U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

52–294PDF 2009

INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF

MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, AND TIME

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 1, 2009

Serial No. 111–54

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico

PAUL D. TONKO, New York

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan

VACANCY

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

PETE OLSON, Texas

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chair

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico

PAUL D. TONKO, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

CHRIS KING Democratic Staff Director

MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member

SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member

ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member

ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member

JETTA WONG Democratic Professional Staff Member

ELIZABETH CHAPEL Republican Professional Staff Member

TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member

JANE WISE Research Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

October 1, 2009

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Prepared Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S.

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 10

Statement by Representative Paul Tonko, Vice Chairman, Subcommittee on

Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S.

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 9

Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 9

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 11

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 11

Witnesses:

Dr. Lisa Randall, Professor of Physics, Harvard University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18

Biography .......................................................................................................... 19

Dr. Dennis Kovar, Associate Director for High Energy Physics, Office of

Science, U.S. Department of Energy

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 21

Biography .......................................................................................................... 26

Dr. Piermaria J. Oddone, Director, Fermilab National Accelerator Laboratory

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 26

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 28

Biography .......................................................................................................... 48

Dr. Hugh E. Montgomery, President, Jefferson Science Associates, LLC; Director, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 48

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 50

Biography .......................................................................................................... 53

Discussion

Communicating With the Public ......................................................................... 54

String Theory ....................................................................................................... 56

Next Generation Accelerators ............................................................................. 57

International Cooperation ................................................................................... 57

Dark Energy and Matter ..................................................................................... 58

Realizing the Taxpayer Investment .................................................................... 60

International Collaboration and More on Next Generation Accelerators ........ 62

Page

IV

More on Best Use of Taxpayer Money ................................................................ 64

Appendix: Additional Material for the Record

Letter to Chairman Brian Baird from Kenneth O. Olsen, President, and

Dr. John V. Dugan, Vice President, Superconducting Particle Accelerator

Forum of the Americas, dated Oct. 3, 2009 ....................................................... 70

Industrialization of Advanced Accelerator Technology, by Kenneth O. Olsen,

Superconducting Particle Accelerator Forum of the Americas Industry

Working Group ..................................................................................................... 71

(1)

INVESTIGATING THE NATURE OF MATTER,

ENERGY, SPACE, AND TIME

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:04 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Tonko [Vice

Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Investigating the Nature of

Matter, Energy, Space, and Time

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2009

11:00 A.M.–1:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose

On Thursday, October 1, 2009 the House Committee on Science & Technology,

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will hold a hearing entitled ‘‘Investigating the Nature of Matter, Energy, Space, and Time.’’

The Subcommittee’s hearing will receive testimony on the fundamental physics research activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science conducted

through the High Energy Physics (HEP) and Nuclear Physics (NP) programs. It will

also examine how these areas are related to the work of other DOE program offices

and other federal agencies.

Witnesses

• Dr. Lisa Randall is a Professor of Physics at Harvard University. Dr. Randall will provide an overview of our current level of understanding of matter,

energy, and the origins of the universe, as well as the major questions that

remain.

• Dr. Dennis Kovar is Director of HEP, and the former Director of NP. Dr.

Kovar will testify on DOE’s current research activities and future plans in

these areas, as well as HEP and NP’s roles in advancing accelerator research

and development for a variety of applications relevant to industry and other

federal agencies.

• Dr. Pier Oddone is Director of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

(Fermilab) in Batavia, Illinois. Dr. Oddone will testify on his vision for

Fermilab following the expected shutdown of its primary research facility

within the next three years.

• Dr. Hugh Montgomery is Director of Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator

Facility (JLab) in Newport News, VA. Dr. Montgomery will testify on the capabilities that JLab provides to the U.S. and international nuclear physics

communities, as well as JLab’s accelerator technology development and

science education activities.

Background

On August 2, 1939, Albert Einstein wrote to then President Franklin Roosevelt.

Einstein told him of efforts in Nazi Germany to purify uranium-235, which could

be used to build an atomic bomb. It was shortly thereafter that the U.S. Government began the Manhattan Project, which expedited research to produce a viable

nuclear weapon before the Germans. This endeavor assembled several of the most

renowned physicists of the 20th century from all over the world, including Robert

Oppenheimer, Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi, and Edward Teller. After the end of World

War II, many of these physicists remained in the U.S. and resumed research in the

fundamental nature of matter, energy, space, and time, otherwise known as particle

physics. The Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessors have historically

supported significant programs of research and education in particle physics from

this point forward. Today, the DOE Office of Science’s High Energy Physics (HEP)

and Nuclear Physics (NP) programs explore this area of research at nine DOE national laboratories and over 100 U.S. universities, employing approximately 4,000

scientists.

4

High Energy Physics

High energy physics is a branch of physics that studies the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy, and the interactions between them. It is called ‘‘high

energy’’ because many of these particles do not occur under normal circumstances

in nature, but can be created and detected during energetic collisions of other particles, as is done in large research facilities known as particle accelerators. Modern

particle physics research is focused on subatomic particles, which include atomic

constituents such as electrons, protons, and neutrons (protons and neutrons are actually made up of fundamental particles called quarks), as well as a wide range of more exotic particles. Research in high energy physics has led to a deep understanding of the physical laws that govern matter, energy, space, and time. This understanding has been formulated in what is called the ‘‘Standard Model’’ of particle

physics, first established in the 1970s, which successfully describes nearly all observable behavior of particles and forces, often to very high precision. Nevertheless,

the Standard Model is understood to be incomplete. The model fails at extremely

high energies—energies just now being created in particle accelerators—and describes only a small fraction of the matter and energy filling the universe. Surprising new data reveal that only about five percent of the universe is made of the

normal, visible matter described by the Standard Model. The remaining 95 percent

of the universe consists of matter and energy whose fundamental nature remains

a mystery.

A world-wide program of particle physics research is underway to explore what

lies beyond the Standard Model. To this end, HEP supports theoretical and experimental studies by individual investigators and large collaborative teams. Some of

them gather and analyze data from accelerator facilities in the U.S. and around the

world while others develop and deploy sensitive ground and space-based instruments to detect particles from space and observe astrophysical phenomena that advance our understanding of fundamental particle properties. Some of the key questions the HEP program addresses include:

Do all the forces we are familiar with really come from just one?

All the basic forces found in the universe, such as gravity and electromagnetism,

could be various manifestations of a single unified force. Unification was Einstein’s

great, unrealized dream, and recent advances in a branch of physics known as

string theory give hope of achieving it. Most versions of string theory require at least

seven extra dimensions of space beyond the three we are used to. The most advanced particle accelerators may find evidence for extra dimensions, requiring a

completely new model for thinking about the structure of space and time.

How did the universe come to be?

Prevailing measurements and theory describe the universe as beginning with a

massive explosion known as the Big Bang, followed by a burst of expansion of space

itself. The universe then expanded more slowly and cooled, which allowed the formation of stars, galaxies, and ultimately life. Understanding the very early formation of the universe will require a breakthrough in physics, which string theory may

provide.

What is dark matter? How can we make it in the laboratory?

Most of the matter in the universe is invisible to us, and we can detect its existence only through its gravitational interactions with normal matter. This ‘‘dark matter,’’ first identified in 1933, is expected to at least partly account for what appears

to be missing matter in the universe, as evidenced by the calculated vs. the observed

rotational speeds of galaxies. This matter is thought to consist of exotic particles

that have survived since the Big Bang. Experiments are currently being carried out

to try to directly detect these exotic particles in space as well as produce them in

particle accelerators that briefly recreate similar conditions to the Big Bang.

And what is dark energy?

The structure of the universe today is a result of two opposing forces: gravitational attraction and cosmic expansion. In 1998, it was discovered through cosmic

observations that the universe has been expanding at an accelerating rate for approximately six billion years. The cause of this accelerating expansion which now

appears to dominate over gravitational attraction has been labeled ‘‘dark energy’’ by

scientists, though so little is known about it that even calling it a form of energy

may be misleading. More and other types of data along with new theoretical ideas

are necessary to make progress in understanding its fundamental nature.

What is the origin of mass?

5

The only particle predicted by the Standard Model which has yet to be found experimentally is called the Higgs boson, which would be responsible for generating

mass in other fundamental particles. The current generation of particle accelerators

is expected to either confirm its existence or rule it out.

What happened to the antimatter?

The universe appears to contain very little antimatter. Antimatter is made up of

antiparticles, which have the same mass and opposite charge of their associated

‘‘normal matter’’ particles. For example, the antiparticle of the electron, which is

negatively charged, is the positively charged antielectron, also called the positron.

Antimatter is continually produced by naturally occurring nuclear reactions, but its

existence is brief because it undergoes near immediate annihilation after coming

into contact with its normal matter counterpart. The Big Bang, however, is expected

to have produced equal amounts of both matter and antimatter. This is borne out

by the study of high-energy collisions in the laboratory. Precise accelerator-based

measurements may shed light on how the matter-antimatter asymmetry arose.

What are neutrinos telling us?

Of all the known particles, neutrinos are perhaps the least understood and the

most elusive. The three known varieties of neutrinos were all discovered by HEP

researchers working at U.S. facilities. Trillions pass through the Earth every moment with little or no interaction. Their detection requires intense neutrino sources

and large detectors. Their tiny masses may imply new physics and provide important clues to the unification of forces. Naturally occurring neutrinos are produced

by cosmic ray interactions with the Earth’s atmosphere, by supernovae, and in the

interior of stars. These can be studied in space as well as on the ground using intense neutrino sources such as nuclear reactors and advanced accelerators.

HEP Budget and Subprograms

HEP is divided into five subprograms that are organized around the tools and facilities they use and the knowledge and technology they develop. Details on current

and proposed funding for HEP can be found in Table 1.

The Proton Accelerator-Based Physics subprogram exploits two major applications

of proton accelerators. Due to the high energy of the collisions at the Tevatron

Collider (two trillion electronvolts, or TeV) at Fermilab in Batavia, IL and the Large

Hadron Collider (14 TeV maximum) at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland, and the fact

that particles interact differently at different energies, these facilities can be used

to study a wide variety of scientific issues. (CERN, the world’s largest particle physics laboratory, was formally a French acronym, but is now officially the European

Organization for Nuclear Research. It is pronounced sern.) By colliding intense proton beams into fixed targets, proton accelerators are also capable of producing large

samples of other particles which can be formed into beams for experiments. The

6

U.S. high energy physics community has recently proposed a new project that would

utilize the high-power proton beam at Fermilab to produce intense secondary beams

of neutrinos for unique new experiments after the Tevatron shuts down within the

next three years.

• The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be the world’s largest and highestenergy particle accelerator. DOE and the National Science Foundation (NSF)

invested a total of $531 million in the construction of the LHC and its detectors. This U.S. contribution was delivered on budget and three months ahead

of schedule last year. DOE provided $200 million for the construction of accelerator components, $250 million for the design and construction of several

major detectors, and continues to support U.S. scientists’ work on the detectors and additional accelerator R&D. NSF has focused its $81 million of support on funding university scientists who have contributed to the design and

construction of these detectors. The total project cost of the LHC is expected

to be approximately Ö3.7 billion, or ∼$5.4 billion in today’s U.S. dollars. More

than 1,700 scientists, engineers, students and technicians from 94 U.S. universities and laboratories currently participate in the LHC and its experiments.

The LHC began facility test operations on September 10th, 2008. Nine days

later, these operations were halted due to a serious electrical fault. Taking

into account the time required to repair the resulting damage and to add additional safety features, the LHC is currently scheduled to be operational

again in mid-November 2009. The U.S. contributions to LHC have met all

performance goals to date, and CERN is taking full financial and managerial

responsibility for this repair.

The Electron Accelerator-Based Physics subprogram utilizes accelerators with

high-intensity and ultra-precise electron beams to create and investigate matter at

its most basic level. Since electrons are small, fundamental point-like particles (unlike protons, which are relatively heavy composites of quarks and force-carrying particles) they are well-suited to precision measurements of particle properties and precise beam control. The next generation of accelerator after the LHC is likely to be

a high-energy electron facility that can probe LHC discoveries in detail.

The Non-Accelerator Physics subprogram supports particle physics research best

examined by utilizing ground-based telescopes and detectors typically in partnership

with NSF, as well as space-based telescopes in partnership with NASA. Scientists

in this subprogram investigate topics such as dark matter, dark energy, neutrino

properties, and primordial antimatter. Some of the non-accelerator particle sources

used in this research are cosmic rays, neutrinos from commercial nuclear power reactors, the Sun, and galactic supernovae.

• NSF has proposed to build the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL) in Homestake Mine, South Dakota, which closed

its mining operations in 2002, and DOE is currently considering becoming a

significant partner in this project. If completed, DUSEL would be the deepest

underground science facility in the world, 8,000 feet below ground, which

would enable unique experiments in neutrino physics and dark matter,

among other areas.

• A Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM) has been proposed as a joint

NASA–DOE partnership. JDEM would make precise measurements of the expansion rate of the universe to understand how this rate has changed with

time. These measurements are expected to yield important clues about the

nature of dark energy. JDEM has rated among the top recommended projects

in reports on high energy physics research needs by the National Academies

since 2003, as well as reports by the National Science and Technology Council

and the Administration’s High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP). A

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DOE and NASA on advancing JDEM was issued in November 2008.

The Theoretical Physics subprogram provides the vision and mathematical framework for understanding and extending the knowledge of high energy physics. This

program supports activities that range from detailed calculations of the predictions

of the Standard Model to advanced computation and simulations to solve otherwise

intractable problems. Theoretical physicists play key roles in determining which experiments to perform and in explaining experimental results in terms of underlying

theories that describe the interactions of matter, energy, space, and time.

7

The Advanced Technology R&D subprogram develops the next generation of particle accelerator and detector technologies for the future advancement of high-energy

physics as well as other sciences. It supports research in the physics of particle

beams, fundamental advances in particle detection, and R&D on new technologies

and research methods relevant to a broad range of scientific disciplines, including

accelerator technologies that can be used to investigate materials for energy applications as well as biological processes for medical applications. HEP has been designated the lead program within the DOE Office of Science to develop a coordinated

strategy for next generation accelerators that can meet the Nation’s wide variety of

basic and application-oriented research needs.

Nuclear Physics

The mission of the DOE Office of Science’s Nuclear Physics (NP) program is to

discover, explore, and understand all forms of nuclear matter. Nuclear matter consists of any number of clustered protons and neutrons which makes up the core of

an atom called its nucleus. The fundamental particles that compose nuclear matter

are each relatively well understood, but exactly how they fit together and interact

to create different types of matter in the universe is still largely not understood. To

answer the many remaining questions in this field, NP supports experimental and

theoretical research—along with the development and operation of specially designed particle accelerators and other advanced technologies—to create, detect, and

describe the different forms of nuclear matter that can exist in the universe, including those that are no longer found naturally.

Research has shown that protons, which are positively charged, and neutrons,

which are electrically neutral, are bound in the nucleus by a fundamental force

named the strong force because it is far stronger than either gravity or electromagnetism, although it operates on smaller distance scales. As scientists delved further into the properties of the proton and neutron, they discovered that each proton

and neutron is composed of three tiny particles called quarks. Quarks are bound together by yet other particles called gluons, which are believed to be the generators

of the strong force. One of the major goals of nuclear physics is to understand precisely how quarks and gluons bind together to create protons, neutrons, and other

hadrons (the generic name for particles composed of quarks) and, in turn, to determine how all hadrons fit together to create nuclei and other types of matter.

NP Budget and Subprograms

NP is organized into five subprograms. Details on current and proposed funding

for each can be found in Table 2.

The Medium Energy subprogram primarily utilizes two NP national facilities in

addition to several other facilities worldwide to examine the behavior of quarks inside protons and neutrons. The Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility

(CEBAF) at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (JLab) in Newport

News, VA provides high quality beams of electrons that allow scientists to extract

information on the quark and gluon structure of nuclei. CEBAF also uses these electrons to make precision measurements of processes that can provide information on

why the universe is primarily made up of matter rather than antimatter, which is

relevant to HEP as described above. The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at

Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) in Upton, NY provides colliding beams of

protons to probe the proton’s structure. This subprogram also supports one university Center of Excellence at MIT to develop advanced instrumentation and accelerator equipment.

The Heavy Ion subprogram tries to recreate and characterize new and predicted

forms of matter as well as other new phenomena that might occur in extremely hot,

dense nuclear matter, conditions which may not have existed naturally since the Big

Bang. Measurements are carried out primarily using very energetic heavy ion collisions at RHIC. Participation in the heavy ion program at the LHC also provides

U.S. researchers the opportunity to search for new states of matter under substantially different conditions than those provided by RHIC, gaining additional information regarding the matter that existed during the infant universe.

8

The Low Energy subprogram primarily utilizes two NP national user facilities to

examine how protons and neutrons are bound into common and stable nuclei vs.

rare and unstable nuclei. The Argonne Tandem Linac Accelerator System (ATLAS)

at Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, Illinois is used to study questions of

nuclear structure by providing high-quality beams of all the stable elements up to

uranium as well as selected beams of short-lived nuclei. These allow for experimental studies of nuclear properties under extreme conditions and reactions of interest to nuclear astrophysics. The Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam Facility at Oak

Ridge National Laboratory provides beams of short-lived radioactive nuclei that scientists use to study exotic nuclei not normally found in nature. The future Facility

for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB), which Michigan State University has recently been

selected to host, is a next-generation machine that will further advance the understanding of rare nuclei and the evolution of the cosmos. The subprogram also supports four university Centers of Excellence, three (at Duke University, Texas A&M

University, and Yale University) with unique low energy accelerator facilities and

one (at the University of Washington) with infrastructure capabilities for developing

advanced instrumentation. The subprogram also partners with the Department of

Defense’s National Reconnaissance Office and the United States Air Force to support limited operations of a small facility at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that will help advance improvements in radiation hardness of electronic circuit components against damage caused due to cosmic rays.

The Nuclear Theory subprogram provides the theoretical underpinning needed to

support the interpretation of a wide range of data obtained from all the other NP

subprograms and to advance new ideas and hypotheses that stimulate experimental

investigations. This subprogram supports the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the

University of Washington, where leading nuclear theorists are assembled from

across the Nation to focus on frontier areas in nuclear physics. The subprogram also

collects, evaluates, and disseminates nuclear physics data for basic nuclear research

and for applied nuclear technologies with its support of the National Nuclear Data

Center at BNL. These databases are an international resource consisting of carefully organized scientific information gathered from over 50 years of nuclear physics

research worldwide.

The Isotope Development and Production for Research and Applications subprogram supports the production and development of techniques to make isotopes that

are in short supply for medical, national security, environmental, and other research

applications. This subprogram is described in more detail in the Charter for the

Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

hearing entitled ‘‘Biological Research for Energy and Medical Applications at the

Department of Energy Office of Science’’ held on September 10th, 2009.

9

Mr. TONKO. This hearing will come to order.

Good morning. I am Paul Tonko, a Member of the Subcommittee.

Chair Brian Baird is unfortunately unable to join us this morning

because of circumstances beyond his control and so I will be

chairing the first portion of the hearing, which will focus on Investigating the Nature of Matter, Energy, Space, and Time. Today’s hearing will explore the Department of Energy (DOE)

Office of Science’s research activities in high energy and nuclear

physics and their collaboration with related programs and projects

carried out by the National Science Foundation and the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as well as our international partners.

In 1939, Albert Einstein sent a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt warning him of Germany’s advances in creating an atomic

bomb. This spurred the President to begin the Manhattan Project,

which gathered many of the greatest physicists of the 20th century

from all over the world to successfully beat the Germans in a race

of scientific and technological progress. After the end of the war,

many of these physicists remained in the United States to resume

their research in the basic nature of matter, energy, space, and

time, a field also known as particle physics. Our country has historically supported significant research programs in these areas

from that point forward.

Today, DOE alone has proposed a 2010 budget of over $1.3 billion for particle physics research and related technology development, which would continue to support about 4,000 scientists in

over 100 universities and nine DOE national laboratories. In this

hearing I hope to get a better understanding of what fundamental

questions remain to be answered, and what the American taxpayers are receiving in return for this investment. This subcommittee certainly supports exploring fundamental areas of

science with uncertain or even unknowable outcomes, but the level

of that support should always be well justified.

The Administration’s High Energy Physics Advisory Panel made

important progress in this direction with the release of its 10-year

strategic plan, which set research and project priorities under a series of realistic budget scenarios. I look forward to learning more

about whether and how this plan is being implemented.

And with that I would like to thank this excellent panel of witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee this morning.

And I yield to our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis, for

his opening statement.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding

this hearing. This subcommittee has held several hearings over the

last few months examining the diverse mission of DOE’s Office of

Science. We have heard about their research efforts in energy vehicle technologies and biological sciences.

Today we turn to perhaps the most fundamental research activities in all of science, investigating the building blocks of energy and

matter. So we are here to learn at the Einstein level and I feel

somewhat unprepared for class, I must tell you. I think I know this

much, though: in the Manhattan Project, we found a way to harness the energy of atoms for weaponry of massive strength. Fifty

years later we are searching for the most basic understanding of

10

the nature of the universe. Out of this research we gain an understanding of electricity, communication technology, X-rays and other

conveniences. We also delve into the fundamental nature of matter,

energy, space and time, inspiring our insatiable human curiosity to

answer large metaphysical questions about why and how. Current lines of investigation in this field are very exciting. We are simultaneously exploring the edges of the universe, matter we

cannot directly observe and a particle that lends mass to everything around us. While this research will give us some interesting

answers, it will certainly inspire many more questions, and that is

what science is all about.

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists about this fascinating course of research. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and

I yield back the balance of my time. [The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BOB INGLIS

Good morning and thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.

This subcommittee has held several hearings over the last few months examining the diverse mission of DOE’s Office of Science. We’ve heard about their research efforts in energy, vehicle technologies, and biological sciences. Today we turn to perhaps the most fundamental research activities in all of science: investigating the

building blocks of energy and matter.

So we’re here to learn at the Einstein level and I feel somewhat unprepared for

class.

I think I know this much, though: In the Manhattan Project we found a way to

harness the energy of atoms for weaponry of massive strength. Fifty years later,

we’re searching for the most basic understanding of the nature of the universe.

Out of this research, we gain an understanding of electricity, communication technology, x-rays, and other conveniences. We also delve into the fundamental nature

of matter, energy, space and time, inspiring our insatiable human curiosity to answer large metaphysical questions about ‘‘why’’ and ‘‘how’’.

Current lines of investigation in this field are exciting. We’re simultaneously exploring the edges of the universe, matter we cannot directly observe, and a particle

that lends mass to everything around us. While this research will give us some interesting answers, it will certainly inspire many more questions. And that’s what

science is all about.

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists about this fascinating

course of research. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance

of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Inglis.

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this

point.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN BAIRD

Today’s hearing will explore the DOE Office of Science’s research activities in high

energy and nuclear physics, and their collaboration with related programs and

projects carried out by the National Science Foundation and NASA—as well as our

international partners.

