🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <22528@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov writes:
>
>  ... comments on value of investing in accelerator R&D deleted ...
>
>The reason that we don't is that the particle physicists are in a race against
>time.  You don't do good physics by verifying someone elses result.  This
>competative incentive to move fast is a strong driving force in the advancement
>of science.  For the most part it is a very good thing.  However, in this case
>I wonder if we are leaping just a little to soon, without looking quite enough.

Sometimes (?) you do not do good physics when you are in a hurry.  Shall we 
forget the Oops-Leon particle (Lederman's miss on the Upsilon) among others? 
I think the competition is driving the field and not the physics.  If it 
were the physics, the field would have said that we should turn off FNAL 
as soon as top is found and put all of those resources into the critical 
area, the SSC search for the Higgs.  It has not said this.  And do not 
think I exaggerate: CERN has succeeded because it moved resources to attack 
what it thought were the best physics problems, and it was correct. 

What will you do 2 years after the SSC is turned on and the Higgs found and 
the race is over?  If the justification is the race, and not physics, it 
will be hard to justify the field when the race is won or lost.

>> ... previous poster's comments on need to keep E-HEP viable deleted ...
>
>True.  This is a valid point for the people concerned with the long-term health
>of their research field.  Can you blame them?  We have an interest in keeping
>all of our most fruitful research programs healthy.  It's in the national
>interest.  I suppose that the question is how best to accomplish this goal.

Ah, you have pushed a button here.  This is a major problem in nuclear physics 
as well as particle physics.  The issue must be the health of the field, which 
translates into the health of the strong research programs ... and of the 
scientists doing the work.  It may not be the case that rushing on to the 
next machine is the best way to accomplish this end.  Manpower is critical. 

The nuclear physics long-range plan for the 90's identified certain priorities 
for new construction, with electrons and relativistic heavy ions on top, but 
also insisted that _operation_ of hadronic facilities (proton and pion beams) 
that complement these initiatives be maintained -- mainly because these other 
results are necessary for the success of the new programs.  However, the 
operation of "old" facilities is not as sexy as building new ones, and they 
continue to get the short end of the budget stick.  We were actually at 
risk of having no operating machines above 200 MeV *of any kind* when the 
budget cuts were proposed last year.  Where would the new people come from 
who would use the new machines?  How would the skills be developed and the 
theory work stimulated?   We could not go idle for 3-4 years. 

HEP has put itself in a similar situation with the SSC, only worse because 
the program is far more visible than debates over RHIC, CEBAF, and LAMPF. 
The fight over the Fermilab injector upgrade is classic: it really is *the* 
single most important physics goal, but to say so would kill the SSC.  But 
then again, it may not be needed if the top is found.  Should the decision 
wait for the top to be found or not?  Should physics drive the field? 

I know about lead times.  They complicate the matter greatly.  But is it 
really true that there are no good things to be done in the meantime.  Is 
there no backlog of experiments at FNAL?  I am sure there would be a hue 
and cry if it were to be turned off, so there must be plenty to do. 

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)