well understood it seems fairly high, we are fortunate that neu- a little early to make a final decision. I trino physics can be approached by incre- also just make the point that all of the mental investments. Therefore, I rec- above options only offer a ’final’ deci- ommend giving higher priority to facil- sion as being built in the U.S. There are ities to study the neutrino sector this other countries in the world and there decade. is no real reason why a new experiment has to be built in the states. • If I were the person who makes the final • decision, I would spend many months Recent RF breakdown problems encoun- learning the issues before deciding. This tered at the NLCTA and at CLIC cloud is a serious question that can’t be answered the choice between normal and super- by a gut feeling. conducting collider options. More work is clearly needed. TESLA currently appears • Despite all the excitement, it is much quite viable, but upgrading much beyond too early to worry about what I’ll do 1 TeV is not at all viable, so it appears next. The best options will/ may get to be a short-term solution with no good ignored - the politics of the field will upgrade. The muon collider remains probably override other considerations, at least 30 years in the future. With so it’s more efficient to do my current the big tax cut and a science-hostile research and await a decision. president, the funding climate for a big machine is lousy. We should use the • While the desire to build a new machine remaining 3.5 years to do basic acceler- is in keeping with a long and enormously ator technology development and make successful program of exploration, the a vigorous pitch to the next administra- costs, both human and financial, have tion. If the Germans forge ahead with risen to a new scale. I am not personally TESLA in the interim, fine. The need convinced that going ahead without a for a serious machine reaching beyond better idea of the physics to be probed 1 TeV will remain. Make no judgment is appropriate. The concern for a U.S. this year– the options are not completely facility, as opposed to a truly interna- understood. tional one, I have little patience for. Yes, it is personally difficult to work in • Unfortunately, politics will play a major Europe (for example), but I think this role so we also have to consider what is is a small sacrifice to make if we want possible and what is safe for the field. If our fellow citizens to come up with bil- we spend a lot of money on something lions of dollars in research support. which proves to be uninteresting, then we are in real trouble. I do not think it • I’d like to say reserve judgment but I would be wise to push for an early LC also think the next machine should be Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 204

in the U.S. I said VLHC but we should building the next machine. The day we reconsider in a few years. know the Higgs mass we can design the proper apparatus, before the risk of a • HEP faces the problem that the length machine slightly too small is too big. of time to create a new facility is much See PETRA. longer than the characteristic time for the extension of knowledge. Hence, one • The field should decide and converge on is reduced to guessing and gut biases; a machine to support now, not reserve the standard of knowing what physics judgment for several years. you explicitly hope to learn driving design • choices cannot accommodate the present There is a lot of things which has not rate with which HEP physicists want to been understood yet about the matter build new machines. and I don’t know if after the LHC another big project will be a key is this under- • The answer - fair amount, but need to standing. That’s a lot of money so we know more reflects my opinion of the need a discovery to push a little bit higher state of understanding of the commu- ... otherwise nothing will come from nity - we don’t know enough to make a that. firm positive decision for these options. • We choose the next machine to find the • HEP-community comes into the same answer, but we don’t yet know the ques- waters which led to the extinction of tion and we can’t afford to ask the wrong dinosaurs 67 My ago: too big and too one. I think we need to wait at least little flexibility. We should wait for a for preliminary results from Fermilab’s few years with our next decision; TESLA Run II before deciding on the next machine is coming too early (for a number of rea- to pursue. It would be nice to have sons). Nevertheless, it has to be decided LHC results as well, but the lead time now (or soon) in order to keep the field needed for building a machine might going. The projects are getting too big not permit this luxury. for the community. • Either VLHC or muon collider depend- • It is too soon to tell. Need much more ing on results from LHC. careful studies about physics objectives. • Based on physics motivations let Teva- • I have a popular level exposure to the tron and LHC run for a while and then issues pertaining to future accelerators. decide. In the mean time R&D for accel- I would like to reserve my judgment for erators and detection methods should future. continue. • It is very difficult to make decisions for • I would choose very differently depend- a future period of 20-25 years. For me ing on what is found at the LHC and physics problems have to be attacked the Tevatron. The problem is how to from many sides. I am for broad sci- ensure that we have enough trained physi- ence. With limited national budgets big cists around for the next step, and this science projects e.g. accelerators must probably means building some facility be supported by the international com- even if it is not the ”right one”. munity. • Let the LHC find what it is supposed • It is the duty of the community to make to find, take info from non-accelerator full usage of LHC/ Tevatron physics before Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 205