In 1939, Albert Einstein sent a letter to FDR warning him of Germany’s advances

in creating an atomic bomb. This spurred the President to begin the Manhattan

Project, which gathered many of the greatest physicists of the 20th century from all

over the world to successfully beat the Germans in a race of scientific and technological progress. After the end of the war, many of these physicists remained in the

U.S. to resume their research in the basic nature of matter, energy, space, and time,

a field also known as particle physics. Our country has historically supported significant research programs in these areas from this point forward.

Today, DOE alone has proposed a 2010 budget of over $1.3 billion for particle

physics research and related technology development, which would continue to supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:06 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 052294 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\100109\52294 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
11

port about 4,000 scientists in over 100 universities and nine DOE national laboratories. In this hearing I hope to get a better understanding of what fundamental

questions remain to be answered, and what the American taxpayers are receiving

in return for this investment. This Subcommittee certainly supports exploring fundamental areas of science with uncertain or even unknowable outcomes, but the

level of that support should always be well-justified. The Administration’s High Energy Physics Advisory Panel made important progress in this direction with the release of its 10-year strategic plan, which set research and project priorities under

a series of realistic budget scenarios. I look forward to learning more about whether

and how this plan is being implemented.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing to receive

testimony on the High Energy Physics (HEP) and Nuclear Physics (NP) research

conducted through the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science.

This subcommittee has held several hearings to discuss the research activities of

the Office of Science, and I appreciate the opportunity to hear from our witnesses

today about current HEP and NP research opportunities. In recent years, this research has uncovered new forms of matter, and we now understand that our Standard Model of particles and matter covers only five percent of the actual building

blocks of the universe.

For several decades, the U.S. was the world leader in HEP and NP research.

However, since the decision to delay the construction of the International Linear

Collider, several key research centers and labs have shut down and become obsolete.

At the same time, Europe and Japan have continued to make major investments

in constructing new laboratories and developing new techniques for exploring particle physics. With the construction of the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, European investment in HEP and NP is 150 percent higher than U.S. investment. I

would like to hear from the DOE what plans, if any, are in place to revive HEP

and NP research in the U.S. Further, how Congress and this subcommittee can support efforts to return the U.S. to its position of leadership.

Finally, I am pleased to welcome Dr. Pier Oddone, Director of Fermilab in Batavia, IL. Dr. Oddone and his colleagues are at the forefront of particle physics, and

I applaud their work. Fermilab’s Tevatron is the second-largest particle accelerator

in the world, and in 1995 Fermilab scientists were the first to discover the top

quark. I was pleased to learn of Fermilab’s receipt of $103 million in funding from

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. I would like to hear from Dr.

Oddone how Fermilab will use these funds to further its research efforts.

I welcome our panel of witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony. Thank

you again, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the panelists, who are here this morning to testify at a subcommittee hearing entitled ‘‘Investigating the Nature of Matter,

Energy, Space, and Time.’’

It is valuable for Subcommittee Members to be informed of the physics research

activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science.

Today, we will specifically hear about research conducted through the High Energy Physics (HEP) and Nuclear Physics (NP) programs.

Texas has a large contingency of universities whose research is supported by

these programs. The institutions include:

• Baylor University

• Prairie View A&M

• Rice University

• Southern Methodist University

• Texas A&M

• Texas Tech. University

• University of Texas at Arlington

• University of Texas at Austin

• University of Texas at Dallas

12

I am proud that Texas takes advantage of competitive research grant funding through the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science. The work of particle physics research employs approximately 4,000 American sci- entists. It is done both by individual investigators and large collaborative teams. Its

foundation was laid by the likes of Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, Niels

Bohr, Enrico Fermi, and others. The research helps us understand the beginning,

composition, and organization of the universe. Particle physics research has yielded so many public benefits, such as cancer therapies. We have better diagnostic machines, more sophisticated tools for national

security, and more efficient superconducting materials. We have improved drug development and better understand global weather patterns. The World Wide Web was developed to give particle physicists a tool to commu- nicate quickly and effectively with globally dispersed colleagues around the Nation.

The study of particle physics helps us to understand matter’s most basic forces and

how they interact with one another. Yes, much of the research may be hard to understand or translate into real life. When we ask only for translational research or real-life linkages, we can stifle the

creative thought process. As Dr. Randall stated in her testimony, America is a land

of opportunities for creative, intelligent people. It is a place that invests in abstract,

basic research to enable creative thinkers to do their work, unfettered. We attract

people like Dr. Piermaria Oddone, who dreamed as a child in Peru to be a part of

the amazing discoveries occurring in the United States. To continue to bring the

world’s talent to our doorstep, we must provide opportunities to attract them.

Instruments to study particle physics include the Large Hadron Collider, which cost about $5.4 billion in today’s U.S. dollars and involves more than 1,700 scientists, engineers, students and technicians. It is disappointing that, nine days after

commencing operations, the Collider experienced a serious electrical fault. However,

the level of investment in this research should deliver the clear message that Congress sees great value in particle physics research. The scientific community believes that, once in operation, the Collider will help us understand more about what gives the most elementary particles their mass. Dr.

Oddone points out that education in science, technology, engineering, and math is

impacted by particle physics research. Indeed it is. Discoveries spark the imaginations of young people, who dream of studying the origins of stars, the planets, and how mass and energy relate. Those bright minds

are our innovators of tomorrow. We must reach out to them and somehow show

them that this research is occurring, and that it is valuable to them. Particularly

for disadvantaged students, we must show them that a career in nuclear physics

research is attainable. There is so little ethnic diversity in the research workforce

in this area of science. I would like to challenge each of you to work at your laboratories and universities to do the important outreach that is required for these students to see the opportunities.

Again, I am grateful that distinguished scientists who are also good communicators have come here today to share the state of our understanding in this area.

Welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. TONKO. I now will introduce the panel. It is my pleasure to

introduce who will be our first witness, Dr. Lisa Randall, who is

a Professor of Physics at Harvard University. We welcome Dr. Randall, as do we Dr. Dennis Kovar, who is the Director of the Office

of High Energy Physics and former Director of the Office of Nuclear Physics at DOE, and I believe our colleague, Representative

Lipinski, would like to introduce our next panelist.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.

It is my pleasure to welcome Dr. Pier Oddone, the Director of

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois. Fermilab is the

largest accelerator in the United States, and under Dr. Oddone’s

leadership it has been a vital tool in advancing our understanding

of the universe. Dr. Oddone’s distinguished career has been four

decades, taking him from MIT to Princeton to California, where he

served as the Deputy Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory and was a leading researcher at Stanford’s Linear Accelerator Center, or SLAC. As a Stanford alumni, I would like to

move from Berkeley to Stanford. He is most celebrated for inventVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:06 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 052294 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\100109\52294 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
13

ing a new kind of particle accelerator, the Asymmetric B Factory,

to help us understand why there isn’t more antimatter in the universe. Thank you, Dr. Oddone, for being here and I look forward

to his testimony.

Mr. TONKO. And again, welcome, Dr. Oddone. And finally, we

have Dr. Hugh Montgomery, who is Director of Thomas Jefferson

National Accelerator Facility, the JLab, in Newport News, Virginia.

As we begin hearing from our witnesses, might I just make a point

of information available. We have just been solicited to vote for

what will be a series of three votes. I am told that Dr. Randall’s

testimony is slightly longer than her fellow witnesses, so what I

think may work best here is to hear the testimony of Dr. Randall

and then allow for us to go vote and then resume the hearing if

you can bear with us, please. It seems to be life in Washington. I

am learning as I go. So with that, please, Dr. Randall.

STATEMENT OF DR. LISA RANDALL, PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS,

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Dr. RANDALL. Thank you for having us here today. This is kind

of amusing. It is a little bit like class on the first day when everyone is sitting in the back here afraid to hear about the physics.

But what we are going to tell you today, what we would like to

tell you is the kind of questions we are exploring today. We are exploring the universe at larger and smaller scales than ever before,

and that is really important because that is the way we find out

new things. We get away from what we experience in our everyday

life. We go to these extremes of distances and energy, which is why

we have these extreme experiments that are set up. Astrophysical

probes let us see out into the universe whereas particle physics experiments currently at Fermilab, and hopefully soon LSC, we are

going to look at smaller distances and higher energies than we ever

have before. And what we will try to convince you very briefly is

that we could be at the verge of revolutionary discoveries.

And I just thought I would say a couple of words and I am not

going to read all this, but the questions are abstract, and we heard

about the Manhattan Project in the introductory remarks. We hear

about applications. I think it is always very important to keep in

mind that when these fundamental discoveries are made, no one

has ever predicted what their applications would be yet they have

revolutionized the universe, and I think there are so many people

out there who just want to know the answers to these questions.

That is one of the reasons we are here. It is one of the reasons we

are a leader but it is also what gives us leadership at universities.

It is one of the reasons we have the best universities, the smartest

people here that go on to do physics and other things. So I think

we don’t want to get too focused when we ask what is the application of any particular project because in the end the results seem

to have worked out pretty well.

Our goals as particle physicists are to understand matter’s most

basic elements and the forces through which they interact. You all

probably know about the atom but we are going inside the atom.

We are going inside the atom to explore what is inside the nucleus.

What is inside the nucleus seems to be particles called quarks,

pulled together through forces called the strong nuclear force which

14

is communicated through particles called gluons. But in addition to

those particles we know about that are there in all matter we have

seen, there seems to be heavier quarks. We know that there are

heavier quarks. We don’t know their purpose. We don’t know why

they have the masses that they have. We know of four fundamental

forces. We don’t know what the relationships among them are or

should be. And these are the kinds of questions we are trying to

answer. We really are on the verge of getting some insight into

questions about mass and fundamental particles very soon.

We would also like, of course, not just to have a list of particles.

The list isn’t that extensive but we want to really understand the

connections. We want to understand what is the underlying theoretical framework which connects them all, because that gives us

some deep understanding of what is fundamentally out there. We

are not just trying to enumerate particles, we are trying to really

see what is the fundamental description? How does this work? That

fundamental description might be connected to something as exotic

as string theory, which is based on the idea that rather than particles, we have fundamental oscillating strings. It could give us a

deeper understanding of space-time. This is quite remarkable but

it could be that understanding space better could actually explain

properties of fundamental particles. Particles could be separated

within a context of even extra dimensions in space, and if I have

a moment I will mention that possibility.

Really, trying to answer these questions has led us to some very

exotic scenarios, but they are not just out there as crazy ideas.

Really, it is following through. It is not just metaphysics. It really

is trying to follow through, what are the consequences of what we

have seen? And what are the ways within the context of theories

we do understand that we can actually solve these questions?

We also are working on connections to cosmology particle physics. Of course, we know what is out there. We know how the universe has evolved. Knowing how the universe has evolved tells us

about fundamental particles, and that has given rise to some very

interesting connections to, for example, dark matter studies.

15

This is probably hard to see but basically this is just stating that

there are some pretty big questions out there in cosmology; primarily, what is out there in the universe? What constitutes the 25

percent of matter that we haven’t seen yet? What constitutes the

70 percent of the energy that seems to out there that we don’t yet

understand?

One of the questions that we really do hope to address—

16

17

—this looks more complicated than I intended but one of the questions that we want to address now is the question of what is the

origin of the mass scale that we know about. We know right now,

right now experiments are exploring something called the weak energy scale. It is a particular energy scale. It is about 100 to 1,000

times the mass of a proton when we relate energy and mass

through E = mc2, and at that energy scale we really will answer

some of the questions we have had as particle physicists for the

last 30 years or so—questions like, why do particles have mass?

Why do fundamental particles have mass? Questions like, why is

that mass scale what it is? And the interesting thing is that quantum mechanics and special relativity tell us that the mass scale

just doesn’t make sense unless there is something else very interesting happening at that energy scale. That is to say, we expect to

find some indications of some new underlying physics that could be

as exotic as extensions of symmetries of space and time, extension

of space itself. It is almost inevitably going to be something profound.

I am sure that my fellow panelists will talk more about this, but

it is really a particularly interesting time because the Large

Hadron Collider is about to turn on and really we do hope to see

some answers to this question. And this is just to stay that it could

be that it could discover evidence, it could just discover new particles, it could discover—you have probably heard of what is called

the Higgs particle, but it could discover particles that even travel

in extra dimensions. We really do have reasons to believe that

there is very interesting new physics that is really right around the

corner if we can explore these higher energy scales. And just to

give a simple example, it could be that when we collide together

protons we make this new particle that travels in extra dimensions. What is so interesting is that these particles, even though

they are involved in extra dimensions—and I know I haven’t told

you what extra dimensions are, but it is the idea that we have dimensions beyond the three we see. But it could be that even

though those particles are there, they still can decay back into our

universe so that we can see them in these elaborate detectors that

have been built that I am not going to have time to tell you about

but I am sure my fellow panelists will.

It seems I have actually stuck to time, which is kind of amazing,

mostly because I am from New York and talk really fast. But we

really do have a new world view at this point. That is to say, we

are about to embark on investigation of scales of which we are fairly confident we should be able to find out what is happening, and

what is so interesting is that that same energy scale could be connected to the dark matter of the universe for reasons I don’t have

time to explain but feel free to ask. And it could be connected to

the scales that will be explored with gravity wave detectors. It is

very interesting. The scale has appeared in several different contexts. There are many new results in theoretical physics. There are

intriguing possibilities for our universe. We have seen how the

theories can connect together the ideas, but it is very important for

us to really have the experiments to tell us which are the right directions. These are all very nice ideas, at least we think so, but we

would like to know which are really out there in the universe. We

18

are not just doing abstract mathematics. We really want to know

what is it. And any of these discoveries would be things that would

make us really change fundamentally our view of what the universe is made of.

Some of the most exciting physics that we know should have answers is involved at this weak scale that we are exploring. There

are many questions at many energy scales but we are at the cusp

of exploring an energy scale which we know is interesting, and as

I said, it is also involved in dark matter experiments. So this is

wonderful overlap of experimental cosmology and theoretical developments and this could be a revolutionary discovery. How can we

choose not to explore?

So I am just going to close with my favorite picture, which shows

that there could be a lot more out there in the universe. An amusing fact was when I put this picture in I didn’t realize it was the

Chateau de Sion, the painting that is there, which is right near

CERN. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Randall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LISA RANDALL

It’s an exciting time for physics. We are currently exploring the universe at larger

and smaller scales than ever before. Astrophysical probes let us see out into the

Universe at the largest observable scales. Particle experiments set to investigate the

fundamental nature of matter smaller distances and higher energies than ever before.

Admittedly, the questions we ask can be very abstract in their detailed formulation—so much so that people sometimes question the merit of our enterprise, which

doesn’t have the obvious and immediate impact of other more applied or more people-oriented research. But at the root of what we explore are questions as basic as

what are the fundamental building blocks of matter? What is out there in the universe that we cannot yet see? And how did the universe evolve into its current

state? The ability to ask—and to answer these questions—and to formulate them

precisely enough that we know answers should exists—is what makes people, and

up to this point Americans, special.

Some of the very features that make the field so esoteric and so challenging are

also what makes it critical as a way of maintaining leadership in scientific, technical, and creative fields. If you want to attract the best people to do the most creative things, challenges are vital. We’ve maintained the best universities and had

the most innovative companies for the last half century for a reason.

So what are the questions we ask and what will it take to answer them? We want

to understand matter’s most basic elements and the forces through which they

interact. We’d like to connect observed particles, interactions, and phenomena to underlying theoretical frameworks. That might be string theory, which posits fundamental underlying vibrating strings at the heart of all matter. Or these studies

might yield a deeper understanding of space time. Are the three dimensions of space

that we see all there are? Or are there dimensions to the universe that are different

and so far completely hidden from view? It could be that there are parallel universes

less than a centimeter away that we have not yet seen. It would be revolutionary

to discover that the Universe is so much richer than we have so far observed.

We want to connect what we learn about fundamental particles to how the universe has evolved. And we’d like to understand the implications of cosmological observations for particle physics. Can we understanding the origin of the universe and

structures that we see?

The chief particle physics questions today center around the origin of the masses

of fundamental particles and why they are at the scale we have observed them to

be. This is no small questions since quantum mechanics and special relativity tell

us that it is extremely unlikely without something very interesting going on to

maintain the hierarchy of mass scales that is necessary to develop interesting physical theories—and the world as we know it. Without what we call ‘‘fine-tuning’’ of

parameters—or something new and profound—it seems that masses would be nothing like what we have seen. We want to understand both where mass comes from

and what protects the mass scale.

19

That latter question has led to explorations as profound and admittedly speculative as the search for additional dimensions of space. It could be that space time

is distorted in a way that keeps gravity weak and masses as they should be.

And most remarkably we should soon be able to test these ideas. The Large

Hadron Collider, the giant machine colliding together two beams of protons at seven

times higher energy than has yet been achieved on Earth, should be able to explore

what physical theory accounts for the phenomena we have observed. For example,

when protons collide they can turn into energy, and that energy (through E = mc2)

can turn into particles that travel in the extra dimensions. Those particles might

escape, or they might decay into the detectors which are specially designed to identify these decay products and piece together what was originally there.

By studying the energy scales that the LHC will explore, we might also understand what accounts for dark matter, the matter in the universe whose gravitational

effects we observe but which don’t emit or absorb light. In addition to the LHC, this

is an interesting experimental era for the study of cosmology and dark matter in

particular. Many particle theorists currently explore the cosmological implications

of physical theories that might underlie the Standard Model. Dark matter will be

tested directly, in experiments on Earth where the small probability that dark matter will interact is enhanced by providing big vats of target material. Dark matter

will also be tested through the possibility that dark matter particles can annihilate

with each other and give rise to photons or antiparticles that we can measure astronomically.

Our job as theorists is to understand experimental implications and suggest what

might be present so that we won’t miss it when it is produced in the laboratory or

in space. Experiments are complicated and the many subtle ways to find what lies

beyond the Standard Model challenges us all to rise to the occasion.

There are many new ideas and results in theoretical physics that follow from our

better understanding of the implications of Einstein’s theory of gravity and our particle physics models. There are intriguing possibilities to explore and test, both with

theory and experiments. Many of these ideas center on the scales that the LHC will

explore. These ideas—ones as exotic as extra dimensions or as relatively straightforward as the so-called Higgs mechanism for generating msas—could soon be tested. Given that we are at the cusp of this new understanding of the nature of the

universe, how can we choose not to explore?

BIOGRAPHY FOR LISA RANDALL

Lisa Randall is Professor of Theoretical Physics and Studies Particle Physics and

Cosmology. Her research concerns elementary particles and fundamental forces and

has involved the development and study of a wide variety of models, the most recent

involving extra dimensions of space. She has made advances in understanding and

testing the Standard Model of particle physics, supersymmetry, models of extra dimensions, resolutions to the hierarchy problem concerning the weakness of gravity

and experimental tests of these ideas, cosmology of extra dimensions, baryogenesis,

cosmological inflation, and dark matter. Professor Randall earned her Ph.D. from

Harvard University and held professorships at MIT and Princeton University before

returning to Harvard in 2001. She is a member of the National Academy of

Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a fellow of the American

Physical Society, and is a past winner of an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Research

Fellowship, a National Science Foundation Young Investigator Award, a DOE Outstanding Junior Investigator Award, and the Westinghouse Science Talent Search.

In 2003, she received the Premio Caterina Tomassoni e Felice Pietro Chisesi Award,

from the University of Rome, La Sapienza. In autumn, 2004, she was the most cited

theoretical physicist of the previous five years. In 2006, she received the Klopsted

Award from the American Society of Physics Teachers (AAPT). In 2007, she received

the Julius Lilienfeld Prize from the American Physical Society for her work on elementary particle physics and cosmology and for communicating this work to the

public. Professor Randall’s book, Warped Passages: Unraveling the Mysteries of the

Universe’s Hidden Dimensions, was included in the New York Times’ 100 notable

books of 2005.

In 2008, Prof. Randall was among Esquire Magazine’s ‘‘75 Most Influential People

of the 21st Century’’. Randall was included in Time Magazine’s ‘‘100 Most Influential People’’ of 2007 and was one of 40 people featured in The Rolling Stone 40th

Anniversary issue that year. Prof. Randall was featured in Newsweek’s ‘‘Who’s Next

in 2006’’ as ‘‘one of the most promising theoretical physicists of her generation’’ and

in Seed Magazine’s ‘‘2005 Year in Science Icons’’.

20

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much, Dr. Randall, and very interesting testimony and thank you for the sidebar compliment regarding New Yorkers. We appreciate that.

We are now going to recess for about 20 minutes, and Dr. Kovar,

we will resume with you leading off with your testimony. That allows us then to cast our three votes and return. So we can recess

for 20 minutes.

[Recess.]

Mr. LIPINSKI. [Presiding] I call the hearing back to order. We

heard—before the votes we heard the testimony of Dr. Randall, so

I hope we won’t be interrupted again by votes but it is possible we

will be, but right now we will move on to Dr. Kovar. So Dr. Kovar,

you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF DR. DENNIS KOVAR, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR

FOR HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS, OFFICE OF SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Dr. KOVAR. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inglis and Members

of the Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on the High Energy and Nuclear Physics Program at the Department of Energy at the Office of Science. I am Dennis Kovar.

I served as Director of the Nuclear Physics Program for nine years

and since October 2007 I have been serving as Director of the Office of High Energy Physics. I am very pleased to be here today to

share with you my perspectives on these programs.

The scientific fields of high energy and nuclear physics emerged

in the first half of the 20th century as physicists began to study

the fundamental constituents of matter and their interaction. In

the 1950s because of the great activity and the interest in these

areas, the Department of Energy’s predecessor agency, the Atomic

Energy Commission, established research programs in these scientific fields. These research programs are now in the Department

of Energy’s Office of Science. Their mission is to deliver discovery

science. They do this by nurturing, developing and supporting the

research capabilities needed to position the United States at the

scientific frontiers of these fields, to make significant discoveries

and advance our knowledge. High energy physics, or particle physics, focuses on discovering and characterizing the fundamental

building blocks of matter, while nuclear physics focuses on understanding how these fundamental building blocks combine to give

rise to matter as observed in nature and the laboratory. Over the

last half century the Department of Energy programs have delivered outstanding discovery science. The United States has emerged

as a global leader in the major scientific success of both fields. The

results have been impressive. Twenty-six Nobel Prizes awarded in

high energy and nuclear physics over the past 58 years went to

physicists in the United States, supported primarily by DOE. These

programs have over this period had an enormous impact on society

through the new knowledge and technologies that emerged from

their research. These have enabled applications in industry, computing, medicine and pharmaceuticals, national security and other

scientific fields. Both programs have now developed strategic plans

for maintaining the U.S. leadership roles and participating in

major discoveries in these scientific fields in the future. These

21

plans have been developed with the input of their respective federal advisory committees and the broad national and international

scientific communities. They have been formulated to address the

most promising scientific opportunities in a manner that will complement and enhance international efforts so as to optimize the

science that will emerge globally. The Department of Energy’s High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics Programs also have important stewardship components

that serve the Department and national needs beyond the scope of

research. For the High Energy Physics Program, it is fundamental

and long-term accelerator science relevant to next-generation accelerators, and for nuclear physics, it is isotope development and production. U.S. scientific leadership and the associated benefits to the

Nation are realized through sustained federal support and by federal investments in scientific infrastructure and research facilities.

