the young physicists panel (ypp) - arxiv · abstract the young physicists panel (ypp) summarizes...

arX

iv:h

ep-e

x/01

0804

0v3

27

Aug

200

1

http://ypp.hep.net

The Young Physicists Panel (YPP)

presents

Results of the Survey on the Future of HEP

submitted to the DOE/NSF Subpanel on Long Range Planningfor U.S. High Energy Physics

August 23, 2001

http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0108040v3

ABSTRACT

The Young Physicists Panel (YPP) summarizes results from their Survey on the Future of

High Energy Physics, which was conducted from July 2 to July 15, 2001. Over 1500 physicistsfrom around the world, both young and tenured, responded to the survey. We first describethe origin, design, and advertisement of the survey, and then present the demographics ofthe respondents. Following sections analyze the collected opinions on the desire for balancein the field, the impact of globalization, the necessity of outreach, how to build the field,the physics that drives the field, and the selection of the next big machine. Respondents’comments follow the survey analysis in an appendix.

2

Contents

1 Introduction 6

2 Methodology 7

3 Demographics 9

4 Balance vs. Focus 13

5 The Impact of Globalization 16

6 Outreach 19

7 Building the Field 20

8 Physics 22

9 Finding Consensus and Picking a Plan 25

10 Conclusions 32

11 Acknowledgments 33

12 Survey 33

Bibliography 42

3

List of Figures

1 Current career stage of survey respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Continent where survey respondents grew up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 On which continent do you currently work (greatest part of the year)? . . . . 114 What type of physics have you been working on this year? . . . . . . . . . . 115 Where do you do your research (greatest part of year)? . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 How large is your current collaboration (in number of people)? . . . . . . . . 127 Place where respondents currently work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Should the “next machine” host diverse experiments and collaborations? . . 149 Is it important to have at least two detectors? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1410 Is it important to balance the numbers of theorists and experimentalists? . . 1511 Is it important that the HEP labs host astrophysics efforts? . . . . . . . . . 1512 How frequently do you currently see or work on your detector? . . . . . . . . 1613 How do you rate being near your detector versus being near your supervisor? 1614 How important do you feel it is to have hands-on hardware experience? . . . 1715 Should we have “regional centers” in the U.S.? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1716 What should be the role of the U.S. national labs in the next 10-25 years? . 1817 How frequently should these regional centers be distributed? . . . . . . . . . 1818 Are we currently doing enough outreach to funding agencies? . . . . . . . . . 1919 Are we currently doing enough outreach to the general public? . . . . . . . . 1920 What is it that most attracted you to HEP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2021 What is the main reason you have stayed in the field so far? . . . . . . . . . 2022 Are we retaining adequate numbers of talented physicists in HEP? . . . . . . 2123 What most influences young people to leave the field? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2124 What physics would you personally find the most compelling in the future . 2225 What do you think is the most important physics for the field in the future . 2226 Does this science you selected require a major new facility? . . . . . . . . . . 2327 Do you think it is important that the next new facility be in the U.S.? . . . 2428 Do you think it is important that the next new facility be in the U.S.? . . . 2429 What most affected your current opinion on the future options? . . . . . . . 2530 How much do you know about TESLA? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2631 How much do you know about LC non-TESLA versions (i.e. NLC, CLIC)? . 2632 How much do you know about the VLHC? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2633 How much do you know about the Neutrino Factory? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2734 How much do you know about the Muon Collider? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2735 Do you think you know enough to decide? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2836 Snowmass: Do you think you know enough to decide? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2837 Which of the following machine options would you select? . . . . . . . . . . . 3038 Which would you select, after summing TESLA options. . . . . . . . . . . . 3039 Which would you select, separated by where the respondent works . . . . . . 3040 Selections of people claiming to know enough to make a decision. . . . . . . 3141 Selections of people who were unsure or claimed they do not know enough . 31

4

AUTHOR LIST

[email protected]

B. T. Fleming1, J. Krane2, G. P. Zeller3, F. Canelli4, B. Connolly5,R. Erbacher6, G. T. Fleming7, D. A. Harris6, E. Hawker8, M. Hildreth9,

B. Kilminster4, S. Lammers10, D. Medoff11, J. Monroe1, D. Toback12,M. Sorel1, A. Turcot13, M. Velasco3, M. O. Wascko14, G. Watts15,

and E. D. Zimmerman16.

1Columbia University2Iowa State University

3Northwestern University4University of Rochester5Florida State University

6Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory7The Ohio State University

8University of Cincinnati9University of Notre Dame10University of Wisconsin11University of Maryland12Texas A&M University

13Brookhaven National Laboratory14Louisiana State University15University of Washington

16University of Colorado at Boulder

5

1 Introduction

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

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

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

6

2 Methodology

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

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

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

More than 99% of the surveys were received via the web. The approximately 10 paper copiescollected at Snowmass were entered into the web interface by hand. At two points duringthe course of the survey we refined our advertising focus after examining demographic data:the fraction of young respondents and the individual lab response rates. None of the othersurvey data were reviewed until three days before the close of the survey. This practice min-imized the chances of accidentally biasing the survey’s sample pool and still allowed time toprepare plots and talks for presentation at the Snowmass Young Physicists’ Forum on July17th, 2001 [3]. There were no additional advertisements after the full review. The resultsdid not change to any significant degree in the final three days of the survey.

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

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

7

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

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

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

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

8

3 Demographics

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

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

Figure 1: Current career stage of survey respondents.

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

Young Tenured TotalAmericans 334 328 662Non-Americans 523 323 846

Total 857 651 1508

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

9

Figure 2: Continent where survey respondents grew up.