experiments and take a decision com- at Run 2, the next machine is a big risk. bining all HEP knowledge and not just For this reason, diversity is important part of it. for this machine, sort of like hedging your bets or diversifying your stocks. • We need more accelerator research. On the other hand, it has to always be • Reserving judgment would kill our field. the best guess at physics at the moment, People and expertise would get lost! and in the absence of any brilliance (such as for SPEAR or SuperK, for examples), • I would pick either to wait until the it is usually the highest energy and/or LHC has been running for a few years or luminosity. important question. start now to design a very high energy • pp machine. The worldwide HEP community may be able to persuade the world’s taxpay- • This is the don’t make a choice solu- ers to fund one new large facility. We tion. It is the one of those to pick but should therefore avoid a rush to judg- I think it is unfundable. I believe that ment about what such a facility should we’ll see major facilities in Japan and be. We do not know what is around Europe and we’ll miss out following this the ”energy corner”. It would be a bet- track. That would be a shame. We ter use of public money to spend it on need to focus. NLC has obvious issues truly advanced R&D towards a future (i.e. what if there’s no SM ∼120GeV facility, and defer a decision about what Higgs?) that we’d know the answer to to build until about 2005. By then we before we run but not before we make should have a better idea about which a fast-track funding pitch. I think this way Nature’s wind is blowing. is a poor idea. Wait for 5 years and • do R&D. Then build it when there is If the ”next machine” cannot be done a mandate. Support TESLA if it gets properly, it should be postponed and funded in the meantime. VLHC is too instead one should build a several tau/charm, far to commit before the LHC results b and Z factories for precision measure- are digested. Neutrinos are the only ments. If everything goes into 1 or 2 sure, staged program with a physics man- super-collaborations, science dies. We date. Too bad there is a smaller user can see the start of that at CERN. base. • I am not convinced that there must be a • Support advanced accelerator R&D. Sim- ”next machine”. ”Big science” may not ply building bigger machines from extant be the best use of resources, especially technologies is not practical much beyond if the scientific payoff is very uncertain the 0.5 TeV scale. Plan for the future (as seems to be the case currently). by developing plasma, laser, high frequency RF, superconducting RF accel- 13.8.3 Survey-Specific Comments eration technologies, and in the process on Picking a Plan: of pursuing these technologies you will attract eager young minds. • See my comments to the HEPAP subpanel: follow the link on: • Mark Twain once said something like http://hep.uchicago.edu/~rosner/ ”it is hard to predict, especially the future”. Because we do not know what will hap- • This is not a high energy physics survey, pen (or not happen!) at the LHC, nor this is a high energy experiment survey. Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 206

On that issue I would rather not express • The choices for question 42 are too lim- my opinion in print. How would the ited. I would prefer: a new e+e- collider experimentalists like it if I made a sur- (TESLA, NLC) in the World soon, with vey asking, Q: what do you think about continued research in VLHC and muon the importance of orbifolds and orien- storage ring/ collider technologies. At tifolds in future N theory research? a) least one of these new facilities should ... b) be in the U.S.

• I thing that your survey is not very well • Why only mention the U.S. and Ger- prepared: First you are concentrating many? to much on the U.S. and then your answer • structure is not very well suited for your An option for QCD physics not men- questions most the time. You are mainly tioned above: ep (TESLA on HERA). asking for yes or no / black or white, • Expand options to include fixed-target but sometimes this is not possible and experiments. more options of the supplied answers are important. • Question 35 is strange – it is physics issues that has most affected my views, • See text of part VI. You did not seem to but that is not a choice. This is the have other in mind but building a new only scientifically justifiable choice, and machine in the U.S. when you created as well the only one that could work in this survey. the real world of funding and politics – • This form seems to be U.S.-biased. i.e. the answer to 42. • • Why something has to be in the U.S.? I find these options somewhat odd, as I find these questions very nationalistic, a physicist, I am only interested in the should decisions in science not being fact physics. Personally I do not care where! based. If the U.S. have enough money, well then let them build anything they want • Sorry, this is a bad survey. It doesn’t :-) a muon storage ring would be nice allow for any of the richness of the rele- anywhere! vant discussion ... (Which is not to say • that I discourage you from attempting I wish I had time to read about and to address the issues ...) consider these weighty issues. • • You’re talking to the wrong guy for this Nice job with this survey. How can I section. get more involved? • • You don’t seriously believe that the selec- Well I don’t know enough about these tions you present begin to cover the real- subjects at the moment and my excuse istic, or even probable range of options. is that I have to finish my PhD in a year I find it difficult to believe that a pre- after only starting 2 years ago. cision machine such as a LC is going • Shouldn’t the response to question 42 to warrant the projected cost without be disregarded if the person’s response decimating the field. I assert that this to question 41 was ”unsure”, ”probably section is so biased that no reasonable no” or ”definitely no”? conclusions can be drawn from it. Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 207