Our understanding of the laws of nature and the physical universe

have been profoundly altered by these discoveries made at U.S. facilities by U.S. scientists. These discoveries reveal new behaviors

that raise new questions and in some cases totally unexpected

questions. These questions inspire curiosity and wonder. They inspire ingenuity, pride and innovation and motivate discovery. The

resulting advances in technology and knowledge serve both science

and society. That concludes my testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for pro- viding this opportunity to discuss high energy physics research programs and our plans for the future. I would be pleased to answer

any questions you might have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Dr. Kovar follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS KOVAR

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of the Com- mittee for the opportunity to appear before you to provide testimony on the High

Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics programs in the Department of Energy’s

(DOE’s) Office of Science (SC). I served as Director of the Nuclear Physics program

for nine years, from 1998 to October 2007, and I have been Director of the Office

of High Energy Physics since October 2007. I am pleased to be here today to share

with you my perspectives on these programs.

Introduction

The fields of high energy physics (also known as particle physics) and nuclear

physics, seek to understand and explain the physical world all around us—from the

sub-atomic to the astronomical. Particle physics focuses on discovering and characterizing the fundamental building blocks of matter. Nuclear physics focuses on understanding how these fundamental building blocks combine to give rise to matter

as observed in nature and in the laboratory.

Both fields address questions that seem intractable: What is the origin of mass?

What do the stars tell us about the fate of the Universe? Can we discover and create

novel forms of matter? What if an understanding of the fundamental building blocks

of matter at the smallest scales is not enough to explain the character of the atomic

nucleus, the elements, or materials? Later in this testimony, I hope to explain how

experiments with neutrinos, fundamental particles associated with some forms of

nuclear decay, aim to reveal missing components of a theoretical model that could

explain why most particles have mass while others do not. I will describe astronomical measurements that could answer some of our questions about dark energy—a

form of energy hypothesized to account for anomalous observations about the rate

of expansion and ultimate fate of the Universe. I will explain how particle colliders

exploit the duality of mass and energy to produce, detect, and ultimately characterize novel particles of matter. I will also mention how ongoing studies of Quantum

Chromodynamics (QCD) are helping to explain why some composite, but still subatomic, particles are more than the sum of their fundamental particle constituents.

22

These questions inspire curiosity and wonder. Among the skilled scientists en- gaged in high energy and nuclear physics research, they also inspire ingenuity and

motivate discovery. The resulting advances in technology and knowledge serve both

science and society. For example, the desire for a deeper understanding of the fundamental constituents of matter has revealed a hierarchy of matter’s building

blocks: protons and neutrons bind together to form the atomic nucleus; quarks, in

turn, are the components of protons and neutrons. Along the way, discoveries were

made about radioactive decay—a process exploited by, for example, medical imaging

technologies—and nuclear fission. Many of these discoveries were made possible by

purpose-built research facilities supported by DOE—for example, particle accelerators. In many cases, breakthroughs in technology and design in these facilities have

led to advances in diverse areas, such as light sources for materials research and

tools for homeland security. In this testimony, I describe the current frontiers for both high energy physics re- search and nuclear physics research and describe how the research programs of the

Office of Science contribute to scientific advances in these areas. I also discuss each

program’s relationship to U.S. and international partners and the anticipated benefits of continued U.S. leadership, including benefits to science and to the Nation. To

begin, however, I would like to describe the origins and scientific breadth of the programs.

The Origins of the High Energy and Nuclear Physics Programs

The scientific study of high energy physics and nuclear physics emerged in the first half of the 20th century as physicists began to study the fundamental constituents of matter and their interactions. This began in 1909 with a famous experiment

by physicist Ernest Rutherford. The experiment involved firing a beam of helium

ions at a thin sheet of gold foil and measuring how the ions scattered. The scattering pattern suggested that each atom has at its center a small, dense, positively

charged core, which Rutherford named the nucleus. Over the next decades physicists learned that all matter on Earth is built of subatomic particles, now known

as electrons, protons, and neutrons.

Following the invention of particle accelerators, the second half of the 20th cen- tury witnessed a rapid progression of new discoveries. Accelerators enable physicists

to propel charged particles to high speeds, focus them into beams, and collide them

with stationary targets or other beams. The products of the collisions of common

particles of matter enable the observation of their constituent subatomic particles

and new short-lived particles. These collisions can convert matter into energy as described by Albert Einstein’s equation, E = mc2. With these experiments physicists discovered that protons and neutrons from the atomic nucleus are composed of more

fundamental particles known as quarks. The quarks and electrons that constitute

everyday matter belong to families of particles that include other, much rarer particles. They also learned that particles interact through just four forces: gravity,

electromagnetism, and two less familiar forces known as the strong force and weak

force.

In the 1950s, the Department of Energy’s predecessor agency, The Atomic Energy Commission, established research programs supporting high energy and nuclear

physics to take advantage of the scientific opportunities identified by early atomic

science and made possible by technology and accelerator-based research. Over the

last half century these programs delivered outstanding discovery science, and the

United States emerged as a global leader in the major scientific thrusts of both

fields. U.S. leadership was made possible by sustained support for researchers at

both universities and national laboratories and by federal investment in scientific

infrastructure for new or upgraded accelerator facilities. These facilities positioned

the U.S. to do experiments at the scientific frontier. Our understanding of the laws

of nature and the physical universe was profoundly altered by the discoveries made

at these facilities by our scientists. These discoveries revealed behaviors that

sparked new, and in some cases, totally unexpected questions. The increase in the energy of particle accelerator beams enabled particle physi- cists to discover the creation of many new unexpected short-lived particles. A theoretical framework known as the Standard Model was developed to describe and predict the behavior of these particles with extremely high levels of precision. The

Standard Model is currently the best theory for explaining the relationship between

matter and the fundamental forces that govern particle interactions. The development and precise testing of the Standard Model rank among the crowning achievements of 20th century science.

DOE-supported physicists have played leading roles in the development of the

theoretical foundations and in many of the major experimental discoveries in particle physics. For example, all six quarks and three of the six elementary particles

23

1Pions are the lightest mesons, which are composed of one quark and one antiquark. The

term nucleon refers to either a neutron or a proton, as both can be found in the atomic nucleus.

known as leptons were discovered at DOE accelerator laboratories. DOE-supported

physicists also played leading roles in the theoretical development of the Nuclear

Shell Model, Nuclear Collective Model, and the models for stellar burning and

nucleosynthesis—the process of creating new atomic nuclei from preexisting neutrons and protons—all of which form the foundations of nuclear physics today. DOE

laboratories and experiments played major roles in verifying these nuclear physics

models. Twenty of the 26 Nobel Prizes awarded in high energy and nuclear physics

over the past 58 years were to physicists in the United States supported primarily

by DOE.

The DOE High Energy and Nuclear Physics Programs

Like other programs in the Office of Science, the Office of High Energy Physics

(HEP) and the Office of Nuclear Physics (NP) have two signature components to

their respective programs. First, both programs support a robust portfolio of fundamental research at universities and national laboratories strategically structured to

serve the DOE mission in discovery science. This includes the development of advanced accelerator and detector technology that is important to the advancement of

their fields and relevant to other scientific disciplines and applications. Second, both

programs support the design, construction, and operation of world-class scientific

user facilities that position the U.S. at the scientific frontiers of high energy and

nuclear physics. The HEP and NP programs also have important stewardship components that serve DOE and national needs beyond the scope of high energy or nuclear physics research. For HEP, it is fundamental and long-term accelerator science

relevant to next-generation accelerators, and, for NP, it is the national isotope development and production program.

Both programs have developed strategic plans with the input of their respective

Federal Advisory Committees and the broad national and international scientific

communities.

The HEP program supports a range of research and scientific tools focused on

three interrelated scientific frontiers:

• The Energy Frontier, where powerful accelerators are used to create new particles, reveal their interactions, and investigate fundamental forces.

• The Intensity Frontier, where intense particle beams and highly sensitive detectors are used to pursue alternative pathways to investigate fundamental

forces and particle interactions by studying events that occur rarely in nature.

• The Cosmic Frontier, where ground-based and space-based experiments and

telescopes are used to make measurements that will offer new insight and information about the nature of dark matter and dark energy to understand

fundamental particle properties and discover new phenomena.

The NP program has come to focus on three broad yet interrelated scientific frontiers:

• The Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) Frontier, where predictions are sought

for the properties of strongly interacting matter, and questions about what

governs the transition of quarks and gluons into pions and nucleons1 are

asked.

• The Nuclei and Nuclear Astrophysics Frontier, which focuses on understanding how protons and neutrons (themselves combinations of quarks and

gluons) combine to form atomic nuclei and how those nuclei have arisen during the 13.7 billion years since the birth of the cosmos.

• The Fundamental Symmetries and Neutrinos Frontier, which focuses on developing a better understanding of the neutron and the neutrino—the nearly

undetectable fundamental particle produced by the weak interaction that was

first detected in nuclear beta decay—providing evidence for physics beyond

the Standard Model.

The study of neutrinos features in both the Intensity Frontier of the HEP program and the Fundamental Symmetries Frontier of NP. These endeavors are complementary and coordinated with distinct motivations. The HEP program seeks to

exploit the role that neutrinos play in the Standard Model to better understand the

origins of mass and the forces affecting matter. The NP program seeks to better understand the nature of the neutrino in terms of its mass, whether it has a distinct

24

antiparticle, and the role that neutrinos play in the processes and forces affecting

atomic nuclei.

The strategic plans for the HEP and NP programs also consider investments made by other U.S. federal agencies and international research organizations, recognizing that large accelerator and detector experiments have become costly and can

take many years to implement. The HEP and NP programs engage in several efforts

to coordinate and collaborate with high energy physics and nuclear physics programs around the world to maximize scientific opportunities and maintain leadership in key scientific thrusts. In particular, both HEP and NP work closely with the National Science Founda- tion (NSF) in many partnerships. These working relationships and partnerships are

greatly facilitated by the fact that the HEP and NP Federal Advisory Committees

are jointly chartered by DOE and NSF. HEP has also partners with the NSF and

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Astrophysics program

on ground-based and space-based observatories. NP has working relationships with

NASA, the U.S. Air Force, National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and U.S. Navy

for utilization of particle beams and infrastructure at NP facilities.

Scientific Facilities and International Collaborations

Historically, the HEP and NP programs have pursued the development of large, one-of-a-kind particle accelerator facilities, which are utilized by large international

scientific collaborations. The most prevalent model for collaborating on international

facilities, a model that has evolved over the past few decades, involves the host

country or host region building and operating a new facility that provides particle

beams for experimentation, and the host collaborating with other countries around

the world to build and operate the detectors that use these beams. During the period that one forefront facility operates, other new next-generation facilities or upgrades are being planned for construction and operation in the next decades. This

provides a balance of world-class facilities in diverse geographical regions. If the cost

of a new facility is too expensive for a single country or region, there is typically

a reexamination of the international collaboration. In this regard the ongoing 12

GeV Upgrade for the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF), the

planned Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB), and the proposed upgrade of

Fermilab’s accelerator capabilities for a world-class Intensity Frontier program are

all elements of the international scientific programs in nuclear and high energy

physics. There are several strategic requirements of HEP and NP science due to the long timescales and the international nature of these collaborations—consensus needs to

be reached by the national and international partners on what will be done; longterm commitments need to be made and honored; and the work must be

‘‘projectized’’ and managed internationally.

Future of the HEP Program

In HEP’s strategic plan, the next years will see a transition from currently operating facilities (Tevatron Collider and Main Injector at Fermilab) to intensive R&D,

design, and construction of new research capabilities. A balance among research, facility operations, and construction for future opportunities will be maintained. The

plan enhances and develops a U.S. leadership role in the three main scientific

thrusts of particle physics: the Energy Frontier, currently explored by the Tevatron

and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), with a teraelectron volt (TeV) lepton collider

envisioned as the next-generation discovery tool; the Intensity Frontier, encompassing high-power proton- and electron-based accelerators used for neutrino physics and studies of very rare processes that give unique insights into the unification

of forces; and the Cosmic Frontier, which embodies a wide range of studies using

non-accelerator-based techniques and ultra-sensitive particle detectors.

Long-range plans for each frontier revolve around the scientific questions addressed by major new facilities:

The Energy Frontier: At the Energy Frontier, there is a strong case for operating

the Tevatron Collider program through FY 2011 to compete for scientific discoveries

with the LHC during this period. Possible scientific deliverables over the next fiveyear period are discoveries of the Higgs boson and supersymmetric particles. LHC

suffered technical problems in commissioning, but is now scheduled to start operations late in 2009. HEP support for LHC detector operations, maintenance, computing, and R&D is necessary to maintain a U.S. role in these experiments. The

HEP plan allows for U.S. participation in the LHC accelerator and detector upgrades. Details of the scope of U.S. involvement in these upgrades are currently

under consideration.

25

The Intensity Frontier: At the Intensity Frontier, the Neutrinos at the Main Injector

(NuMI) Off-Axis Neutrino Appearance (NOνA) project at Fermilab is planned to

begin operations with a partially completed detector in 2013. The NuMI beamline

will operate in its current configuration through FY 2011 for the Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search (MINOS) and MINERνA, and will undertake a year-long

shutdown in FY 2012 to upgrade the beam power for the NOνA experiment. The

future direction of the intensity frontier involves further upgrades to the Fermilab

proton beam power, construction of high intensity beamlines for neutrino and rare

decay experiments, and the fabrication of detectors capable of utilizing these intense

beams to make significant discoveries.

The upgraded intense proton beam would enable searches for extremely rare decays that can probe for new physics well beyond the Energy Frontier, such as muon

to electron conversion, and a new dedicated beamline and experiment to explore this

science. A new neutrino beamline together with a large underground detector located at a large distance from Fermilab would provide capabilities for a next generation of neutrino oscillation measurements. Over a ten-year period, we expect some

realignment of professional skills at Fermilab as the laboratory transitions from the

operations-dominated Tevatron program to the construction-dominated neutrino and

rare decay program. Significant results from NOνA, MINERνA, and other precision

measurements will emerge over the next decade, keeping the U.S. at the forefront

of these studies, even as the infrastructure needed for a world-leading program in

neutrino studies will have been put into place. This, along with rare decay searches,

will provide Fermilab with a robust, continuous program of world-leading physics

in the decade after the end of the Tevatron Collider program.

The Cosmic Frontier: DOE is partnering with the NASA and NSF in the fabrication

of forefront ground-based and space-based particle astrophysics observatories for exploration of the Cosmic Frontier. HEP will collaborate with NSF on a staged program of research and technology development designed to directly detect dark matter particles using ultra-sensitive detectors located underground. These detectors

will eventually push current limits on direct detection of dark matter down by a factor of 1000. HEP anticipates working with NASA on a Joint Dark Energy Mission

(JDEM) and with NSF on possible ground-based dark energy measurements. These

projects for direct detection of dark matter and ground- and space-based observatories focused on dark energy are planned to begin fabrication in the out-year timeframe and to begin operations in the latter part of the next decade which will allow

the United States to maintain scientific leadership at the Cosmic Frontier.

Future of the NP Program

The United States is today a world leader at the Quantum Chromodynamics scientific frontier because of the federal investments made in the last decade in

CEBAF and RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider). The NP program is among the

world leaders in the frontier of Nuclei and Nuclear Astrophysics, with efforts focused at ATLAS and the HRIBF (Holifield Radioactive Ion Beams Facility) and

three university accelerator facilities. In addition, participation in forefront neutrino

experiments has made the U.S. among the world leaders in the third frontier of nuclear science, Fundamental Symmetries and Neutrinos. Each of these frontiers is

bolstered by a strong community of nuclear theorists.

The strategic plan of the NP program over the next five years is to support university and laboratory scientists and engineers, operate existing facilities, invest in

research capabilities to maintain leadership in the program’s scientific thrusts, and

produce research and commercial isotopes important for the Nation. The NP program is designed to deliver significant discoveries and advances in nuclear science

and to produce the knowledge, advanced detectors, and accelerator technologies

needed to participate in a broad range of scientific and technical applications. The

Nuclear Science Advisory Committee’s (NSAC) long range plan points toward the

mid- and longer-term priorities to accomplish the NP scientific program, recommending investments that will enable compelling research and assure U.S. leadership in nuclear science.

The priority investment for the Medium Energy subprogram is the completion of

the 12 GeV CEBAF Upgrade project, which will double the energy of the CEBAF

electron beam. The project includes construction of a new experimental hall to exploit the added capability and upgrades to current detectors and instrumentation.

This major CEBAF Upgrade will provide the opportunity for new discoveries and

a more complete understanding of the mechanism of quark confinement—one of the

puzzles of modern physics. This project will position CEBAF to remain the international center for these studies for the next decade.

26

The focus of the Heavy Ion subprogram will be on implementing a second genera- tion of experiments at RHIC with higher beam luminosity and greater detector sensitivities to fully characterize and understand the recently discovered new states of

matter. A complementary effort will be pursued with the heavy ion program at the

LHC, which will enable U.S. participation in studies of hot, dense nuclear matter

in a higher energy regime. This community will be working with the medium energy

community to develop the scientific case and technical feasibility for a possible future electron-ion collider.

Within the Low Energy subprogram the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee rec- ommends construction of the next generation Facility for Rare Isotope Beams

(FRIB) to advance the frontier of nuclei and nuclear astrophysics. The Low Energy

subprogram is currently conducting R&D and conceptual design for FRIB. When it

begins operations in about a decade, FRIB will provide a world-leading capability

to explore the structure of the rarest of nuclei and address the nuclear reactions

that power stars and stellar explosions. In the interim, the NP program is making

investments in research capabilities that will allow U.S. researchers to participate

in forefront rare isotope beam studies around the world in preparation for the FRIB

program. The NP program also supports U.S. participation in international neutrino experi- ments that use nuclear physics techniques. These experiments are focused on neutrino-less double beta decay studies to determine whether neutrinos are their own

antiparticle and to provide information on the neutrino’s mass. Ongoing efforts in

this area include the Italian-led CUORE (Cryogenic Underground Observatory for

Rare Events) project and the Majorana Demonstrator R&D project to determine the

feasibility of a full scale Majorana experiment.

Concluding Remarks

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity to discuss the High En- ergy Physics and the Nuclear Physics research programs at the Department of Energy. This concludes my testimony, and I would be pleased to answer any questions

you may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DENNIS KOVAR

Dr. Dennis Kovar has been serving as the Associate Director of Science for High

Energy Physics since October 15, 2007. He served as the Associate Director of

Science for Nuclear Physics (NP) from July 2003 until assuming his present responsibilities. In 2007 he also served as a co-Acting Deputy Director of the Office of

Science. Dr. Kovar obtained his B.S. in Physics from the University of Texas in 1964

and his Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics from Yale University in 1971. He held a

postdoctoral appointment at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory before joining

the scientific staff at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) in 1973.

He came to the Department of Energy from ANL in 1990 and served as Program

Manager for Heavy Ion Nuclear Physics (1990–1998), Project Officer for RHIC

(1996–1999) and Director of the Division of Nuclear Physics (1998–2003), prior to

becoming the Associate Director of Science for Nuclear Physics. As an experimental

nuclear physicist, he produced over 90 refereed articles, primarily in the area of low

energy heavy ion nuclear reactions, nuclear structure and particle detection techniques and instrumentation. He is a fellow of the American Physical Society and

the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr. Kovar was honored

with the Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Service in 2005 and the Presidential Rank Award for Distinguished Service in 2008.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Kovar.

The Chair will now recognize Dr. Oddone.

STATEMENT OF DR. PIERMARIA J. ODDONE, DIRECTOR,

FERMILAB NATIONAL ACCELERATOR LABORATORY

Dr. ODDONE. Thank you for inviting me to be a witness at this

hearing.

Before I emphasize some of the points in my written testimony,

I would like to start with a personal note. I grew up in Peru, far

away from any ability to do any of this kind of research. In the

1950s the United States was the beacon for this type of research.

Wonderful discoveries were being made. The frontier was being exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:06 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 052294 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\100109\52294 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
27

panded. And I decided as a teenager I wanted to be a physicist and

I went to my parents and I told them so. This was a very strange

notion for them, and I must say they had the wisdom and probably

the intestinal fortitude to actually send a 17-year-old on his own

to the United States to study physics. And so I am here after five

decades, participating, witnessing and contributing to the tremendous opportunities that have been made possible by the federal research in this basic field of science and I hope that you in the future will continue to support this as your predecessors have done.

Let me emphasize some points. The first one, as Lisa said, physics has never been as exciting as it is right now. We are closing

in on the Higgs with both the Tevatron and soon with the Large

Hadron Collider (LHC). We may discover supersymmetry that

would pair each particle that we know about with another one with

different properties of angular momentum but would, more importantly, expand our notion of space-time and how we see space-time

and relativity. Physicists would be terribly disappointed if nature

had not used this symmetry. It is so wonderful. By God, it should

be used in nature. We are with neutrinos studying this very elusive

particle with accelerators, with nuclear reactors, using neutrinos

from the atmosphere, and these neutrinos may in fact explain why

the world is made out of matter and not just a soup of photons that

comes through the annihilation of matter and antimatter in equal

parts.

When we study the cosmos, we have been able to tie the world

of the very small and the very large in a way that the big structures in the universe we understand as the subatomic fluctuations

at the very beginning of the universe. And further we study the

cosmos and we realize that everything that we knew about it is

about five percent of what is there. Dark energy and dark matter

dominate the content of the universe.

The United States has been a leader in this field through its existence and that is the second point I want to emphasize, but that

leadership is now in danger. The field has become global. We use

facilities everywhere where we can do the physics. Europeans have

come and used Fermilab for the last 10 years when they were

building the Large Hadron Collider. We have 1,500 physicists

working at the LHC now from the United States, and this balance

of facilities and this world use of facilities that is so powerful in

advancing the field depends on the balanced investment in the various regions. That has become at this point unbalanced and that

is where the threat comes from. We have closed most facilities and

in five years we will close the Tevatron in the United States,

whereas other regions have built facilities that now give them an

advantage in how they approach this field. Well, it is a problem,

but it is a problem that has a solution.

The advisory panel through its Physics Project Prioritization

Panel, or P5, has put together a powerful plan at the three frontiers, the three thrusts of particle physics: the energy frontier

where we try to study the very small with the highest energy machines, the intensity frontier on which Fermilab will now concentrate that depends for its progress on producing the greatest

numbers of particles. There we will study neutrinos, very rare processes, and the keystone of that program is a new facility at

28

Fermilab which we call, for the moment, Project X. It would be the

most intense facility in the world, giving a beam of neutrinos to the

DUSEL Laboratory funded by the NSF at the Homestake Mine in

South Dakota. And the program as it is presently designed also

opens the possibility for the return to the energy frontier that is

now dominated by the Large Hadron Collider in Europe by developing accelerators and the technologies necessary, to make progress

after the LHC.

Let me conclude. Maintaining leadership in this fundamental

field is essential. It is essential because it asks the most fundamental questions. It is hard to imagine leadership in science for a

country without really attacking these questions. It develops new

technologies as it expands and moves the frontiers of the world as

we know it. We are always pushing the envelopes of technology and

this has led to computational and communication technologies. The

Web is an example. The particle accelerators that we have developed are used in medicine, in industry, for modifying materials in

homeland defense and security and so are the detectors that are

very complex and that we have developed. Finally, it contributes to

the education of a technical workforce both directly through international involvement—every major physics department is involved

in particle physics—but also because it attracts young people to

science. Those kinds of questions really, like it did for me, attract

young people to science. They may do many things as they develop

their interests, and people who enter this career are prepared to

work in large disciplinary teams and make advances cooperatively

across the world in this complex global environment. The United

States must remain a beacon of science and a leader in particle research if it is going to derive the benefits in education in technological advances and in science in general. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Oddone follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PIERMARIA J. ODDONE

The State of Particle Physics in Our Nation

Today I will describe the state of my field of research, high-energy particle physics. Before examining the major questions in particle physics, I would like to start

with a personal note. I was born in Peru and grew up far away from any possibilities of doing this kind of research. In high school, reading about the amazing discoveries and pace of research in nuclear physics and beyond, I was attracted to physics

and proposed to my parents that I become a physicist. This was, for them, a very

strange notion. The beacon for the world in this kind of research at the time was

the United States. My parents had the wisdom to ship me to the U.S. to study physics at MIT. Today I am honored to come before you after nearly five decades of witnessing, participating in and benefiting from the fantastic research opportunities in

our country that have been made possible by federal support of discovery science

in particle physics.

Particle physics has never been more exciting. Experiments at the Tevatron

collider at Fermilab and soon at the Large Hadron Collider at the European particle

physics laboratory CERN are closing in on the elusive particle—the Higgs boson—

that we believe endows elementary particles with their mass. But in addition we

may find something even more astonishing: that for every particle known today, a

new and previously unseen twin exists, heavier and spinning in a different way.

This discovery would herald a new understanding of space-time and the Theory of

Relativity. Furthermore, several generations of experiments using accelerators, reactors, the sun and cosmic rays are advancing our understanding of neutrinos, elusive

particles that, together with their heavy counterparts yet to be discovered, may be

responsible for the matter in our universe.

29

In the last five decades we have moved from a complete lack of understanding

of the bewildering variety of newly discovered particles to a remarkable understanding of how all of these hundreds of particles fit together in a simple and beautiful framework. This modestly named ‘‘Standard Model’’ has produced a transformation of how we think of the universe: how it began and our place within it.

This remarkable intellectual achievement is the result of a powerful interplay between theorists and the experimental physicists and engineers that have built some

of the most technologically advanced facilities ever created. The Standard Model has

only four fundamental forces and only a few elementary constituents, namely, six

quarks and six leptons. At the same time that we have made discoveries that confirm this simple conceptual paradigm, we are discovering a growing number of profound mysteries that cannot be resolved within it. One can say that our progress

has been as great in expanding what we know as in expanding our awareness of

a vast landscape we know nothing about.

As we have advanced in our understanding of particle physics, we have discovered

the deep connection between the world of the very small that we study with accelerators and the world of the very large that we observe in the cosmos. The largest

objects in the universe, galaxies and cluster of galaxies, originated in the subatomic

quantum fluctuations in the earliest moments of the universe. Many of the mysteries that confront us, such as the discovery of dark matter and dark energy as

primary components of our universe, or the nature of neutrinos and their transformations, cannot be explained within our current understanding of particles and

forces, and yet such explanations must exist. This tension between what we have

observed and what we can explain is driving theorists to develop many alternative

frameworks to account for these phenomena. A great expansion of our experimental

horizons will soon take place with the start of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in

Geneva, Switzerland. The LHC promises an extraordinarily exciting and productive

period in the world of science as these theories confront experimental reality and

we make new discoveries, perhaps beyond anything so far imagined.

The extreme technical demands of particle physics experiments lead to inventions

of unanticipated utility. Many innovations have come out of the development of accelerators, fast computational techniques, data mining and processing and particle

detector technologies as described more extensively in Appendix 3. These innovations benefit society and the economy, such as

1) nuclear medicine and the use of isotopes for treatment and for metabolic

studies;

2) the use of accelerators in proton and neutron cancer therapies;

3) the development of light sources and neutron sources to advance many

fields of science, including materials science, atomic and molecular science,

chemical sciences, nanosciences and biosciences;

4) industrial accelerators to sterilize food, modify materials, or inspect components;

5) radiation detectors used in scanning applications for medical diagnosis;

6) radiation detectors for national security and other detection purposes;

7) development of advanced computer technology, spurred by early application

of computers for particle physics data-taking, pattern recognition and analysis on a massive scale;

8) new massive computer architectures, inspired by the boundless needs for

computational power for quantum chromodynamics calculations;

9) advance of the greatest distributed computing systems in the world, grid

computing, launched by the need for computational resources to mine and

model data;

10) perhaps the best known example of an application of particle physics technology, the creation of the World Wide Web at CERN, the European particle physics laboratory. Impelled by the need for communications across

continents on many different platforms, U.S. particle physics laboratories

quickly followed—and so did the world;

11) Future applications of accelerator technologies: safer sub-critical nuclear reactors, transmutation of nuclear waste; bench top accelerators for material,

chemical and biological research.

Research in particle physics plays an important role in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Making discoveries about the world

around us has excited humankind for centuries. The real possibility of understanding matter, energy, space and the evolution and fate of the universe generates

30

excitement around the globe; it is a strong driver of scientific exploration, and it attracts young people to science. For those who choose to pursue particle physics, our

discipline prepares students not only for careers in particle physics but for any career in which large, multidisciplinary teams tackle complex scientific and technological problems. Federal support of particle physics research has trained thousands

of scientists. At my institution, Fermilab, alone, more than 1,700 young scientists

have received their Ph.D.s in the last three decades.

The field has become progressively more international, demanding new forms of

cooperation between the world agencies that support science. As more countries

have invested in particle physics research the scientific collaborations to build accelerators and large detector facilities can typically involve dozens of countries and

more than a hundred institutions. Coordination on a global scale is now common

and will become more so in the future. The U.S. position in this global context of

scientific cooperation and diplomacy is changing. We have been very much at the

leading edge, attracting large investment from global partners to the U.S. For example, the groups operating the CDF and DZERO detectors in the Tevatron, Fermilab’s

proton-antiproton particle collider, each have hundreds of physicists. About 40 percent of these physicists hail from dozens of countries beyond our shores, bringing

their resources and knowledge to the U.S. Similarly, nearly half of the support for

BaBar, the detector in the Asymmetric B–Factory at SLAC, came from Europe. In

a reversal of flow, today nearly 1,500 physicists from the U.S. participate in LHC

experiments in Europe, roughly 25 percent of all users of that facility.

The free international sharing of facilities that has characterized our field has

long been dependent on a balance of investments by various countries and regions

over time, primarily by Europe and the U.S. but also with significant investments

by Japan and China. Today, however, there is a growing imbalance that should

raise grave concern. While the U.S. has either been the leader in particle physics

research or shared leadership with Europe, that leadership is about to pass wholly

to Europe with the start-up of the LHC. Europe’s annual investment in particle

physics is at least twice as large as that in the U.S. The capital value of their facilities will exceed that of the U.S. by an order of magnitude when the Tevatron shuts

down. Nearly all major U.S. facilities, the Asymmetric B–Factory at SLAC, the

Tevatron at Fermilab, the CESR collider at Cornell and the AGS at Brookhaven

have either been shut down for particle physics research or will be shut down within

two years. The last upgrade to a particle physics accelerator facility in the U.S. was

the construction of the Main Injector at Fermilab, completed ten years ago, in 1999.

It will be the one remaining facility devoted to particle physics in the U.S. once the

Tevatron shuts down, and it will have strong competition from an advanced new facility starting in Japan at JPARC.

The future for discovery science in particle physics in the U.S. will depend critically on following a clear scientific roadmap that establishes pioneering research facilities to replace our aging facilities. Last year the High Energy Physics Advisory

Committee, or HEPAP, developed a comprehensive plan for the field. This plan can

be funded within the resources anticipated for the Office of Science during the next

decade. It contains a set of balanced investments in the three great lines of inquiry

of particle physics, all of them driving toward a unified understanding of nature:

1) The Energy Frontier, where we directly produce new particles and explore

new phenomena;

2) The Intensity Frontier, where neutrinos and rare particle processes tell us indirectly about new phenomena at energies even beyond the LHC; and

3) The Cosmic Frontier, where we study natural phenomena arising from the

early universe that ultimately will connect to our understanding of particles

and forces.

The executive summary of this HEPAP plan ‘‘U.S. Particle Physics: Scientific Opportunities’’ is included in this testimony as Appendix 2. Support for the HEPAP

plan at the three frontiers is essential for a vigorous world-leading program in particle physics. And a vigorous and healthy program in this fundamental field of

science is essential for us as a nation to derive the practical benefits that come from

pushing the boundaries of science and technology, to provide a beacon for scientists

and students from the U.S. and the world and to continue as the leader in discovery

science.

31

Appendix 1

The Major Questions in Particle Physics

Appendix 2

‘‘U.S. Particle Physics: Scientific Opportunities’’

Chapter 1: Executive Summary

Appendix 3

‘‘U.S. Particle Physics: Scientific Opportunities’’

Chapter 2: Particle Physics in the National and International

Context

2.1 Long-Term Value of Research in Fundamental Sciences

2.2 Benefits to Society

2.3 The International Context

32

Appendix 1

The Major Questions in Particle Physics

The Standard Model Framework has transformed the way we look at the world

around us. It encompasses the forces and particles that we are familiar with, from

nuclei to atoms to chemistry to biology. We used to think this was what the world

is made of. Today, we know better: it is only some five percent of the matter and

energy in the universe. The vast majority of the universe is dark matter and dark

energy, still totally mysterious and detected only through their gravitational effects

on the cosmos. Observations in space, deep underground and, most powerfully, in

experiments at particle accelerators will ultimately reveal the particles and forces

that underlie dark matter and dark energy.

Profound question such as these arise when we confront the Standard Model with

observations of the universe around us and fail to find an answer within it. It is

clearly an incomplete framework that must be radically expanded to bring a unified

understanding of nature.

Some of the questions that arise when we confront the Standard Model with

cosmological observations are:

• What is the nature of dark matter? Is it a simple particle or a complex set

of particles and interactions?

• What is the nature of dark energy?

• Why is the universe we see made out of matter and not equal parts of matter

and anti-matter as the Standard Model would have it? Do neutrinos provide

the answer?

• What new forces acted at the Big Bang to produce the distribution of matter

we see today?

• How will the universe evolve and what is its end-point?

Other profound questions arise when we join the Standard Model with gravitation:

• Do all forces unify in a single framework?

• Are there extra dimensions of space?

• Are there hidden sectors not yet observed because they are too massive or because they interact weakly with our world?

Further questions arise from the Standard Model itself:

• What mechanism endows elementary particles, those without any internal

structure, with mass?

• Does the Higgs particle that theoretically endows elementary particles with

mass actually exist?

• What is the nature of neutrinos and what do their tiny masses and transformations tell us?

• Do heavy neutrinos exist in the early universe and explain how matter came

to dominate?

• Why are there three families of similar elementary particles and not some

other number: two or four or more?

• Why is there such a vast difference in the masses of the quarks, a factor

greater than 10,000, from the quarks that make up the proton to the top

quark?

• Why are the neutrino masses so light, a million times smaller than the electron mass?

These questions sound almost theological. It is a feature of the remarkable age

of experimentation and discovery we live in that we can expect to answer many of

them in the next few decades.

Further Reading:

1) National Academy of Sciences Report ‘‘ Connecting Quarks to the Cosmos:

Eleven Science Questions for the New Century’’, (http://www.nap.edu/

openbook.php?isbn=0309074061)

2) National Academy of Sciences Report ‘‘ Revealing the Hidden Nature of

Space and Time: Charting a Course for Elementary Particle Physics’’ (http:/

/www.nap.edu/catalog/11641.html)

33

Appendix 2

A U.S. Roadmap for Particle Physics

The field is currently progressing along the roadmap of the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel whose May, 2008 report was recommended by the High

Energy Advisory Committee and serves as a guide: ‘‘US Particle Physics Opportunities: A Strategic Plan for the Next Ten Years’’ (http://www.er.doe.gov/hep/files/ pdfs/P5—Report%2006022008.pdf). The Panel was convened at the request of the

DOE and the NSF to produce a realistic plan for particle physics under several

budget scenarios. This plan proposes to develop the three frontiers of particle physics in a balanced way and has replaced the previous DOE strategy that was aimed

at hosting the International Linear Collider early in the next decade. The reason

for the changed strategy was the large cost estimate for the International Linear

Collider and the absence of new information on the required energy scale—something that only research at the LHC will provide. The cost estimate for the International Linear Collider was developed rigorously by the world particle physics community and it allowed our policy-makers to determine that such a plan could not

be realized any time soon and that a new strategy was required for the health of

the field in the U.S.

One important aspect of this plan is the need for cooperation in major projects across government agencies. The planned Joint Dark Energy Mission requires a

strong partnership between the DOE and NASA. The development of the worldleading neutrino program in the U.S. with a new beam from Fermilab aimed at the

Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory at the Homestake mine,

South Dakota, 1,300 km away, requires a strong partnership between the DOE and

the NSF. While partnerships between NASA and DOE have been successful in the

past such as in the case of the Fermi satellite, and partnerships between the DOE

and NSF have been successful such as in the case of LHC, these new projects are

much larger and will demand even closer collaboration. In the section below I reproduce in its entirety the Executive Summary of the Par- ticle Physics Project Prioritization Panel: ‘‘U.S. Particle Physics Opportunities: A

Strategic Plan for the Next Ten Years’’.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Particle physics is a central component of the physical sciences, focused on the fundamental nature of matter and energy, and of space and time. Discoveries in this

field, often called high-energy physics, will change our basic understanding of nature. The Standard Model of particle physics provides a remarkably accurate description of elementary particles and their interactions. However, experiment and

observation strongly point to a deeper and more fundamental theory that breakthroughs in the coming decade will begin to reveal. To address the central questions in particle physics, researchers use a range of tools and techniques at three interrelated frontiers:

• The Energy Frontier, using high-energy colliders to discover new particles

and directly probe the architecture of the fundamental forces.

• The Intensity Frontier, using intense particle beams to uncover properties of

neutrinos and observe rare processes that will tell us about new physics beyond the Standard Model.

• The Cosmic Frontier, using underground experiments and telescopes, both

ground and space based, to reveal the natures of dark matter and dark energy and using high-energy particles from space to probe new phenomena.

As described in the box on pages X–XX, these three frontiers form an interlocking framework that addresses fundamental questions about the laws of nature and the

cosmos. These three approaches ask different questions and use different techniques, but they ultimately aim at the same transformational science.

The changing context

Recent reports, including the National Research Council’s ‘‘Revealing the Hidden Nature of Space and Time’’ (the EPP2010 report) and earlier P5 reports, have discussed the outlook for the field of particle physics in the United States. The scientific priorities have not changed since those reports appeared, but the context for

the scientific opportunities they describe has altered. Particle physics in the United States is in transition. Two of the three high-energy physics colliders in the U.S. have now permanently ceased operation. The third,

Fermilab’s Tevatron, will turn off in the next few years. The energy frontier, defined

34

for decades by Fermilab’s Tevatron, will move to Europe when CERN’s Large

Hadron Collider begins operating. American high-energy physicists have played a

leadership role in developing and building the LHC program, and they constitute

a significant fraction of the LHC collaborations—the largest group from any single

nation. About half of all U.S. experimental particle physicists participate in LHC

experiments.

As this transition occurs, serious fiscal challenges change the landscape for U.S.

particle physics. The large cost estimate for the International Linear Collider, a centerpiece of previous reports, has delayed plans for a possible construction start and

has led the particle physics community to take a fresh look at the scientific opportunities in the decade ahead. The severe funding reduction in the Omnibus Bill of December 2007 stopped work on several projects and had damaging impacts on the entire field. The present P5 panel has developed a strategic plan that takes these new

realities into account.

Overall recommendation

Particle physics explores the fundamental constituents of matter and energy and

the forces that govern their interactions. Great scientific opportunities point to significant discoveries in particle physics in the decade ahead.

Research in particle physics has inspired generations of young people to engage

with science, benefiting all branches of the physical sciences and strengthening the

scientific workforce. To quote from the EPP2010 report:

‘‘A strong role in particle physics is necessary if the United States is to sustain

its leadership in science and technology over the long-term.’’

The present P5 panel therefore makes the following overall recommendation:

The panel recommends that the U.S. maintain a leadership role in

world-wide particle physics. The panel recommends a strong, integrated research program at the three frontiers of the field: the Energy

Frontier, the Intensity Frontier and the Cosmic Frontier.

The Energy Frontier

Experiments at energy-frontier accelerators will make major discoveries about

particles and their interactions. They will address key questions about the physical

nature of the universe: the origin of particle masses, the existence of new symmetries of nature, the existence of extra dimensions of space, and the nature of dark

matter. Currently, the Tevatron at Fermilab is the highest-energy collider operating

in the world.

The panel recommends continuing support for the Tevatron Collider

program for the next one to two years, to exploit its potential for discoveries.

In the near future, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland

will achieve much higher collision energies than those of any previous accelerator,

to explore the energy range we call the Terascale. The LHC represents the culmination of more than two decades of international effort and investment, with major

U.S. involvement. Experiments at the LHC are poised to make exciting discoveries

that will change our fundamental understanding of nature. Significant U.S. participation in the full exploitation of the LHC has the highest priority in the U.S. highenergy physics program.

The panel recommends support for the U.S. LHC program, including

U.S. involvement in the planned detector and accelerator upgrades.

The international particle physics community has reached consensus that a full

understanding of the physics of the Terascale will require a lepton collider as well

as the LHC. The panel reiterates the importance of such a collider. In the next few

years, results from the LHC will establish its required energy. If the optimum initial energy proves to be at or below approximately 500 GeV, then the International

Linear Collider is the most mature and ready-to-build option with a construction

start possible in the next decade. A requirement for initial energy much higher than

500 GeV will mean considering other collider technologies. The cost and scale of a

lepton collider mean that it would be an international project, with the cost shared

by many nations. International negotiations will determine the siting; the host will

be assured of scientific leadership at the energy frontier. Whatever the technology

of a future lepton collider, and wherever it is located, the U.S. should plan to play

a major role.

35

For the next few years, the U.S. should continue to participate in the inter- national R&D program for the ILC to position the U.S. for an important role should

the ILC be the choice of the international community. The U.S. should also participate in coordinated R&D for the alternative accelerator technologies that a lepton

collider of higher energy would require.

The panel recommends for the near future a broad accelerator and detector R&D program for lepton colliders that includes continued R&D

on ILC at roughly the proposed FY 2009 level in support of the international effort. This will allow a significant role for the U.S. in the ILC

wherever it is built. The panel also recommends R&D for alternative

accelerator technologies, to permit an informed choice when the lepton

collider energy is established.

The Intensity Frontier

Recent striking discoveries make the study of the properties of neutrinos a vitally important area of research. Measurements of the properties of neutrinos are fundamental to understanding physics beyond the Standard Model and have profound

consequences for the evolution of the universe. The latest developments in accelerator and detector technology make possible promising new scientific opportunities

in neutrino science as well as in experiments to measure rare processes. The U.S.

can build on the unique capabilities and infrastructure at Fermilab, together with

DUSEL, the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory proposed for

the Homestake Mine in South Dakota, to develop a world-leading program of neutrino science. Such a program will require a multi-megawatt-powered neutrino

source at Fermilab.

The panel recommends a world-class neutrino program as a core component of the U.S. program, with the long-term vision of a large detector in the proposed DUSEL and a high-intensity neutrino source at

Fermilab.

The panel recommends an R&D program in the immediate future to design a multi-megawatt proton source at Fermilab and a neutrino

beamline to DUSEL and recommends carrying out R&D on the technologies for a large multi-purpose neutrino and proton decay detector.

Construction of these facilities could start within the 10-year period considered by this report.

A neutrino program with a multi-megawatt proton source would be a stepping stone toward a future neutrino source, such as a neutrino factory based on a muon

storage ring, if the science eventually requires a more powerful neutrino source.

This in turn could position the U.S. program to develop a muon collider as a longterm means to return to the energy frontier in the U.S. The proposed DUSEL is key to the vision for the neutrino program. It is also cen- tral to non-accelerator experiments searching for dark matter, proton decay and

neutrino-less double beta decay. DOE and NSF should define clearly the stewardship responsibilities for such a program.

The panel endorses the importance of a deep underground laboratory

to particle physics and urges NSF to make this facility a reality as rapidly as possible. Furthermore the panel recommends that DOE and NSF

work together to realize the experimental particle physics program at

DUSEL.

Scientific opportunities through the measurement of rare processes include experiments to search for muon-to-electron conversion and rare-kaon and B-meson decay.

Such incisive experiments, complementary to experiments at the LHC, would probe

the Terascale and possibly much higher energies.

The panel recommends funding for measurements of rare processes to

an extent depending on the funding levels available, as discussed in

more detail in Sections 3.2.2 and 7.2.3.

The Cosmic Frontier

Although 95 percent of the universe appears to consist of dark matter and dark

energy, we know little about either of them. The quest to elucidate the nature of

dark matter and dark energy is at the heart of particle physics—the study of the

basic constituents of nature, their properties and interactions.

The U.S. is presently a leader in the exploration of the Cosmic Frontier. Compelling opportunities exist for dark matter search experiments, and for both groundVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:06 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 052294 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\100109\52294 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
36

based and space-based dark energy investigations. In addition, two other cosmic

frontier areas offer important scientific opportunities: the study of high-energy particles from space and the cosmic microwave background.

The panel recommends support for the study of dark matter and dark

energy as an integral part of the U.S. particle physics program.

The panel recommends that DOE support the space-based Joint Dark

Energy Mission, in collaboration with NASA, at an appropriate level negotiated with NASA.

The panel recommends DOE support for the ground-based Large Synoptic Survey Telescope program in coordination with NSF at a level

that depends on the overall program budget.

The panel further recommends joint NSF and DOE support for direct

dark matter search experiments.

The panel recommends limited R&D funding for other particle astrophysics projects and recommends establishing a Particle Astrophysics

Science Advisory Group.

Enabling technologies

The U.S. must continue to make advances in accelerator and detector R&D to

maintain leadership at the Intensity and Cosmic Frontiers of particle physics; to

allow for a return to the Energy Frontier in the U.S.; and to develop applications

for the benefit of society.