• Question 42: Again, the coupling of mul- • Everything too biased towards the U.S., tiple issues in the selections available is humph! inappropriate, coupling issues that are • only linked by assumptions made by those O.k., perhaps because I am German ... who wrote this survey. Further com- - but please, why must everything be in ments: a) TESLA (not TELAS) and the U.S.??? NLC are comparable in time scale and • I continue not understanding your ques- cost, but differ in other ways. CLIC is tion always about U.S.: many other coun- much farther off in time, and should not tries exist, many other countries study have been coupled with either NLC or particle physics as well as U.S. Have you TESLA. b) Opinion regarding impor- ever heard about Europe, for example? tance of siting the facility in the U.S. addressed in previous comments. • This part of the survey is quite biased towards a linear collider. Please learn • Ridiculous choices! I don’t care where a bit more about the field and do some the next linear collider is being built! sitting and thinking yourself before pre- This focus of the U.S. physics commu- senting a survey like this. nity on itself sucks and is counterproductive for the worldwide advance of • There is no compelling physics justifica- High energy physics. Looking at the tion for any of the other options listed available techniques only TESLA appears with the exception of studying dark energy/cosmological to be far enough advanced for a con- constant. struction start soon. In addition, paired • with a FEL it is by far the more con- Snowmass and this questionnaire are convincing concept. I think given the tech- centrating due to circumstances on a nical challenges and the costs of even major flagship project. The intellec- more future colliders, we have to wait tual health and progress in our particu- and see how the presently built machines, lar field depends more on diversity and LHC and a linear collider perform before intellectual ferment than on monolithic we can ask any people to burn another projects. A comprehensive science pol- 5 to 10 billions of dollars on another icy for particle physics must encourage project. diversity in research projects as well as address the energy frontier. • As before, I cannot pick from these U.S.- • centric options. I would like a high- Your list is incomplete, and most of the energy e+e- collider somewhere, soon. items are not under one’s control. TESLA At present, TESLA looks like the most has made the case, and we will have feasible design. In Germany would be to wait a year to see whether Germany convenient for me, but somewhere else could build it or whether the U.S. can (eg. U.S.) would be great too. Beyond ”buy” it. The next machine after lin- that, a neutrino factory leading muon ear collider should be dictated by the collider would be attractive. (I don’t physics we learn in the next 10-15 years care where.) at the Tevatron, LHC, and hopefully LC. Picking the after-LC machine now • The choices you offer in (42) are much is gambling - you might end up right too biased towards the U.S. Please con- between two cactuses in the energy desert. sider that HEP is an international field! We do not need a macho ”get me to the highest energy possible” machine. We Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 208

need a machine at the energy where the all of these options tell you so. Ques- exciting physics is destined to happen, tion 36 : Had I designed the survey, namely the 1 TeV precision machine, as TELSA/NLC would get one line and we already building a TeV-class hadron higher energy e+e- another. This more machine. correctly reﬂects the current choice, both the technological and the political ques- • It is very biased to couple NLC and tion. VLHC in one item in the previous question. I am a lot more convinced about NLC than I am about VLHC.

• Question 42: Your options are too narrow. A more likely scenario is that we push for a LC to be built somewhere in the world with U.S. participation. We obviously favor having it done in the U.S., but are willing to support it in Europe or Japan if that is the way that it works out. VLHC is also very important to keep alive and research for such a machine is crucial. The neutrino factory is important and should be supported, but at a lesser level than VLHC. The muon collider needs a lot of more research and science justiﬁcation.

• Not sure I like/understand the wording of question 42.

• I think this survey is a little biased. I hope this is only because the results may be used to lobby U.S. funding agencies. Perhaps inappropriate to say it, but ”global” does not have to mean ”in the USA”.

• 1) The list of question 42 is too short and too restricted 2) HEP will only have a future if national interests are not completely deﬁning the solutions 3) A neutrino factory in Europe would be ﬁne by several reasons.

• Question 35: No space for ‘all of the above’? Question 36 : Your survey is designed to make someone who has studied these options systematically and seriously seem immodest. I would be surprised if most people who have studied