The panel recommends a broad strategic program in accelerator R&D,

including work on ILC technologies, superconducting rf, high-gradient

normal-conducting accelerators, neutrino factories and muon colliders,

plasma and laser acceleration, and other enabling technologies, along

with support of basic accelerator science.

The panel recommends support for a program of detector R&D on technologies strategically chosen to enable future experiments to advance

the field, as an essential part of the program.

Benefits to society

The drive to understand the world around us is a basic part of our humanity. Re- search in fundamental science provides the ideas and discoveries that form the longterm foundation for science and technology as a whole, which in turn drive the global economy and our very way of life. Each generation of particle accelerators and

detectors builds on the previous one, raising the potential for discovery and pushing

the level of technology ever higher. From the earliest days of high energy physics

in the 1930s to the latest 21st century initiatives, the bold and innovative ideas and

technologies of particle physics have entered the mainstream of society to transform

the way we live. Section 2 addresses these benefits in more detail. Unique to particle physics is the scale of the science: the size and complexity not only of accelerators and detectors but also of scientific collaborations. For example,

superconducting magnets existed before Fermilab’s Tevatron accelerator, but the

scale of the accelerator made the production of such magnets an industrial process,

which led to cost-effective technology for magnetic resonance imaging. The World

Wide Web was invented to solve the problem of communicating in international collaborations of many hundreds of physicists. The scale on which particle physicists

work results in innovations that broadly benefit society. Particle physics has a profound influence on the workforce. The majority of stu- dents trained in particle physics find their way to diverse sectors of the national

economy such as national defense, information technology, medical instrumentation,

electronics, communications, transportation, biophysics and finance—wherever the

workforce requires highly developed analytical and technical skills, the ability to

work in large teams on complex projects, and the ability to think creatively to solve

unique problems.

The international context

The scientific opportunities provided by particle physics bring together scientists from every corner of the globe to work together on experiments and projects all over

the world. Both the technical scale and the costs of today’s largest accelerators and

experiments put them beyond the reach of any single nation’s ability to build or operate. Particle physics projects now take shape as international endeavors from

their inception. As the costs and scale of particle physics facilities grow, interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:06 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 052294 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\100109\52294 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
37

national collaboration becomes increasingly important to the vitality of the field.

Global cooperation, a hallmark of particle physics research, will be even more important in the future.

The Large Hadron Collider accelerator and detector system, for example, drew

from innovation and expertise in Europe, the Americas and Asia to deliver the cutting-edge technology required for this next-generation collider program. The proposed LHC upgrades will likewise have continuing and very significant contributions from these regions. The successful programs at the KEK and SLAC B factories

and at the Tevatron provide additional examples of the benefits of international collaboration. These scientific collaborations take on new significance as beacons for

free and open exchange among men and women of science of all nations. They offer

an inspiring model for cooperation from a field long known for its leadership in

international collaboration.

As particle physics moves into the future, the balance of the physical location of

the major facilities among the regions of the world will be key to maintaining the

vitality of the field in each region and as a whole. In developing a strategic plan

for U.S. particle physics, the P5 panel kept the international context very much in

mind.

The funding scenarios

The funding agencies asked the panel to develop plans in the context of several

DOE funding scenarios:

A. Constant level of effort at the FY 2008 funding level

B. Constant level of effort at the FY 2007 funding level

C. Doubling of budget over ten years starting in FY 2007

D. Additional funding above the previous level, associated with specific activities needed to mount a leadership program.

The FY 2007 DOE funding level was $752M; the FY 2008 level was $688M. Constant level of effort here means that the budget increases with inflation in then-year

dollars. The panel also received guidance on NSF budget assumptions. Interagency

collaboration on particle physics experiments has become increasingly important.

The plan presented in this report depends on such collaborative funding among

DOE, NSF and NASA.

The panel evaluated the scientific opportunities for particle physics in the next

10 years under the various budget scenarios.

Scenario B: Constant level of effort at the FY 2007 level

The scenario of constant level of effort at the FY 2007 level, Scenario B, would

support major advances at all three interrelated frontiers of particle physics. At the

Energy Frontier, the Fermilab Tevatron would run in 2009, but the planned run in

2010 to complete the program could not take place due to budgetary constraints.

The LHC experiments would be well under way. These experiments will likely make

significant discoveries that could change our fundamental understanding of nature.

R&D would go forward on future lepton colliders. At the Intensity Frontier, the

MINOS, Double Chooz, Daya Bay and NOνA experiments would yield a greatly improved—if not complete—understanding of the fundamental properties of neutrinos.

Precision measurements, limited to a muon-to-electron conversion experiment,

would be carried out and the U.S. would participate in one offshore next-generation

B Factory. On the Cosmic Frontier, greatly improved measurements shedding light

on the nature of dark energy would come from the DES, JDEM and LSST projects.

The next generation of dark matter search experiments would reach orders-of-magnitude greater sensitivity to—perhaps even discover—particles that can explain

dark matter.

Under Scenario B, the U.S. would play a leadership role at all three frontiers. Investments in accelerators and detectors at the LHC would enable U.S. scientists to

play a leading role in the second generation of studies at the Energy Frontier. Investments in facility capabilities at the Intensity Frontier at Fermilab and DUSEL

would allow the U.S. to be a world leader in neutrino physics in the following decade. Funding of the cutting edge experiments studying dark matter and dark energy

would insure continued U.S. leadership at the Cosmic Frontier. Investments in a

broad strategic accelerator R&D program would enable the U.S. to remain at the

forefront of accelerator developments and technologies focused on the needs of the

U.S. program at the Energy and Intensity Frontiers.

38

Scenario A: Constant level of effort at the FY 2008 level

Budget Scenario A would significantly reduce the scientific opportunities at each

of the three frontiers compared to Scenario B over the next 10 years. It would severely limit scientific opportunities at the Intensity Frontier during the next decade.

Scenario A would require canceling planned experiments and delaying construction

of new facilities. It would slow progress in understanding dark energy at the Cosmic

Frontier and R&D toward future accelerator facilities at the Energy Frontier. It

would cut the number of scientists, as well as graduate students and postdoctoral

fellows. Scenario A would unduly delay projects, extending them over a longer period.

Scenario A would most profoundly limit studies at the Intensity Frontier, with a

negative impact on both neutrino physics and high-sensitivity measurements. It

would require cancellation of the NOνA neutrino experiment that is ready for construction. The MINERνA experiment could not run beyond FY 2010 due to lack of

funds to operate the Fermilab accelerator complex. Consequently, a first look at the

neutrino mass hierarchy would be unlikely during the next decade, and experimenters could not measure neutrino cross sections, including those important to future long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments. The U.S. could not contribute

significantly to the next-generation overseas B factories that will carry out unprecedented studies of matter-antimatter asymmetry and searches for new processes in

the quark sector. Furthermore, this budget scenario would delay the construction

of a high-intensity proton source at Fermilab by at least three to five years. This

delay would in turn severely compromise the program of neutrino physics and of

high-sensitivity searches for rare decays at the Intensity Frontier in the subsequent

decade.

For dark-energy studies at the Cosmic Frontier, Budget Scenario A would delay

DOE funding for the ground-based LSST telescope.

This budget scenario could not support the investment in new facilities for advanced accelerator R&D, important for future accelerators both at the energy frontier and for other sciences. As discussed above, it would also delay the construction

of a high-intensity proton source, postponing the establishment of a foundation for

energy frontier studies at a possible future muon collider.

Scenario A would require an additional reduction of approximately 10 percent beyond the FY 2008 cuts in the number of scientists over the 10-year period. It would

lead to a significant drop in the number of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Scenario A’s drought in R&D coupled with delays in facility construction imposed during this decade would limit scientific opportunities in the subsequent decade.

Overall, while this funding level could deliver significant science, there would be

outstanding scientific opportunities that could not be pursued. It would sharply diminish the U.S. capability in particle physics from its present leadership role.

Scenario C: The doubling budget

Budget Scenario C would support a world-class program of scientific discovery at

all three frontiers in the decade ahead. It would provide strong support for the development of future research capabilities and of the scientific work force. Programs

could move forward at a more efficient pace, with reduced costs, more timely physics

results and increased scientific impact.

At the Energy Frontier, this budget scenario would extend the discovery potential

of the Fermilab Tevatron Collider by supporting operation in FY 2010. Budget scenario C would provide robust funding for exploitation of the LHC physics potential.

It would increase operations funding for U.S. groups working in Europe on the LHC

and provide the needed personnel support at both universities and national laboratories for LHC detector and machine upgrades.

Progress toward a future lepton collider is a very high priority of the field worldwide. Should results from the LHC show that the ILC is the lepton collider of

choice, funding in this scenario would support R&D and enable the start of construction of an ILC abroad. If LHC results point to another lepton collider technology,

its R&D would advance. Increased funding for muon collider R&D would lead to an

earlier feasibility determination for a neutrino factory and perhaps a muon collider.

Scenario C would significantly advance the exploration of physics at the Intensity

Frontier. Construction of a new high-intensity proton source at Fermilab, which

would support both neutrino physics and precision searches for rare decays, would

be complete. Scenario C would enable an earlier construction start than would Scenario B and would shorten the construction time. It would also advance the design

and construction of a beamline to DUSEL and would reduce the overall cost and

risk of both these projects. Efforts to develop the technology for large-scale liquid

39

argon or water Cerenkov detectors for neutrino physics and proton decay would benefit greatly from increased funding, leading to an earlier construction start, shorter

construction period and reduced risk for a large underground detector at DUSEL.

Scenario C would enable the high-sensitivity neutrino experiment to operate during

the decade, providing great sensitivity to matter-antimatter asymmetry in

neutrinos. Scenario C would also enable new rare K-decay experiments highly sensitive to new physics.

At the Cosmic Frontier, Scenario C would advance the exploration of dark energy

by enabling the timely completion of the two most sensitive detectors of dark energy, the JDEM space mission and the ground-based LSST telescope. Scenario C enables strategic, large-scale investments in exciting projects at the boundary between

particle physics and astrophysics, the study of high-energy particles from space.

Without these investments, the U.S. will likely lose leadership in this rapidly developing area.

Budget scenario C would provide needed additional funds to advance accelerator

R&D and technology goals. These goals go well beyond preparation for possible participation in ILC. Accelerator goals for the field include advancing the development

of key enabling technologies such as superconducting rf technology, high-field magnet technology, high-gradient warm rf accelerating structures, rf power sources, and

advanced accelerator R&D, all of which could greatly benefit from increased funding.

Increased funding in Scenario C would allow a robust detector R&D program in

the U.S. to prepare for future experiments at both the energy and intensity frontiers.

Budget Scenario C provides desperately needed resources to rebuild university

and laboratory infrastructure that has eroded during lean funding years and would

allow retention and hiring of needed laboratory and university technical staff. This

budget scenario would provide additional support for university groups, further addressing the pressing needs enunciated in several recent reports, among them the

National Academy’s ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm.’’

Scenario D: Additional funding

The following scientific opportunities would justify additional funding above the

level of the funding scenarios discussed above.

A lepton collider will be essential for the in-depth understanding of new physics

discovered at the LHC: the source of the masses of the elementary particles, new

laws of nature, additional dimensions of space, the creation of dark matter in the

laboratory, or something not yet imagined. Major participation by the U.S. in constructing such a facility would require additional funding beyond that available in

the previous funding scenarios.

The study of dark energy is central to the field of particle physics. DOE is currently engaged with NASA in negotiations concerning the space-based Joint Dark

Energy Mission. If the scale of JDEM requires significantly more funding than is

currently being discussed, an increase in the budget beyond the previous funding

scenarios would be justified.

40

41

42

43

Appendix 3

Economic and Societal Benefits

Although the purpose of particle physics research is to gain knowledge about the world around us and is not directly focused on applications, much of the research

requires the development of new techniques. Particle physics is also not directly focused on education, but it has great impact as it inspires the young to technical and

scientific careers and trains students rigorously who work in the field. The field

thus contributes broadly through applications and education to the economic benefit

of the society. The attraction of Fermilab to young students is remarkable. Either directly or in- directly through their teachers we have connections to more than 30,000 students

and 2,000 teachers yearly in grades K through 12th. For many years we have hosted

Saturday Morning Physics bringing students from the local high schools to

Fermilab. Science fairs at the laboratory bring thousands of guests of all ages. Cosmic ray chambers at high schools allow students and their teachers to build a network to study extensive cosmic ray showers in the atmosphere. Those students attracted to scientific careers will pursue advanced degrees in many of our research universities, all of which have strong particle physics groups

that collaborate here and in Europe on forefront experiments. Fermilab has produced more than 1,700 Ph.D.s with nearly half coming from abroad. These students

are trained technically and trained to work cooperatively with colleagues across the

world. It is not unusual in particle physics collaborations to have colleagues from

countries that are in conflict and at each other’s throats working together to solve

research problems at work or when breaking bread together. Innovation has characterized particle physics. As technologies have found broad application, particle physicists cannot claim all the credit since as technologies

evolve they advance in broad multi-disciplinary fronts with many contributors. It is

possible however to trace the origin of technologies to the early applications that establish their foundations. On these foundations industry produces practical products

and tools. A study of these applications was done in connection with the Particle

Physics Prioritization Panel of the HEPAP advisory committee in 2008 and its conclusions are reproduced below.

2. PARTICLE PHYSICS IN THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

2.1. LONG-TERM VALUE OF RESEARCH IN FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCES

The drive to understand the world around us is a basic part of our humanity. Re- search in fundamental science provides the ideas and discoveries that form the longterm foundation for science and technology as a whole, which in turn drive the global economy and our very way of life. In 2005, a panel of nationally recognized experts from across the spectrum of science and society, chaired by Norman Augustine, retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Lockheed Martin Corporation, produced ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering

Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.’’ To

quote from the report:

‘‘The growth of economies throughout the world has been driven largely by the

pursuit of scientific understanding, the application of engineering solutions, and

the continual technological innovation. Today, much of everyday life in the

United States and other industrialized nations, as evidenced in transportation,

communication, agriculture, education, health, defense, and jobs, is the product

of investments in research and in the education of scientists and engineers. One

need only think about how different our daily lives would be without the technological innovations of the last century or so.’’

The ‘‘Gathering Storm’’ report makes the following recommendation:

‘‘Sustain and strengthen the Nation’s traditional commitment to long-term basic

research that has the potential to be transformational to maintain the flow of

new ideas that fuel the economy, provide security, and enhance the quality of

life.’’

The ‘‘Gathering Storm’’ report was influential in forging a bipartisan accord in

Washington to strive toward global leadership in science for the U.S. by doubling

the funding for research in the physical sciences over the next decade, among other

actions.

44

Particle physics is a central component of the physical sciences, focused on the

fundamental nature of matter and energy, and of space and time. Discoveries in

particle physics will change our basic understanding of nature. Particle physics has

inspired generations of young people to get involved with science, benefiting all

branches of the physical sciences and strengthening the scientific workforce.

To quote from another National Academies report, ‘‘Charting the Course for Elementary Particle Physics,’’ the work of a panel including leaders from both science

and industry and chaired by economist Harold Shapiro:

‘‘A strong role in particle physics is necessary if the United States is to sustain

its leadership in science and technology over the long-term.’’

That report continues:

‘‘The committee affirms the intrinsic value of elementary particle physics as part

of the broader scientific and technological enterprise and identifies it as a key

priority within the physical sciences.’’

Besides its long-term scientific importance, particle physics generates technological innovations with profound benefits for the sciences and society as a whole.

2.2. BENEFITS TO SOCIETY

It’s a simple idea. Take the smallest possible particles. Give them the highest possible energy. Smash them together. Watch what happens. From this simple idea

have come the science and technology of particle physics, a deep understanding of

the physical universe and countless benefits to society.

Each generation of particle accelerators and detectors builds on the previous one,

raising the potential for discovery and pushing the level of technology ever higher.

In 1930, Ernest O. Lawrence, the father of particle accelerators, built the first cyclotron at Berkeley, California. He could hold it in his hand. Larger and more powerful

accelerators soon followed. After a day’s work, Lawrence often operated the Berkeley

cyclotrons through the night to produce medical isotopes for research and treatment.

In 1938, Lawrence’s mother became the first cancer patient to be treated successfully with particles from cyclotrons. Now doctors use particle beams for the diagnosis and healing of millions of patients. From the earliest days of high energy

physics in the 1930s to the latest 21st century initiatives, the bold and innovative

ideas and technologies of particle physics have entered the mainstream of society

to transform the way we live.

Some applications of particle physics—the superconducting wire and cable at the

heart of magnetic resonance imaging magnets, the World Wide Web—are so familiar

they are almost cliche ́s. But particle physics has myriad lesser-known impacts. Few

outside the community of experts who study the behavior of fluids in motion have

probably heard of the particle detector technology that revolutionized the study of

fluid turbulence in fuel flow.

What is unique to particle physics is the scale of the science: the size and complexity not only of accelerators and detectors but also of scientific collaborations. For

example, superconducting magnets existed before Fermilab’s Tevatron, but the scale

of the accelerator made the production of such magnets an industrial process, which

led to cost-effective technology for magnetic resonance imaging. The World Wide

Web was invented to solve the problem of communicating in an international collaboration of many hundreds of physicists. The scale on which particle physicists

work results in innovations that broadly benefit society.

Selected examples from medicine, homeland security, industry, computing,

science, and workforce development illustrate a long and growing list of beneficial

practical applications with origins in particle physics.

Medicine: cancer therapy

The technologies of particle physics have yielded dramatic advances in cancer

treatment. Today, every major medical center in the Nation uses accelerators producing X-rays, protons, neutrons or heavy ions for the diagnosis and treatment of

disease. Particle accelerators play an integral role in the advance of cancer therapy.

Medical linacs for cancer therapy were pioneered simultaneously at Stanford and in

the UK in the 1950s using techniques that had been developed for high energy

physics research. This R&D spawned a new industry and has saved millions of lives.

Today it is estimated that there are over 7,000 operating medical linacs around

the world that have treated over 30,000,000 patients.

Fermilab physicists and engineers built the Nation’s first proton accelerator for

cancer therapy and shipped it to the Loma Linda University Medical Center, where

it has treated some 7,000 patients. Relative to X-rays, proton therapy offers imporVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:06 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 052294 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\100109\52294 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
45

tant therapeutic benefits, especially for pediatric patients. The Neutron Therapy Facility at Fermilab has the highest energy and the deepest penetration of any fast

neutron beam in the United States. Neutrons are effective against large tumors.

More than 3,500 patients have received treatment at the Neutron Therapy Facility.

Medicine: diagnostic instrumentation

Particle physics experiments use an array of experimental techniques for detecting particles; they find a wide range of practical applications. Particle detectors first

developed for particle physics are now ubiquitous in medical imaging. Positron emission tomography, the technology of PET scans, came directly from detectors initially

designed for particle physics experiments sensing individual photons of light. Silicon

tracking detectors, composed of minute sensing elements sensitive to the passage of

single particles, are now used in neuroscience experiments to investigate the workings of the retina for development of retinal prosthetics for artificial vision.

Homeland security: monitoring nuclear nonproliferation

In nuclear reactors, the amount of plutonium builds up as the uranium fuel is

used, and the number and characteristics of anti-neutrinos emitted by plutonium

differ significantly from those of anti-neutrinos emitted by uranium. This makes it

possible for a specially doped liquid scintillator detector monitoring the anti-neutrino flux from a nuclear reactor core to analyze the content of the reactor and

verify that no tampering has occurred with the reactor fuel. Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory has built and is testing a one-ton version of this type of detector, originally developed by high energy physicists to study the characteristics of

neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, as a demonstration of a new monitoring technology for

nuclear nonproliferation.

Industry: power transmission

Cables made of superconducting material can carry far more electricity than conventional cables with minimal power losses. Underground copper transmission lines

or power cables are near their capacity in many densely populated areas, and superconducting cables offer an opportunity to meet continued need. Further superconducting technology advances in particle physics will help promote this nascent

industry.

Industry: biomedicine and drug development

Biomedical scientists use particle physics technologies to decipher the structure

of proteins, information that is key to understanding biological processes and healing disease. To determine a protein’s structure, researchers direct the beam of light

from an accelerator called a synchrotron through a protein crystal. The crystal scatters the beam onto a detector. From the scattering pattern, computers calculate the

position of every atom in the protein molecule and create a 3–D image of the molecule. A clearer understanding of protein structure allows for the development of

more effective drugs. Abbott Labs’ research at Argonne National Laboratory’s Advanced Photon Source was critical in developing Kaletra®, one of the world’s mostprescribed drugs to fight AIDS. Next-generation light sources will offer still more

precise studies of protein structure without the need for crystallization.

Industry: understanding turbulence

Turbulence is a challenge to all areas of fluid mechanics and engineering. Although it remains poorly understood and poorly modeled, it is a dominant factor determining the performance of virtually all fluid systems from long distance oil pipelines to fuel injection systems to models for global weather prediction. Improvements to our knowledge will have payoffs in reducing energy losses in fuel transport, improving efficiency of engines and deepening our understanding of global climate behavior. Technology developed for particle physics and applied to problems

of turbulence has extended our understanding of this difficult phenomenon by more

than tenfold. Silicon strip detectors and low-noise amplifiers developed for particle

physics are used to detect light scattered from microscopic tracer particles in a turbulent fluid. This technique has permitted detailed studies of turbulence on microscopic scales and at Reynolds numbers more than an order of magnitude beyond any

previous experimental reach.

Computing: the World Wide Web

CERN scientist Tim Berners-Lee developed the World Wide Web to give particle

physicists a tool to communicate quickly and effectively with globally dispersed colVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:06 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 052294 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\100109\52294 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
46

leagues at universities and laboratories. The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

had the first web site in the United States, Fermilab had the second. Today there

are more than 150 million registered web sites. Few other technological advances

in history have more profoundly affected the global economy and societal interactions than the Web. Revenues from the World Wide Web exceeded one trillion dollars in 2001 with exponential growth continuing.

Computing: the Grid

Particle physics experiments generate unprecedented amounts of data that require new and advanced computing technology to analyze. To quickly process this

data, more than two decades ago particle physicists pioneered the construction of

low-cost computing farms, a group of servers housed in one location. Today, particle

physics experiments push the capability of the Grid, the newest computing tool that

allows physicists to manage and process their enormous amounts of data across the

globe by combining the strength of hundreds of thousands of individual computers.

Industries such as medicine and finance are examples of other fields that also generate large amounts of data and benefit from advanced computing technology.

Sciences: synchrotron light sources

Particle physicists originally built electron accelerators to explore the fundamental nature of matter. At first, they looked on the phenomenon of synchrotron

radiation as a troublesome problem that sapped electrons’ acceleration energy. However, they soon saw the potential to use this nuisance energy loss as a new and

uniquely powerful tool to study biological molecules and other materials. In the

1970s, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center built the first large-scale light source

user facility. Now, at facilities around the world, researchers use the ultra-powerful

X-ray beams of dedicated synchrotron light sources to create the brightest lights on

Earth. These luminous sources provide tools for protein structure analysis, pharmaceutical research and drug development, real-time visualization of chemical reactions and biochemical processes, materials science, semiconductor circuit lithography, and historical research and the restoration of works of art.

Sciences: spallation neutron sources

Using accelerator technologies, spallation neutron sources produce powerful neutron beams by bombarding a mercury target with energetic protons from a large accelerator complex. The protons excite the mercury nuclei in a reaction process called

spallation, releasing neutrons that are formed into beams and guided to neutron instruments. Using these sophisticated sources, scientists and engineers explore the

most intimate structural details of a vast array of novel materials.

Sciences: analytic tools

Particle physicists have developed theoretical and experimental analytic tools and

techniques that find applications in other scientific fields and in commerce. Renormalization group theory first developed to rigorously describe particle interactions has found applications in solid state physics and superconductivity. Nuclear

physics uses chiral lagrangians, and string theory has contributed to the mathematics of topology. Experimental particle physicists have also made contributions

through the development of tools for extracting weak signals from enormous backgrounds and for handling very large data sets. Scientists trained in particle physics

have used neural networks in neuroscience to investigate the workings of the retina

and in meteorology to measure raindrop sizes with optical sensors.

Workforce development: training scientists

Particle physics has a profound influence on the workforce. Basic science is a magnet that attracts inquisitive and capable students. In particle physics, roughly one

sixth of those completing Ph.D.s ultimately pursue careers in basic high-energy

physics research. The rest find their way to diverse sectors of the national economy

such as industry, national defense, information technology, medical instrumentation, electronics, communications, biophysics and finance—wherever the workforce

requires highly developed analytical and technical skills, the ability to work in large

teams on complex projects, and the ability to think creatively to solve unique problems.

A growing list

The science and technology of particle physics have transformational applications

for many other areas of benefit to the Nation’s well-being.

47

• Food sterilization

• Medical isotope production

• Simulation of cancer treatments

• Reliability testing of nuclear weapons

• Scanning of shipping containers

• Proposed combination of PET and MRI imaging

• Improved sound quality in archival recordings

• Parallel computing

• Ion implantation for strengthening materials

• Curing of epoxies and plastics

• Data mining and simulation

• Nuclear waste transmutation

• Remote operation of complex facilities

• International relations

At this time there exist few quantitative analyses of the economic benefits of par- ticle physics applications. A systematic professional study would have value for assessing and predicting the impact of particle physics technology applications on the

Nation’s economy.

2.3. THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

The scientific opportunities provided by particle physics bring together hundreds of scientists from every corner of the globe to work together on experiments and

projects all over the world. Both the technical scale and the costs of today’s large

accelerators put them beyond the reach of any single nation’s ability to build or operate. Particle physics projects now take shape as international endeavors from

their inception. These scientific collaborations take on new significance as beacons

for free and open exchange among men and women of science of all nations. They

offer an inspiring model for cooperation from a field long known for its leadership

in international collaboration.

Collider experiments have had strong international collaboration from the outset. Experiments at CERN, Fermilab and SLAC combined the strengths of U.S., European and Asian groups to achieve the ground-breaking discoveries that define particle physics today. Accelerator design and construction is now a joint effort as well.

American accelerator physicists and engineers helped the Europeans build the

Large Hadron Collider at CERN and collaborated with the Chinese to build the Beijing Electron-Positron Collider. The GLAST project involves a seven-nation collaboration of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Sweden and the U.S. Japan is currently constructing a 50–GeV proton synchrotron at the Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex. The JPARC synchrotron will produce an intense

neutrino beam aimed at the large Super-Kamiokande detector to study neutrino oscillations and matter-antimatter asymmetry. This experiment has significant U.S.

participation, as did its predecessors. U.S. physicists are also working on two overseas reactor neutrino experiments, Daya Bay in China and Double Chooz in France.

The KEK B–Factory and the Belle detector continue to operate, and plans are

under way to significantly increase the collider’s beam intensity to improve sensitivity to physics beyond the Standard Model. Modest U.S. participation continues in

this collaboration. At lower energies, the new BEPC–II collider in China is about

to start operation. A number of U.S. groups are working on its experimental program.

Cosmic Frontier experiments have also involved international collaboration, but

on a smaller scale due to the hitherto modest size of the experiments. Here too,

however, the magnitude of future experiments makes international collaboration essential.

Planning for the future of the field is also international. Both HEPAP and P5

have members from Europe and Asia, essential for understanding the current and

future programs in those regions at all three scientific frontiers in particle physics.

The transformation occurring in the international scene has presented challenges

to this panel. Free access for physicists of all nations to the world’s accelerators

rests on the assumption that each region takes its share of responsibility by building and operating such facilities. In recent decades, each region hosted major

collider experiments and a variety of smaller experiments. But now, with the end

of both the Cornell and SLAC collider programs and with the Fermilab Tevatron

collider about to complete its program in the next few years, the map of the field

is changing rapidly. Most of the accelerator-based experiments in the near-term will

48

occur overseas. The panel has given careful consideration to how the changing international context will affect the ability of the U.S. to pursue most effectively the extraordinary scientific opportunities that lie ahead and to remain a world leader in

the field of particle physics.

BIOGRAPHY FOR PIERMARIA J. ODDONE

Oddone was appointed Director of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in July,

2005. Fermilab, a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory, is managed by Fermi Research Alliance (FRA), a partnership of the University of Chicago and the Universities Research Association (URA). Fermilab advances the understanding of matter,

energy, space and time through the study of elementary particle physics. Fermilab

provides cutting edge particle accelerators and detectors to qualified researchers to

conduct basic research at the frontiers of particle physics and related disciplines.

Fermilab also has a vital program in particle astrophysics and cosmology linking the

physics of elementary particles to the evolution and fate of the Universe.

Oddone was previously Deputy Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, with primary responsibility for the scientific development of the laboratory

and its representation to the agencies. Achievements during his tenure as Deputy

Director include gaining the National Energy Super Computer Center (NERSC),

launching and developing the Joint Genome Institute (JGI), breaking ground on the

Molecular Foundry (the LBNL nanosciences center), establishing major new programs in quantitative biology, astrophysics and computer science and exploiting the

Advanced Light Source (ALS).

Oddone’s research has been in experimental particle physics and based primarily

on electron-positron colliders at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). He

invented the Asymmetric B–Factory, a new kind of elementary particle collider to

study the differences between matter and antimatter and worked in the development of the PEP II Asymmetric B–Factory at SLAC (a second one was built in

Tsukuba, Japan) and the formation of the large international collaboration, BaBar,

to exploit its physics opportunities. Together with the Belle detector in Japan,

BaBar discovered the violation of matter-antimatter symmetry in the decay of particles containing the b quark. Hundreds of researchers have exploited the B–Factories over the last decade, developing a precise understanding of the quark model.

Oddone received the 2005 Panofsky Award of the American Physical Society for the

invention of the Asymmetric B–Factory. He is a Fellow of the American Physical

Society. He was elected as Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences in

2008. He also is a member of the Executive Council of the National Laboratory Directors Council (NLDC).

Oddone was born in Arequipa, Peru, and is a U.S. citizen. After receiving his undergraduate degree from MIT, Oddone received his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton

University followed by a post-doctoral fellowship at Caltech. He joined the Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory in 1972.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Oddone.

Dr. Montgomery.

STATEMENT OF DR. HUGH E. MONTGOMERY, PRESIDENT, JEFFERSON SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, LLC; DIRECTOR, THOMAS

JEFFERSON NATIONAL ACCELERATOR FACILITY

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Inglis and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear

before you. As you might notice, I have a slight accent. I have been

an active researcher in Europe and in the United States for my entire professional career and I am currently Director of one of your

great attractors, the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Jefferson Lab in Newport News. I am going to concentrate a

little on the nuclear physics aspect of this hearing.

The hearing has a grand and beautiful title: Investigating the

Nature of Matter, Energy, Space and Time. It could be argued that

this has been the program since man stood on two legs. Indeed, for

those of you who think that nuclear physics does not affect you, I

point out that nuclear physicists study the building blocks that

49

make up 99 percent of the mass of our everyday world. Since nuclear physics was born about a century ago, much has been learned

and some of the fundamental structures of nuclei have been delineated, but much still remains a mystery. Now, while nuclear physics is a basic science, it is also important for the impacts it has on

society, some of which I will mention later. Our field also creates

a cadre of highly intellectual, highly educated individuals capable

of addressing the problems facing our society.

Three research thrusts provide the framework that defines nuclear physics. Each of these thrusts offers the potential for discovery and each is a way to examine the universe and the nature

of matter. The Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility,

CEBAF, at Jefferson Lab is the world leader in incisive studies of

properties of the nucleon and the nuclei, distributions of the constituent quarks and gluons, their motion and their spin. A truly

fascinating aspect of nature is that the masses of the protons and

neutrons arise not from the masses of the quarks within them but

rather from their interactions. This is Einstein’s E = mc2 at work.

Complementary research is conducted at Brookhaven National

Laboratory where the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) compresses protons and neutrons in high energy collisions between

gold nuclei. This actually melts the nuclei and the constituents, the

quarks and gluons, form a liquid by a plasma that is believed to

have existed in the first moments of the universe.

The study of the structure of complex nuclei also leads to an understanding of how stars and planets are formed from nucleo-synthesis. Reactors in different parts of the world are used by U.S.

physicists to study ghost-like particles called neutrinos. The latter

is an example from the branch of our field labeled fundamental

symmetries.

Now, nuclear physics enjoys a relatively high profile, largely due

to its role in nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. This only hints,

however, at the potential that nuclear physics holds for society. Radiation imaging techniques developed for nuclear physics experiments at Jefferson Lab have led to inexpensive mobile devices that

detect cancer early and save lives. Each year I and maybe one or

two of you get a stress test using radioactive isotopes and positronelectron tomography to ensure that the blood flows through the

right parts of my heart.

Nuclear physicists are essential not only in the university classroom. They also assume critical roles in society, in fields such as

national defense and environmental research and in industry.

These working scientists make essential contributions to the education of our citizens in this increasingly technological society.

Now, the United States continues to be the world leader in the

construction and operation of large nuclear physics facilities. We

are upgrading existing accelerators, for example, doubling the energy of CEBAF, and we will soon start construction of the Facility

for Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan State University. Vigorous operation of these and other facilities, RHIC, for example, will underpin a superb science program for the next decade and more. And

on the horizon, we are developing an Electron Ion Collider that will

form a crucial cornerstone for the field in the subsequent decades.

50

In summary, nuclear physics is a key contributor to science and

society. I believe it is an endeavor worthy of the support of the people of this country.

I would like to thank you again for this opportunity and will be

happy to try to answer your questions. And if I could just use the

‘‘orange time’’ in my presentation, I would like to suggest that we

read the panels behind you. It says on the left, ‘‘For I dipped into

the future, far as human eyes could see, saw the vision of the world

and all the wonder that that would be,’’ and on the right it says,

‘‘Where there is no vision, the people perish.’’ Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Montgomery follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HUGH E. MONTGOMERY

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to appear before you to provide testimony on the question

of ‘‘Investigating the Nature of Matter, Energy, Space, and Time.’’ While I have only

been Director of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Jefferson Lab

for the past year, I have been an active researcher in the field, here and in Europe,

for my entire professional career. I am pleased to offer you my perspective on the

subject with emphasis on that part covered by the programs of the Office of Nuclear

Physics in the Office of Science of the Department of Energy.

This hearing has been given a grand and beautiful title, ‘‘Investigating the Nature

of Matter, Energy, Space, and Time.’’ It could be argued that this has been the program of mankind since man stood on two legs. For those who may think that nuclear physics does not affect you, I would point out that nuclear physicists study

the building blocks that make up 99.9 percent of the mass of our everyday world.

We seek not only a concise description of matter but also to describe the interactions

between the building blocks of matter and the way that elements can exist.

About a century ago, Rutherford performed experiments which suggested strongly

the existence of a nucleus within each atom. With those experiments nuclear physics was born. A major transition took place in the middle of the twentieth century

with the development of accelerators, enabling us to probe and manipulate the nucleus. While much has been learned and some of the fundamental structure of

nuclei has been delineated, much still remains a mystery. To achieve the goal of

finding the building blocks of the universe, it is therefore imperative to continue this

quest with the more powerful experimental techniques that become available with

technological progress.

Nuclear physics is a basic science and in my testimony I will discuss aspects of

that fundamental science, an historical perspective of the field, its accomplishments,

and a look to the future. However, nuclear science is also important for the impacts

it has on society. These impacts come not only from the fundamental understanding

that results from our research but from the tools and technologies developed both

from our evolving understanding of nuclei themselves and from the novel apparatus

devised to obtain that understanding. They range from nuclear magnetic resonance

imaging, to radioactive tracer tagging (used in biological research and cancer detection), to accelerators (used for applications as diverse as cancer treatment and semiconductor manufacturing, as well as for basic research in many fields), to nuclear

power and nuclear weapons. The search for basic knowledge in nuclear physics also

generates a cadre of highly-educated individuals, who often apply their training in

nuclear physics to a broad range of problems faced by society.

Since a complete discussion of the subject of nuclear physics is beyond the scope

of this testimony, I will rely on the testimonies of my colleagues in this hearing for

some of the underpinning context for my remarks. For example, I believe that Dr.

Kovar’s testimony will include a complete sketch of the governance and support of

nuclear physics within the United States. It is indeed important to recognize that

both the Department of Energy Office of Science and the National Science Foundation provide support for research facilities and research physicists in this field.

There are three major components of the field of nuclear physics, which I will

briefly summarize.

For the first seventy years of the last century, nuclear physicists developed a description of nuclei and their properties in terms of the then-known building blocks,

protons and neutrons, and their interactions. In 1968, we discovered that the

nucleons had constituents, which we dubbed quarks and we invented gluons to bind

them together and developed a theory, which we named quantum chromodynamics,

51

to describe their interactions. A truly fascinating aspect of nature, at this extraordinarily small distance scale, is that the masses of the protons and neutrons arise

not from the masses of the quarks, but rather from the gluons, which carry their

interactions. It is interesting to speculate on the consequences of this for the technology of the next fifty years. The Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Jefferson Lab, has become the world leader in incisive studies

of properties of the nucleon and the nuclei associated with the distributions of

quarks and gluons, their motion and their spin. The accelerator was built a little

more than a decade ago using an innovative, superconducting radio frequency, acceleration technique. The current experimental program, with six billion (or giga)-electron-volt (six GeV) beam energy and with exquisite control of the electron spin, has

opened new windows on the distributions not only of quarks and gluons, but also

of their spin. We are now in the midst of an upgrade project to raise the energy

to 12 GeV in order to extend this knowledge. The additional energy will also allow

us to search directly for configurations where the glue plays a predominant role, as

predicted by the theory but not yet seen. This work has the potential to tell us why

we have never yet seen an isolated quark or gluon. Complementary research at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory compresses protons and neutrons in high energy

collisions between gold nuclei. This raises the temperature of the nuclear matter to

many thousands of times that of the sun. The nuclei then melt, forming a quarkgluon liquid much as ice melts into water. This liquid, which exhibits spectacular

properties, is believed to have existed in the first moments of existence of the universe. The structure of complex nuclei continues to be a challenging subject with new frontiers to be explored. The conventional view of a nucleus is that it is built up

of protons and neutrons. We label the element using the number of the protons.

That is the property which distinguishes lead from gold, or helium from hydrogen.

The numbers of neutrons are also important and it is their presence that changes

hydrogen into deuterium and tritium, or Uranium-235 (the component which makes

a nuclear fuel ‘‘enriched’’) into Uranium-238. Our interest today is in manipulating

these building blocks of our universe by working with rare isotopes and radioactive

beams to find the maximum numbers of protons or neutrons that we can insert into

a given nucleus. These studies lead to the understanding of processes like nucleosynthesis, the physics that underlies the existence of the stars and the planets and

the relative abundance of their constituent elements. Work is just underway to build

a major new facility in the U.S., the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan

State University, to help address these questions. At Jefferson Lab, a planned experiment to measure the radius of the neutrons in lead will provide input to understanding neutron stars.

In some radioactive decays of nuclei, in particular in β decay, neutrinos are produced. The study of these ghost-like particles has historically been a very important

component of nuclear physics. Recently there was some beautiful work employing

nuclear reactors such as the KamLand experiment, executed in Japan. The Daya

Bay neutrino oscillation experiment is under construction in China, enabled by

funding support for U.S. physicists in international collaborations. These are examples from the third branch of our field, which is often labeled as ‘‘fundamental symmetries.’’

Together these three research thrusts (quantum chromodynamics, nuclear structure and astrophysics, and fundamental symmetries), while always shifting, are the

framework within which nuclear physics has defined itself. Each of the directions

offers the possibility of discovery; each is a way to examine the universe and its

building blocks. I have emphasized the experimental thrusts within the field, but

to realize a description also requires a theory. Quantum chromodynamics is rich

enough to potentially describe not only the quarks and gluons and their interactions, but also the nucleons and hadrons and their interactions. But executing the

calculations is a challenge. Nuclear physics theorists have helped to design dedicated computer chips, have helped to connect desktop computers in innovative ways,

and are now turning to the graphics engines to supplement the traditional supercomputer resources they need for their work.

Of all the sciences, nuclear physics enjoys a relatively high profile due to the

prominence of nuclear weapons in the story of the second half of the twentieth century as well as the use of nuclear fission for nuclear power. Just across the James

River from us in Surry, Virginia are two nuclear reactors, which supply electricity

that is clean and reliable. If we can manage the surrounding political issues, nuclear

power could play a major role in providing energy for the human race. Since the

discovery of radioactivity, the use of nuclear properties for medical treatment has

52

become part of our everyday life. Within the past ten years, the radiation imaging

techniques, developed for nuclear physics experiments at Jefferson Lab, have led to

the development of fresh approaches to mammography and the deployment of inexpensive, mobile commercial devices that detect cancers earlier and save lives. Each

year I, and perhaps others among you, get a stress test that uses radioactive isotopes and positron electron tomography to check that my blood is flowing to the

right parts of my heart. The production of these isotopes is another important byproduct of the nuclear physics research we do. Nuclear physicists are essential not

only in the university classroom. They assume critical roles in society, in fields such

as nuclear energy and nuclear medicine and in industry more generally, a fact demonstrated in detail by the Cerny report.

In addition, the contributions of working scientists to the education of the citizens

of our increasingly technological society are not only desirable but essential.

Nuclear physics depends on large facilities, and the United States continues to be

a world leader in the construction and operation of these facilities. These include

the devices at the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory at Michigan

State University, CEBAF at Jefferson Lab, and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider

at Brookhaven. (This list is not exclusive, and U.S. nuclear physicists also work at

other facilities located at laboratories and universities across the globe.) We are upgrading the existing accelerators, for example taking CEBAF to 12 GeV, and will

soon start construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams at NSCL. Vigorous

operation of these and other facilities will underpin a superb science program for

the next decade and more. What we see on the horizon, as was indicated in the 2007

long range plan for the field, is an Electron Ion Collider. This could be thought of

as a higher energy version of the functionality currently provided by CEBAF at Jefferson Lab. The discussions of the physics case and of some design concepts are currently under way. We are looking to converge on the choice of the site in a few years

and expect to set a goal of construction towards the end of the next decade. This

would take our search for, and understanding of, the building blocks of the universe

to the next stage from the nuclear physics point of view. It would form a crucial

cornerstone for the field in the subsequent decades.

The state-of-the-art nuclear physics facilities in the United States are also available to collaborating scientists from around the globe. As hosts we benefit from the

influx of young talented scientists who participate in the research; some write a doctoral thesis in their home institutions while others collaborate as postdoctoral researchers. They contribute to the science and often seek positions in academe and

industry in this country. They represent a valuable ancillary source of stimulus for

the research and development in our economy and supplement our internal eduVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:06 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 052294 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\100109\52294 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
53

cational process. Our DOE Office of Science national laboratories are great attractors for scientific talent from across the world.

I mentioned earlier how the ability to construct accelerators transformed the field of nuclear physics. Today, accelerators underpin not only their traditional use for

particle and nuclear physics but also a broad range of materials science, medicine

and biology. The ability to construct a broad range of accelerators is a primary core

competency associated with the Office of Science laboratories. The devices we have

today, including the superconducting Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility

at Jefferson Lab, could not have been built with the technologies of 1980. Research

and development across a broad suite of technologies and with a time-to-use ranging

from one to thirty years and more is essential. Support for this work from the multiple Office of Science programs, which benefits and is carried out in multiple locations with the relevant core competencies, is an important role for the Department

of Energy. If this expertise is ensured, we will be able to build the accelerator we

will need ten years from now to retain world leadership. I have attached to this testimony references to several key documents and reports that I utilized in its preparation. I have tried to impress on you how nuclear physics

contributes in an essential way to our search for the building blocks of our universe,

that this search is enormously exciting, and that the United States plays a major

role. In addition I hope that I have also demonstrated that this science plays an

essential role in our daily lives keeping us warm or cool, spawning new tools and

technologies, improving our quality of life, and even saving our lives. It also trains

bright young scientists who contribute to the U.S. in many different ways. I believe

it is an endeavor worthy of the support of the people of this country. Thank you

again for this opportunity, I would be happy to try to answer your questions.

Document references:

The Frontiers of Nuclear Science: A Long Range Plan, Nuclear Science Advisory Committee, December 2007; http://www.sc.doe.gov/np/nsac/nsac.html

Journey into the Heart of Matter, The Department of Energy’s Office of Science Of- fice of Nuclear Physics, 2006; www.sc.doe.gov/np/publications/ NPbrochure¥2006.pdf

Education in Nuclear Science Report (November 2004); http://www.sc.doe.gov/ henp/np/nsac/docs/NSAC¥CR¥education¥report¥final.pdf

BIOGRAPHY FOR HUGH E. MONTGOMERY

Hugh E. Montgomery is the Director of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab). As the Lab’s Chief Executive Officer, he is responsible for ensuring funding for the Lab and for setting policy and program direction. In addition, he oversees the

delivery of the Lab program and ensures that Jefferson Lab complies with all regulations, laws and contract requirements. Montgomery also is responsible for developing and ensuring relationships with Jefferson Lab’s stakeholders. In addition to serving as the third Director in the history of Jefferson Lab, Mont- gomery is the President of Jefferson Science Associates, LLC. JSA is a joint venture

between the Southeastern Universities Research Association and CSC Applied Technologies formed to operate and manage Jefferson Lab. An internationally recognized particle physicist, Montgomery began his career in 1972 as a research associate at the Daresbury Laboratory and Rutherford High Energy Laboratory in Great Britain. In 1978, he became a staff member at CERN in

Geneva, Switzerland, where he remained until joining the staff at Fermi National

Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, IL, as an associate scientist in 1983. Montgomery

spent the next 25 years of his career at Fermilab, occupying a number of positions

of responsibility within the laboratory management before being named Associate

Director for research at Fermilab, a position he held until joining Jefferson Lab in

2008. As Associate Director, he was responsible for the particle physics and particle

astrophysics research programs at Fermilab.

Montgomery’s research has focused on expanding the understanding of the fundamental components of our universe and how they interact. He was involved with

muon scattering experiments at CERN and Fermilab, and in the DZero Experiment

on the Fermilab Tevatron Collider. Active on the experiment for 12 years, he was

co-spokesman from 1993–99, which covered the time of the observation of the top

quark.

In addition to presenting numerous invited talks internationally, Montgomery has

been actively engaged in many professional committees. Notably, as well as participating in two HEPAP Sub-panels, he served as: a member of the Review of DepartVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:06 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 052294 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\100109\52294 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
54

ment of High Energy Physics of Tata Institute for Fundamental Research located

in India; a member of the FOM Review of NIKHEF in Holland; a member of the

APS Panofsky Prize Committee; Chairman of the Elementary Particle Physics Review Committee, Helmholtz Society, Germany; Chairman of the Atlas Oversight

Committee, STFC, England; member of the SLAC Policy Committee; Chair of the

Evaluation Committee of Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare and the Large

Hadron Collider Committee, CERN.

A native of Great Britain, Montgomery earned a Bachelor’s and Ph.D. in physics from Manchester University, England.

DISCUSSION

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Montgomery, and I do appreciate you pointing those out. Those are here in the room and I think few

of us ever look up and see what is written there. I remember when

I first started on this committee that I did that, but it is something

that we forget to look at and we forget those messages up there for

us.

COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC

I want to thank all our witnesses for their testimony. Let me begin right now the first round of questions, and the Chair will recognize himself for five minutes. This is obviously a field that is not

easy for everyone to understand and I don’t claim that I have a

great understanding of all of it. Two years ago when I was visiting

Stanford and SLAC, I had the opportunity to meet Pierre Schwab.

I don’t know if anyone is familiar with him. But what really stood

about Mr. Schwab is that he calls himself a high energy physics

groupie. He is an entrepreneur, a software engineer. He is not a

physicist. But he is a man who is fascinated by the research that

we are discussing today and the fundamental questions that it can

answer. He donated $1 million of his own money to Stanford’s

Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology. I bring

him up because you seldom see anyone outside of people who are

physicists really getting involved, talking, having the interest in

what we are having a hearing on today. I know Dr. Randall has

done work to make extra dimensions and warped passages more

accessible to laypeople, but I think we need to do more of that, especially in a time of large federal deficits, increasingly expensive

experiments, you know, just trying to get the money to be able to

put towards this research.

So my question for the whole panel, I will start with Dr. Randall, what can DOE and research community in general do to better

communicate its goals and triumphs and plans to the general public?

Dr. RANDALL. That is an excellent question. I just want to start

by saying that I have found when I have talked to people that once

people have the opportunity to hear about the science they are interested. I think a lot of people are afraid or will stay away from

it, but once they take seriously the fact that you are listening to

them, that you want to hear their questions, they provide opportunities for people to hear about it. There are many more people interested than you would imagine. That is not to say everyone is,

and I don’t think everyone should be necessarily, but people that

want to know about it should have the opportunity to know about

it. I think of many times I have been in towns where the cab driver

55

is like, really, you are lecturing about this? And then the lecture

hall would be full. I mean, thousands of people will show up to listen to this kind of thing if they know about it.

Having said that, I think that is a difficult question. I mean that

is more, almost a PR question, you know, how do you make people

aware of things.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, we are—because we have to respond to our

constituents, the American public, unfortunately, you know, if you

want to look at it that way for the scientific aspect of it, that is——

Dr. RANDALL. That is not said in a negative way, just so you

know. It is just that this is not—it is not my area of expertise. I

mean, what I did is, I tried to say I made a big effort to write a

book where the information is there for people who want to know

about it so that it is accessible to them, so people who want to understand the science can. But I think that there is a lot of people

who watch TV, who read newspapers that wouldn’t read a book,

and I think the answer there is that it really has to be out. It

should be out there more in the news. It should be out there more

in TV, media, but I think that is where people get their information and I think there should be more of a sense that people have—

they shouldn’t be as afraid of learning about science, and there

should be a sense they are being listened to. Even the question of

black holes at the LHC—this comes up in every lecture I give practically—well, are you going to make black holes that destroy the

world? And you give a scientific answer and everyone is happy. I

have never heard someone say no, no, no, I still don’t believe you.

I mean, I think they want you to know that they are worried, they

want to know that you are listening to them, that you have addressed these worries and that there is interest in science there.

And I think that there has to be more of that opportunity. I don’t

know where that would be but I think that science reporting—I

mean, I do worry that in this era where newspapers are facing

troubles that science reporting will be one of the things that gets

cut and I think that is exactly the wrong direction to go in at this

point, especially when science is so essential to so many things that

we are doing today.

Mr. LIPINSKI. You have done an excellent job with the work that

you have done, Dr. Randall.

Dr. RANDALL. Thank you very much for that.

Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank you for doing that.

Any other comments, what can be done? Dr. Oddone, and then

we will go to Dr. Montgomery.

Dr. ODDONE. Our community is learning how to do this better

and better. At Fermilab, we hold, for example, a public lecture

roughly on a monthly basis. We have had 900 people—Lisa Randall

was there—from the community come and listen to this. Through

our education program with children, Saturday Morning Physics—

I think Representative Biggert’s son actually took advantage of

that—we reach many, many children and we have programs to

train teachers so we are actually working with the new generation

probably, you know, reach 2,000 teachers and some 30,000 K–12

students on this activity.

And I think we have also created vehicles like Symmetry Magazine to reach a much broader audience, and so I think the commuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:06 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 052294 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\100109\52294 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
56

nity is getting much more sophisticated about actually realizing

that it is ultimately the public that supports our research and they

have to be part of this venture.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Dr. Montgomery.

Dr. MONTGOMERY. My theme is a little similar to Pier’s. When I arrived in Newport News a year and a half ago, the lady next

door came with cookies and introduced herself and asked me what

I was going to do, and I told her I was going to direct the Jefferson

Lab, and she immediately launched into praise for the laboratory’s

participation in the science education in the schools around there.

I think that certainly where we have the labs, the little bit of funding that goes toward the education and involvement directly with

the community is an enormous winner for everything associated

with the program, and the kids that come in and visit are really

impressed by just the small amount of time that a scientist will

spend with them and they are enormously excited by the coolness

of the things that we have in the labs.

Mr. LIPINSKI. I think you are right on target with that and I ac- tually have legislation to encourage the National Labs to work with

museums for science education. We are—we have votes again but

at this time I am going to move on to Mr. Inglis. I recognize Mr.

Inglis for five minutes and then decide how we are going to proceed

from there. Mr. Inglis.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, let me defer to Dr. Ehlers, who actually will have more interesting

questions than I would have, I think. So Dr. Ehlers.

STRING THEORY

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I hope they are interesting questions, partially interesting comments. We will just

go down the line as time permits. Dr. Randall, first of all, I have to congratulate you. You de- stroyed a—I grew up in the Midwest and we have a widespread belief there that you have just disproved our belief there, that you

come from New York and that is why you talk rapidly. Midwesterners believe probably to a person that the reason New Yorkers speak

so rapidly is to cover up that they don’t know what they are talking

about, but you effectively disproved that here. Just a quick question, my curiosity. Unfortunately, being a good Member of Congress

takes about 80 hours a week, which leaves me no time to keep up

with modern physics, but you mentioned string theory. Is there any

experimental proof or any experimental results that corroborate

string theory or is it still rather speculative theoretical work?

Dr. RANDALL. I am afraid string theory is speculative, theoretical

work, and that is because it is addressing questions that are simply

beyond the energies and distances that we can explore. Having said

that, though, it is important to understand that string theory has

also given rise to ideas that add accessible skills and ideas which

are still rather exotic sounding to probably most people here, including ourselves, such as extra dimensions of space or supersymmetry, which Pier mentioned. I mean, actually developing string

theory led to the development of supersymmetry, which might be

around the corner. It could be at low energies. So I guess my point

is that even though string theory itself probably won’t be tested in

57

the foreseeable future, that is not to say that it is not giving rise

to theoretical ideas that can change our view of the universe and

that can actually be tested.

Mr. EHLERS. If they are corroborated.

Dr. RANDALL. Well, they are tested. I didn’t mean that they are

proven.

NEXT GENERATION ACCELERATORS

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. Dr. Kovar, you mentioned next-generation accelerators, and Dr. Montgomery I believe referred to that too, or

Dr. Oddone. What do you see on the horizon in next-generation accelerators?

Dr. KOVAR. So I think there are all sorts of possibilities. There

are examples of—there is a technique that is called Wakefield acceleration, a plasma Wakefield accelerators of beams, which may

make it possible to have a tabletop accelerator that you can use for

medical purposes or for scanning materials for security. There is a

whole range of opportunities and we are organizing a workshop in

Washington, D.C., on October 26 where we are bringing in a group

of experts and people, people from the scientific community, from

the medical community, from the security community, from the industrial community and those interested in energy and environment. And, we are going to try to identify those areas in which

there is potential for significant advancements and what the impact would be in terms of productivity or in terms of breakthroughs, and we are going to put that together. We have a workshop and there is going to be a report to the Office of Science and

the Office of High Energy Physics and hopefully we are going to—

you will see in that report exactly what that potential is going to

be, but I think there is—I think it is extremely important for the

Nation. We historically had been leaders in accelerator science and

in terms of accelerator technology. Because of the investments that

Pier mentioned in Asia and in Europe, in next-generation capabilities—those investments have been made over the last decade—we

now find that that technology has been transferred to those economies. The preferred vendors for certain accelerator components are

no longer in the United States and so I think it is extremely important for us to make these investments. I think it is important for

science but I also think it is very important for the Nation and our

economy.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Mr. EHLERS. Dr. Oddone, I think you made the same point about

the need for the United States to once again take the lead with the

major facility here. When I first got here, Newt Gingrich became

Speaker and, as you know, he is very interested in science and

technology. He gave me the assignment of writing the national

science policy, which was a huge task for one person to try in his

first year in office. We actually did it. It was the first one written

since the Endless Frontier in 1945, which shows that the scientific

community was just resting on their laurels in terms of just going

ahead. I am not counting that I wrote an extremely good report but

one aspect I pointed out in there, and that is that most—in many

58

areas, frontiers of research were becoming so difficult, so expensive,

so complex that we would be forced into international cooperation

if we wished to proceed. I recommended that we recognize that and

proceed on that as a policy. It didn’t happen as part of our policy

but it is happening in fact with ITER now developing in France.

We simply decided we didn’t want to put enough money in and by

‘‘we’’ I mean the Congress. And——

Mr. LIPINSKI. Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS.—the Large Hadron Collider, the same situation, and I realize my time is expired, but I assume we will come back.

You can think about the question in the meantime: What mechanism should our nation set up with other nations so that this will

be part of our policy and not happenstance that we join with the

Large Hadron Collider because Congress killed the Superconducting Super Collider, et cetera? So we will get back to that

when we come back from votes.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. I hate to interrupt you be- cause you certainly have the great knowledge up here amongst us.

We are—I think at this time because of where we are on this vote

moving on to another question may take a little time. Unfortunately, we are going to have to recess and ask our witnesses to

come back again, probably 25 minutes. I will run back after the

third vote and get us started again, and just to have an opportunity to ask a couple more questions. So the hearing stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. LIPINSKI. The hearing will come back to order. Unfortunately, things work very differently here in Congress than they do in the laboratory. You continually get called away unfortunately and it doesn’t give a lot of time for concentration, but

we are back, and the Chair is going to come back and chair but

before that I will start us off again, because we are going to have

votes again relatively soon. The Chair will recognize Mr. Inglis for

five minutes.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we want to get quick- ly back to Dr. Ehlers so that he can get another round of questions.

DARK ENERGY AND MATTER

A question for you, though. We had a wonderful opportunity to visit the Ice Cube in Antarctica and saw the work being done there

on neutrinos. So help me understand, a layman understand a little

bit of this, Dr. Randall. What is the—how is a—neutrinos are related to dark energy in what way? I mean, it is a mystery to us.

Is this right?

Dr. RANDALL. There are two different things out there, dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter, we really—I would say we are

on the cusp of understanding dark matter. We have a real hope.

It is really at scales that we are about to probe. We have many different types of experiments that look at both directly, which is to

say—the point is, dark matter doesn’t interact very strongly, so in

order to increase the probability you need huge. So there are huge

targets of whatever that could look for dark matter or there are

other types of astronomical experiments that look for the annihilation products of dark matter, so dark matter can annihilate with

59

itself and produce things that we can observe astronomically like

photons or neutrinos or whatever. So what the Ice Cube could be

connected to is dark matter. Dark energy is very mysterious and

requires a whole different set of types of explanations which we

could talk about independently. But dark matter is stuff that is

just like particles. We know about it. It is just that it doesn’t interact with light as much, but it means that it has particle properties

that we are familiar with. So what we can look for in something

like the Ice Cube is, for example, annihilation products that come

out when dark matter—from dark matter annihilation or studying

neutrinos directly. So you have these big targets which allow—basically, you are, you know, buying a lot of lottery tickets. You know,

you are increasing the probability that even though these neutrinos

interact so weakly, you are providing the opportunity for it to have

some interaction that you can actually record.

Mr. INGLIS. Right. So what is—I think we have heard some percentages here this morning, but what is the percentage that we

think we know of energy, we can detect some percentage——

Dr. RANDALL. The amount of stuff that we know what it is, is

really—is very small. It is maybe five percent. Now——

Mr. INGLIS. This is of matter?

Dr. RANDALL. And that is to say that is stuff that we really understand, like the kind of matter that is here in this room that we

are made up of. You know, it is funny because everyone is always

shocked to find out that 25 percent is dark matter and 70 percent

is dark energy, but I always actually found it kind of remarkable

that the stuff we know about is as big a fraction as it is. I mean,

why should the rest of the universe—I mean, because we are just

making a statement that it interacts in the way the stuff we are

familiar with does. That is to say it interacts in a way that it emits

and absorbs light, which is really the only way we have had to see

things. Really, to see its interaction with light is essentially how

we look out into the universe. And it could be that there is matter

that for whatever reason doesn’t emit or absorb light or does it at

a much lower level, and that could well be dark matter. The really

interesting thing theoretically seems to be that it could be connected to this very same interaction scale that we are probing

today at colliders, because what do you need to have—so what do

we need to actually have dark matter out there? Well, you need

something that is stable, that hasn’t decayed, and you need something that has the right density to be out there in the abundance

that we see it today, which is to say in the early universe we can

predict how much was annihilated, how much is left today, and its

interaction scale is set by this very same weak scale. It turns out,

and it could be a coincidence or it could be something deep and

meaningful, that it gives you the right abundance to be dark matter today. So from that perspective, it is actually—if there really

is something new at the weak scale, which we assume there is, perhaps it is less mysterious why there should be dark matter out

there.

Mr. LIPINSKI. So of the matter that we know of, your estimate

is we know five percent. Ninety-five percent then would be in the

category of dark matter or in——

60

Dr. RANDALL. Well, like we said, 25 percent is dark matter so

matter is stuff like made up of particles that clump together. It

forms galaxies. It forms objects. The rest of it is something which

is even more mysterious in many ways. It is something that Einstein told us was allowed. It is just energy, and it is called dark

energy, but really it is just energy that can be out there permeating the universe. It still emits gravity but it doesn’t clump, so it

is not acting the way matter acts. It is really just there in terms

of its gravitational effect and the energy that is distributed

throughout the universe, and it is a very big mystery. I mean, it

was one of the major discoveries to realize that it is there at all,

but why it has the particular amount it has, why it has a comparable amount to the rest of the matter that we know about, why

it is not huge, which is what actually quantum mechanics and special relativity would tell us, it is one of the big mysteries that we

face today. So understanding dark energy could lead to some

very—any explanation is going to give some deep insight into what

is out there.

Mr. INGLIS. Very interesting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REALIZING THE TAXPAYER INVESTMENT

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you. Good to be here. Sorry I am a good bit late but I thank you for your presence and my colleagues as

well. I want to first say I am very interested in what you are doing,

the work you are doing. I have had a long interest in physics. I am

not anywhere near Dr. Ehlers but I have had a passionate interest

in it. But at the same time we have a $10 trillion debt, the deficit

is going to exceed $1 trillion, and to be perfectly blunt, you all are

on a pretty expensive end of the spectrum and there is an awful

lot of other things we could spend the money on. So help us understand, what do we get for the money? I mean, if I have got to go

home and tell my fishermen and my loggers and my steelworkers

and my laborers and my homemakers and my nurses and everybody whose tax dollars are going to fund your big projects, what

do we get for it?

Dr. ODDONE. Let me tackle that one.

Chairman BAIRD. You are a brave man. I admire that.

Dr. ODDONE. I think the first thing that you get out of it is really a place at the frontier, the opportunity to expand knowledge, and

it is in a way that is very powerful. If you think of how our civilization will be remembered centuries from now, the progress that we

make in understanding the universe around us is what will really

be enduring and will remain as understanding for humanity, and

I think when we invest in this area of science, we are at that frontier and we are expanding that frontier. So I think it is an opportunity for inspiring young people to go into science and it is something that I think responds to some very deep human emotion of

discovering the world around you. So that is the first thing that we

are motivated by and that you get. But when you do that, when

you are at the frontier and when you learn something, it is passed

along and you now put it away and you think well, what I don’t

understand is the next step. You are forced to invent, to stretch the

technology, to really take things way beyond the place at which you

61

found them. And if you look at the history of particle physics, we

have done that from the beginning of accelerators and detectors.

Today you can look at how we use accelerators, medical accelerators by the thousands and accelerators in industry to modify materials, to put ions in place, how we have learned to do very fast pattern recognition with computers from early computer technology,

how, when we try to tackle these global projects, physicists invented the World Wide Web as a way in which they could all talk

to each other across dozens of countries, dozens of different technical platforms. The tools that come out of accelerator physics are

employed now in light sources and neutron sources with a wide variety of applications. So I think the second thing you get is that

drive that says, ‘‘these problems are so hard yet they are so inspiring,’’ that it leads to invention, it leads to us really thinking very,

very hard about what the technological barriers are that prevent

us from actually responding to those questions that Lisa asked

there. And so I think that is the second part that you get.

I think the third part that you get is the fact that this type of

science really influences science technology, engineering and math

education in a very broad spectrum. At the highest spectrum of

very technical people, if you look around the universities, this type

of research is a vital part of any physics department. It is an intellectual part of our universities. It brings students and they work

at these problems and it is part of the miracle of American enterprise that the universities, in fact, contribute so much to our development across a broad front. Science is a very important part in

asking those questions, a very important part of bringing students

into physics and in technical careers. We see it at Fermilab at a

much younger age. We have a marvelous program, very talented

people, 200 volunteers that go into the community, thousands of

children that come to Fermilab, and it is an inspiring thing to ask

these questions and try to understand how the world is put together, these deep mysteries of dark energy, dark matter, why the

world is dominated by matter and not matter and antimatter. They

ask the most profound questions, very unlike the question you just

asked in the sense that they don’t ask about why, you know, you

cost us a lot of money and why should we be doing this. They really

only ask the questions that intrigue them and they are brought

into this field, and they may not come in as high energy physicists

someday, but they have been inspired to look at the world in a different way. So I think those are the three things you get.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you.

Dr. Montgomery.

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, I would like to respond a little bit in the

vein that we talked earlier. I refer to myself as the Director of Jefferson Lab. I wrote an article which appeared on a page on our web

site in which I try to explain that in fact when you are sitting in

Europe, as I once was, or in China or in Japan and you look to the

United States, you don’t only see Harvard. You actually see

Fermilab and Jefferson Lab and Brookhaven National Lab and

LDL and Stanford’s linear accelerator. And those great attractors

actually bring scientists, both students who come here but also the

participants in the experiments, and some significant fraction of

those people actually want to stay. Given our difficulty in eduVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:06 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 052294 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\100109\52294 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
62

cating our society to a level which can actually function in today’s

technological age, that is a major augmentation of our system. I

think it is a small piece but a very important piece of why and

what you get from our labs. Chairman BAIRD. Good points.

Dr. Ehlers.

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION AND MORE ON NEXT

GENERATION ACCELERATORS

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, just a side issue but it is something that Dr. Baird and I are both very interested in. Dr. Oddone, you mentioned that you immigrated to this

country to study physics. It is a good thing you did it when you did

because if you tried to come to this country now to do it, you would

have a much more difficult time getting in. And we have spent

time lobbying with the State Department and Homeland Security

to try to ease this transition of scientists, and I was just telling Dr.

Baird the other day about my son who is a geophysicist and has

left this country and gone to a very attractive position in Europe,

in Germany, to be specific. And when he came in, no prior permission, went down to register, took 15 minutes, it was all over. Compare that to what you have to do to import scientists from other

countries. So I hope you will join with both of us in trying to impress upon the Congress, upon the government, upon Homeland

Security and so forth that we really have to be certain to allow the

scientific talent to continue to come into this country because if you

don’t get that talent, they now have other places they can go and

you are not going to get your next generation of accelerators if you

don’t get in the next generation of really bright people. So just a

little editorial comment there.

I didn’t have much in the way of other questions. You have al- ready answered some of my questions about dark energy and dark

matter, but just getting back to a question I had asked before we

went to vote, and that is the next-generation accelerators, and I

think Dr. Oddone and Dr. Montgomery haven’t had a chance to respond yet, but I am very interested in that question because you

may reach a point where it is no longer appropriate to use accelerators to continue as Dr. Randall mentioned. Maybe you are going to

be doing more work with cosmic rays at some point just because

that may be the cheaper way to try to learn what you need to

learn. I don’t know. What comments do you have?

Dr. ODDONE. Let me answer that in two ways. The first one has

to do about international collaboration. You had asked how the

world is coming together so that for the next major facility it

doesn’t happen because we decided to cancel something like the

Superconductor and Super Collider. I think there are multiple levels in which this international collaboration happens. We have

many relations, laboratory to laboratory, that are very healthy, so

if you look at Tevatron, for example, 40 percent of the collaborators

in physics are from Europe and 40 percent of the capital contributions have come from Europe. If you look at the Large Hadron

Collider, there is very significant investment of the United States

in this facility. We participated in it. We have a remote operation

center at Fermilab and it is a great opportunity for us. I think

63

these models have worked and they represent a facility that is either regional or national with international participation, where

there is an anchor facility or region that basically establishes the

facility and invites international participation. That model has

been very successful for us. There are new models being explored

for what might happen in a great new global facility similar in

scale to the LHC where many countries would come together to try

to do that, and there is a group. It is not officially constituted. I

think it is more of a club called Funding Agencies for Large

Colliders in which all the agencies of interested countries from Europe, the United States, China, Japan, Russia and so on participate. They are trying to coordinate that global issue to see if we

build a new facility how should we decide where it goes, what kind

of governance should we have and so on. So the level of world cooperation among the agencies is now much higher than ever before

in trying to understand how one would move such a large facility.

The other comment that I would make concerns your remark

about perhaps we ought to do something with cosmic rays that

might be cheaper, and——

Mr. EHLERS. By the way, I was not being very serious about that.

Dr. ODDONE. I understand, but I should say the following. The

observations that we make of the cost in the natural world lead us

to all sorts of questions and contradictions that we want to explore,

but ultimately we believe this finds the resolution in understanding

the particles in the fields that underlie all of this. And we don’t

know of any other way really to explore that world other than with

accelerators. We will find phenomena. We may find a dark matter

particle, for example, deep in a mine, a natural one, and then the

question will be, well, what is it? And I think until we produce it

at the Large Hadron Collider, we will not know really what is behind it. So I think it is very important to connect the large world

that we see outside with the world that underpins it, which is really the world of the very small that we study with accelerators. So

I don’t think anytime soon we could say that we would replace one

particular thrust like the energy frontier with accelerators or the

intensity for dealing with accelerators purely with cosmological observation.

Mr. EHLERS. All right. By the way, if you want to find dark matter in the mine, you might want to go to coal mines.

Dr. Montgomery.

Dr. MONTGOMERY. So I would like to address your question in

two pieces also. The first is that not all accelerators are the same.

In fact, for nuclear physics, what we would really like, as I mentioned in my testimony, is if you like, the machine of the future

would be an electron ion collider and that would provide different

capabilities, different characteristics than, for example, you might

look for a particle physics accelerator. And that in turn allows me

to point out that in fact we sometimes discuss how are going to

build the next big accelerator, the accelerators are what we are discussing. In fact, if you look at the science of the Office of Science

in the Department of Energy, then accelerators underpin the

science in basic energy sciences, in nuclear physics and in particle

physics. The whole spectrum is underpinned by the ability to build

accelerators of different types. And if you look at the laboratories

64

that you have, then you will find, for example, that Jefferson Laboratory is well known for its superconducting radio frequency acceleration technology but it is not well known for magnets, and then

Lawrence Berkeley Lab is known for magnets a little bit it is not

known at all for superconducting radio frequency. And so in thinking about the next accelerators that we build, then the laboratories

have to work together. And so it is important that the Office of

Science in general, Department of Energy maybe more broadly, ensures that the full spectrum of capability in accelerator science,

whether it be magnets, radio frequency technology of whatever that

it is required to build the accelerator in 10 or 15 years from now

is present in one or other of the laboratories so that together they

can build that accelerator.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much, and I apologize, Dr. Randall.

Dr. RANDALL. Just since I was accused of saying it, I just want to reiterate a little bit what Pier said, which is that I think that

there really are different ways of exploring new physics, and the

essential point to high energy accelerators is that it is the only way

to directly explore what is there. We can get all sorts of indirect

clues, but if you think about it in any other context of your life,

whenever you have had an indirect clue, you very rarely know

what is really going on. I mean, the only way to really understand

the details of what is out there is to get to the energies where we

can make these kind of things and explore their properties. That

is not to say that we don’t learn a lot by exploring the cosmos, but

it is a very different sort of thing, and of course, if we want to

know if something is dark matter, the cosmos is actually a very

good place to look because that is where we know it is lurking. But

if we want to understand detailed properties of the fundamental

nature of matter, the kind of experiments that we can do when we

can have control and create things here on Earth and make the

stuff directly, have it right here to study, it is just a completely different type of question that you can ask in that case.

Mr. EHLERS. The point is, with an accelerator you can run more of a controlled experiment. With the cosmic rays, you take what

you get. I apologize. I am very late for another meeting I am supposed to be at and so I have to leave, but thank you very much for a very

enlightening session here. Thank you.

MORE ON BEST USE OF TAXPAYER MONEY

Chairman BAIRD. I will ask—with the indulgence of my friend,

Mr. Inglis, I will ask one last question. So I am going to continue

a line of discussion that I began a second ago and follow up in a

couple of ways. You look at the Superconducting Super Collider

which was really a lot of money spent and got nothing really out

of it, and—I mean out of the failed project in Texas, and Large

Hadron Collider, you know, tremendous amount of money, great

expectation. You fire the thing up and it sort of self destructs, not

entirely, I understand, but we now read this sort of, ‘‘well, that is

okay, it can still do some pretty cool stuff.’’ I am paraphrasing here

but it certainly—I am sure nobody is more disappointed than you

folks in the scientific community. But there might be one group of

people a little bit more disappointed, and that would be the taxVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:06 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 052294 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DWORK\E&E09\100109\52294 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
65

payers who say look, we put a hell of a lot of money into this thing

on promise that certain things would be achieved and now it is not

going to be achieved. If that happened in lots of other aspects of

government, there would be investigations. I mean, you guys would

be here before one of these very unpleasant oversight committees

where somebody would be glowering at you. And you get to skate,

I mean partly because you know stuff we haven’t a clue what you

are doing, and I think that is neat. I admire your knowledge. I admire your intellect. But there is a kind of a core responsibility that

goes with it that says Bob and I and the rest of us up here, we

have got to go to the aforementioned people I talked to and we

have to say to them, we are going to take your money and invest

it on your behalf. And you get taxpayer dollars in one of two ways:

either people trust you, which is rare, or you threaten them, which

is the underlying motive. You say, we are going to put a gun to

your head and take your money to put it towards the Large Hadron

Collider, which then is going to melt its connections the first time

we fire it up. Walk me through your mental process, because it is

not just about the cost and yes, there are some neat things that

happen, side effects and some neat direct discoveries. But there are

also opportunity costs, opportunity costs to the folks whose money

we take is, ‘‘I could have spent that on my kids’ education, a new

car, repairing the roof.’’ But the opportunity costs on a broad societal scale is, we have thousands of other problems and the money

we spend on the big gizmos you folks work with is money we can’t

spend on other things that might actually have more immediate

and more direct benefit to a society and economy that are in trouble. Walk us through how you—other than just ‘‘gosh, we are really

curious and we really want to get this,’’ how do you rationalize the

economic costs? I mean, how do you say yes, if we spend X amount

of new money on the new ILC which will then afterwards have the

next ILC or whatever, how do you do it? Give us some insights into

that. What goes on in your heads and in your organizations?

Dr. KOVAR. Let me take a cut at this because this is what I have

to do every year when we present our budget to Congress. There

are several ways of answering this question. One part of it has to

do with those things that we have control over, and so within the

Office of Science we work very hard to set up project management

practices so that when we start projects we bring them in on cost,

on schedule and they perform. And we work very hard to do it but

you have got to remember that everything we do here—it is sort

of along the line of what Pier talked about is one of a kind. Generally it is an advance. It is defining the state of the art. So it is

high risk, okay? Part of the benefits that we have—and I want to

point out that our contribution to the LHC is sitting there and it

is working, I mean, as best we can tell. Knock on wood, I mean,

but it is working. On the other hand, I want to point out that it

is a very complicated machine, and there are two gentlemen to my

left who know about these much better than I do, but it is the most

complicated accelerator that has been built. And so down the road

it is going to run, it is going to work, but it is not good right now.

Two months from now when it starts running, a lot of people will

breathe a big sigh of relief but the expectation is that it is going

to run at some point.

66

Now, for part of this investment that the country has made, we

have already reaped the benefits. I mean, the next generation of

electronics, the silicon detectors, the next generation superconducting magnets. For example, in the United States we developed something through our R&D program that is niobium-tin. It

is a new alloy that we use for superconducting magnets and I think

ITER placed an order to the United States for $60 million to

produce that for the facility in France. That was developed in the

United States. It is going to be spent in the United States. During

this period of time there is a whole generation of students and it

turns out 20 percent remain in the field. The other 80 percent are

in industry, they are in government, they are in national labs and

security and medical facilities, so it turns out those investments

are the investments and I think the thing that you also get, and

it is—I am going to repeat a little of what Pier and Mont described.

I mean, we are in fact addressing these questions that just are

spectacular in terms of their interest for the general public, you

know, my cousins and my uncles in Texas, they appreciate it. I

come and talk to them and they are just fascinated by it. However,

there are a whole bunch of questions where there are remarkable

breakthroughs but they are so technical and only the experts can

really appreciate it. And we should develop a way, a language, so

we can communicate that to you.

But the other part of this is all of these benefits to society, and

it is the job that any program manager, federal program manager

has in trying to convey exactly what these benefits to society are

and how do we document that in a way that you can explain. You

know, my wife is a nurse and she understands making people better and what the benefits of this are. These longer-term benefits

really need to be articulated better, okay? And in that regard, I

think the Office of Science now has put together a workforce plan

where we are beginning to invest in bringing in kids and teachers

to our national labs on a much larger scale. And so part of this is

I think educating the American public as to what science is, giving

them some context. I think all of these are things that I think are

very important but, you know, in the context of health care and Social Security down the road and national security, I know all of you

have an enormous responsibility and these are really very tough

problems, but in the context. Earlier before you came in we looked

at what is on the wall here, you know, ‘‘Where there is no vision,

the people perish.’’ I think some of these longer-term things are

just very important for our society. I am not sure that I answered

your question.

Chairman BAIRD. It was appreciated and I thought you were

very insightful.

Does anyone else want to take a quick run? I don’t want to belabor it too much, but with Mr. Inglis’s indulgence, it is a matter

I struggle with. And then Dr. Randall, we will let you finish.

Dr. MONTGOMERY. So you picked two particular examples, SSC (Superconducting Super Collider) and LHC. First of all, I think

they are different beasts, but you picked in fact the two projects

which have had difficulty, let us say, have had challenges. But—

this is true, but there are also a number of devices which you have

supported which do work, which have been spectacular successes.

67

I know, for example, and you may not but it is certainly true that

our colleagues like Dr. Kovar and some sitting behind me actually

apply, if you like, metrics to the way our accelerators perform. And

each year as lab director I submit our performance against those

metrics and that folds into the money that we get in the subsequent years so there are metrics. And we are successful in a large

number of the accelerators, it is not confined to Jefferson Laboratory. Fermilab has had success with the Tevatron. The SLAC B

Factory was spectacular. The Relativistic Heavy Iron Collider in

Brookhaven has done very good work. So you are getting real scientific measurements and return on your dollars in general. I just

wanted to make that point so that it is not entirely a question of,

did you deliver on the LHC yet or not? Thank you.

Dr. RANDALL. So I want to say a couple of things. One is just a

basic fact about the accelerators which I think is important to

know. So when the SSC was designed and started to be developed,

physicists sat down and said what would we like to have if we really could make a machine that will really probe the physics that we

know is there that we really want to understand. That was the design people came up with, and with the LHC they had an existing

tunnel and that is important because the existing tunnel had a

fixed size. The SSC would have been much bigger, which meant

that magnets had to be stretched to the limit of the technology that

was possible. So everyone knew when the LHC was being designed

it is something that is pushing various technology to the limit, and

when that happens, there are often times when things don’t work

immediately. So just in the context of asking the physics community, I mean I think everyone in the physics community, at least

in this field, would have said the SSC would have been the obvious

way to go. I would still say, you know, if we could fund it, it would

be the way to go. And had we done that, it would work, and just,

it is important to keep in mind the Tevatron where Pier is has

been remarkably successful. I think it doesn’t get enough adulation, in fact, because it has been extended to energies and

luminosities beyond what was ever prepared in the beginning. So

when physicists have the opportunity to do what they really want

to do when it is available, it has been successful, and in terms of

the LHC, it is just, I mean, we are disappointed but it is just a

question of time at this point, which means to get these things up

and running. But the SSC would still have been a better machine.

It would have been three times the energy. There is just no comparison. And so I mean, I do think it is tragic that that was

stopped and it would have been running by now.

I think in terms of the other questions you asked, I mean, this

is something I am actually curious about. Whenever they compare

science funding, it always gets compared to, you know, I don’t

know, saving babies or something. I mean, there are a lot of things

we spend money on that aren’t necessarily directly working for the

benefit of humanity. And I think in terms of, when we ask what

it is to make progress, we really have to think about what is the

role of government, what do we want to be funding, and the government is working on things that wouldn’t happen otherwise. If

it is something that an entrepreneurial interest is going to take

over, then it will happen. It is things that are more strategic, more

68

long-term that ultimately will have benefits but don’t necessarily

have them in the next second. And the kind of physics that we are

doing, I mean, it is a different type of science than a lot of other

types of science, in that we are formulating very precise questions

at very remote energies and distances. We will make progress, and

a lot of the other types of science are very important but it is not—

you hear a lot of buzz but it is different than actually making

progress in the sense of 20 years down the line you can say, what

do we have? And here we have some definite goal and we do know

what it means to make an event. That is not to say one should be

done at the expense of another but it is just a very different type

of thing and I think there is a strong argument for it.

Dr. ODDONE. I appreciate the struggles that you have with the

many practical problems that the Nation faces and how to make a

judgment about what should be invested in this. In the end it really has to be justified by the results. Now, it is not fair to say the

SSC was a bad idea because it never produced anything. Well, Congress stopped it so it never produced anything, so it is not really

in some sense an example of a failed science project. And I think

it is too early to judge on the LHC. Our laboratory, even though

we compete in terms of finding the Higgs-Boson with our Tevatron

and so on, we have sent some of our best people over to CERN to

help them understand the issues that were involved in that machine, and I completely agree with you that our field is in deep,

deep trouble globally if we do not deliver on the Large Hadron

Collider. So our intent is absolutely to deliver and I hope that if

you have a hearing two or three years from now you actually would

tell me, you know, why didn’t we do that rather than, in some

sense, letting the Europeans do it? Because the kinds of things that

will be discovered will in fact set the tone for the world for what

is really coming in our way that is unimagined.

A lot of the science that we do is absolutely neat, but I say it

is imaginable. I can imagine how I modify a molecule to dock in

some substance that I can then use to affect disease. I can imagine

how I may modify a surface, the atomic surface of a material in

order to get a better material. There are lots and lots of things in

science that are absolutely neat, wonderful, I support them and

they are imaginable. I think when we actually tackle the questions

that Lisa has asked, when we open this new regime, the Large

Hadron Collider will be seven times the energy, 30 times the intensity that we have, we really are poking into the unimaginable. We

may be astounded at what we find, things that we haven’t been

able to even imagine. We have lots of imagination. We have made

all these theories and so on but we actually—that is the nature of

the frontier. We may be going towards the spices in India but we

may run into America, in some sense, with the Large Hadron

Collider. And I think that is what you are getting a ticket at the

table for, to be there and be doing those things.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you. I appreciate very much the testimony, your expertise and your patience with us as you try to educate us on matters rather arcane to most of us on the Committee.

With that, the hearing stands adjourned with the gratitude of the

Members. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 1:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(69)

Appendix:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

70

Superconducting Particle Accelerator Forum of the Americas

100 M St. SE, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20003

Hon. Brian Baird

Chairman, Energy and Environment Subcommittee

Science and Technology Committee

2350 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Oct. 3, 2009

Dear Chairman Baird:

The Superconducting Particle Accelerator Forum of the Americas, SPAFOA, a not-for-profit industry forum registered in the District of Columbia. Our activities are totally supported by member

dues. The goal of the SPAFOA is to provide a partnership between

our industry members and government funded superconducting accelerator programs during their design, component prototyping,

manufacturing, siting and installation.

We appreciate this opportunity to submit written testimony providing our views on the need for and value of an integrated formal

industrialization program during the R&D phases of major DOE

science programs. Integrating the systems engineering, manufacturing, and equipment operational capabilities of industry with the

world class research capabilities on the National Laboratories on

these programs would be mutually beneficial. For example, the laboratories would gain industry’s expertise in manufacturing and assembly to incorporate into laboratory prototypes, thus lowering

equipment costs and increasing end use reliability. Industry would

gain a better understanding of the fundamental parameters that

impact component performance allowing it to modify designs for future commercial applications.

The SPAFOA therefore recommends the Energy and Environment Subcommittee request DOE to adopt an industrialization approach during the planning and implementation of major programs.

Further elaboration on this issue is shown on the attached white

paper, ‘‘Industrialization of Advanced Accelerator Technology,’’

which was submitted to the DOE Accelerators for Americas Future

symposium and workshop on Oct. 26–28.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Kenneth O. Olsen, P.E. Dr. John V. Dugan

President Vice President

71

Kenneth O. Olsen

Superconducting Particle Accelerator

Forum of the Americas

Industry Working Group

Industrialization of Advanced Accelerator Technology

Introduction:

The accelerator symposium working groups are charged with identifying the Na- tion’s future R&D needs for accelerator technology in five distinct application areas.

Government R&D investments in accelerator technology for science programs over

the decades has lead major technological advances. In order for these advances to

benefit society in multiple applications, they must be implemented by the private

sector. Also, since the Nation’s accelerator R&D expertise resides mostly at the national labs and universities, it is anticipated that many of the working groups’ recommendations will require government R&D investment to further advance the

state of the art. However, in order for American industry to expedite the adoption

of these technologies and compete in the global marketplace for government and private sector applications, the government must develop a formal industrialization

program to integrate the country’s industrial base into their R&D programs. Industrialization activities must be focused on two distinct market sectors;

• Federal: The federal sector R&D is dominated by DOE’s Office of Science and

to some degree National Science Foundation programs at the national laboratories and universities. Industry must become a true partner in these R&D

efforts to gain the necessary technical design background. Conversely, industry can educate the laboratories on manufacturing, installation and operability of deployed systems.

• Commercial: The commercial sector tends to adopt advanced technologies developed and deployed by the government. Generally this occurs once the

major technical risks have been reduced. Perhaps the best example of this is

in aerospace where technologies developed for the military migrate to commercial aviation over time.

Objective:

Industrialization of accelerators will prepare industry to cost-effectively produce accelerator components and systems. The main objective must be to reduce the

learning curve through technology transfer and provide industry with the support

needed to bridge the gap between R&D and deployment, especially for commercial

applications. Industrialization requires two-way technology transfer during the early

stages of government sponsored accelerator R&D to educate industry on the R&D

programs and technical progress of accelerator programs in the labs and to educate

the laboratories on production engineering and post deployment operational issues

such as reliability and maintainability that should be integrated into their R&D activities. Industry needs to develop the capability to cost effectively respond to requests for low production specialty products and develop production expertise to

manufacture large quantities of accelerator components to meet the requirements on

future large science programs such as the International Linear Collider (ILC).

Global Activities:

The potential of advanced accelerator technology applications has initiated the for- mation of government-academia-industry coordinating groups in many parts of the

world. Asia and Europe have recognized the importance of accelerator industrialization and have set up programs to integrate it into their accelerator programs. Since

these regions have different laws and cultural backgrounds, one cannot do an across

the board comparison of their activities to the situation in America. However, it is

clear they recognize the importance of industry, academia, and government cooperation. It is also reasonable to assume that they are partially or totally supported by

government funds. A brief description of each is a follows:

Japan: The ‘‘Advanced Accelerator Association Promoting Science and Tech- nology,’’ referred to as the Advanced Accelerator Association (AAA) was established

in June 2008 to facilitate Industry-Government-Academia collaboration and to promote and seek various industrial applications of advanced accelerator and technologies derived from R&D, excluding creating new drug, biotechnology and medical

uses. As of April 1, 2009 the AAA had a total of 100 members, two-thirds from industry. AAA activities include worldwide outreach of significant advanced accelVerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:06 Dec 20, 2009 Jkt 052294 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DWORK\E&E09\100109\52294 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
72

erator developments, seeking ways to handle intellectual property within the ILC

project and integrating manufacturing technologies from a variety of industrial

fields to create innovative scientific technologies.

Europe: The ‘‘European Industry Forum for Accelerators with SCRF Technology’’

(EIFast) was founded in October 2005 to maintain and further strengthen the position of European science and industry in SCRF. As a united voice of European research and industry, EIFast promotes the realization of European and global SCRF

projects. The organization has 47 current members, the large majority of whom are

from the European industrial base. The organization interfaces with two main scientific programs: The European X-Ray Laser Project (XFEL) and the ILC.

An industrial forum was established in the Americas in 2005 to support the ILC

Americas Regional Team industrialization efforts, called the Linear Collider Forum

of America. That forum recently reorganized based on the delays of the projected

ILC program schedule and expanded its program coverage to all SCRF based accelerator programs in the Americas. It is now called the Superconducting Particle Accelerator Forum of the Americas. The forum has 16 current members and is totally

supported by private sector member dues.

Approach:

This symposium and subsequent workshops will be examining the past, present

and future of accelerators in five major application areas. It is assumed that the

large majority of accelerator technology advances will occur in the R&D areas within discovery science area since they will be developing leading edge technology. The

design and construction of these accelerator based activities, the majority of them

incorporating superconducting technology, will advance the state-of-the-art which

will then be transferred to security, energy, medical, and industrial applications. A

knowledgeable industrial base will expedite this transfer process and prepare industry to compete in the global marketplace.

The importance of industrialization became apparent within the three regions

supporting the ILC program. The technical specifications, production quantities, and

original program schedule placed a significant challenge on industry in Asia, Europe, and the Americas. Clearly a post R&D industrial briefing would present a

steep learning curve and would not be adequate to meet these requirements. There

are several other government programs in the Americas that, when taken together,

accumulate into a significant requirement for the accelerator industry. A sample of

these is as follows:

• Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator facility (CEBAF) Upgrade, JLAB

• Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, (RHIC) BNL

• Energy Recovery LINAC, BNL

• Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB), MSU

• Project X, Fermilab

• Cornell Energy Recovery Linac

• Mo99 Production, TRIUMF

• U.S. Navy Free Electron Laser (FEL) Ship Self Defense, ONR

Therefore, government must develop a comprehensive industrialization program

for these activities to prepare industry to compete on a level field with its global

competitors. Other parts of the world have developed approaches to integrate their

industries with government activities. Within the U.S., the program must take into

account the various legal constraints and available incentives that are unique to the

country such as the Buy America Act, Stimulus Funding, CRADAs, SBIRs, cost

sharing contracts, personnel exchanges to collaborate with on-site R&D activities at

the laboratories, etc. Failure to do so will greatly weaken the ability of our industries to compete in the global marketplace. Note that an industrialization program

which focuses funding primarily through the SBIR program is not acceptable to industry.

Recommendations:

The following recommendations are suggested to implement a formal industrialization component for government funded accelerator R&D activities:

1. DOE SC should assign a role of accelerator R&D program coordinator within

the Director’s senior staff. This person can examine the cross-cutting opportunities across SC for R&D program integration among HEP, NE, other

areas of DOE and other federal agencies and department.

73

2. Establish an accelerator technology advisory group of laboratories, universities, component producers and end-users to develop innovative ways to

transfer government funded technologies to the private sector.

3. Examine the various DOE contractual and cost sharing methods available to

the laboratories to work collaboratively with industry during the R&D

phases of major accelerator programs.

4. Place more emphasis on demonstration and financing incentives for commercial accelerator applications.

5. Require program plans for government funded accelerator R&D projects to

include an industrialization element with a funding commitment.

Æ