Of the 662 respondents who grew up in North America, almost all of them still work inNorth America (Figure 3). In contrast, roughly half of the 676 European and 125 Asianrespondents (including Russia and the Indian subcontinent) have traveled to North Americato work (Figure 3).

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

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

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

inadvertently reversed.

10

Figure 3: On which continent do you currentlywork (greatest part of the year)?

Figure 4: What type of physics have you beenworking on this year?

11

Figure 5: Where do you do your research(greatest part of year)?

Figure 6: How large is your current collabora-tion (in number of people)?

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

12

4 Balance vs. Focus

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

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

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

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

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

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

13

Figure 8: Is it important that the “nextmachine” host a diverse (multi-physics) rangeof experiments and collaborations? Recallthat the solid lines indicate young physicists,and dashed lines indicates tenured physicists.

Figure 9: If the “next machine” is a collider(e+e−, pp, µ+µ−), is it important to have atleast two large, multipurpose detectors versusa single detector?

14

Figure 10: Is it important to promote a bal-ance between the numbers of theorists, phe-nomenologists, and experimentalists?

Figure 11: Is it important that the HEP labshost astrophysics efforts?

15

5 The Impact of Globalization

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

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

Figure 12: How frequently do you currentlysee or work on your detector?

Figure 13: In your current situation, given thechoice, how do you rate being near your detec-tor versus being near your advisor/supervisor?

The prevailing opinion is that hands-on hardware experience is very important (Figure 14).In a future survey, it might be interesting to learn how much hardware work is enough tosatisfy the need. Likewise, one could ask how much analysis work is sufficient to make awell-rounded physicist.

16

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

Figure 14: How important do you feel it is tohave hands-on hardware experience?

Figure 15: If the next machine is not located inthe U.S., will the quality of beams and physicsresults improve if we have “regional centers”in the U.S.?

17

Figure 16: What should be the role of the U.S.national labs in the next 10-25 years?

Figure 17: How frequently should theseregional centers be distributed relative to thecurrent national labs?

18

6 Outreach

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

Figure 18: Are we currently doing enough out-reach to funding agencies?

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

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

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

19

7 Building the Field

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

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

Figure 20: What is it that most attracted youto HEP?

Figure 21: What is the main reason you havestayed in the field so far?

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

20

Figure 22: Do you think we are currentlyretaining adequate numbers of talented physi-cists in HEP?

Figure 23: What feature of the field do youthink might most influence young people toleave the field?

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

21

8 Physics

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

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

Figure 24: What physics would you person-ally find the most compelling in the next 10-25years?

Figure 25: What do you think is the mostimportant physics for the field over the next10-25 years?

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

22

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

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

23

Figure 27: Do you think it is important thatthe next new facility be in the U.S.?

Figure 28: Do you think it is importantthat the next new facility be in the U.S.?Responses are now separated based on wherethe respondent currently works and not wherethey grew up. Top plot are those currentlyworking in North America, bottom plot arethose currently not working in North Amer-ica.

24

9 Finding Consensus and Picking a Plan

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

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

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

We asked respondents to rate their knowledge of each of the various machine options, includ-ing TESLA (Figure 30), NLC and CLIC (Figure 31), the VLHC (Figure 32), the neutrinofactory (Figure 33), and the muon collider (Figure 34). Non-American physicists are moreknowledgeable about TESLA than their American counterparts, and significantly less knowl-edgeable about the VLHC.

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

25

Figure 30: How much do you know aboutTESLA?

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

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

26

Figure 33: How much do you know about theNeutrino Factory?

Figure 34: How much do you know about theMuon Collider?

27

Figure 35: Do you think you know enough toform a decision and choose from the variousoptions?

Figure 36: Respondents at Snowmass: “Doyou think you know enough to form a decisionand chose from the various options”. Errorsare statistical only; here, the total number ofresponses is 356 for all four histograms com-bined.

28

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

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

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

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

• Reserve judgment for several years, continue research.

• Other (specify in the comments section).”

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

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

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

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

2If one of the listed options requires more than “several” years to begin construction, or if an unlisted

option becomes viable in that time-frame, then the results would have to be interpreted differently.3In hindsight, we wish we had listed JLC instead of CLIC, which is a longer-term project.

29

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

Figure 38: Which would you select, after sum-ming TESLA options.

Figure 39: Which would you select, withresponses separated by where the respondentcurrently works instead of where they grew up.

30

Figure 40: Selections of people claiming toknow enough to make a decision.

Figure 41: Selections of people who wereunsure or claimed they do not know enoughto make a decision.

31

10 Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

32

11 Acknowledgments

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

12 Survey

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

33

Survey on the Future of HEP

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

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

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

This survey was prepared by the Young Physicists Panel (YPP). More information can befound at the following website:

http://ypp.hep.net

34

DemographicInformation

1. At what stage are you currently in yourcareer [career]?

(i) Undergraduate

(ii) Graduate student

(iii) Postdoc

(iv) Untenured faculty or term staff

(v) Tenured faculty or permanent staff

2. On which continent did you grow up[contrais]?

(i) Africa

(ii) Asia

(iii) Australia

(iv) Europe

(v) North America

(vi) South America

3. On which continent do you currentlywork greatest part of year [contwork]?

(i) Africa

(ii) Antarctica

(iii) Asia

(iv) Australia

(v) Europe

(vi) North America

(vii) South America

4. What type of physics have you beenworking on this year [worktype]?

(i) theory

(ii) fixed target experiment

(iii) collider experiment (pp, e+e−, etc.)

(iv) beam research/accelerator physics

(v) astrophysics

(vi) other (please specify below)

5. Where do you do your researchgreatest part of year [labwork]?

(i) Argonne

(ii) BNL

(iii) CERN

(iv) DESY

(v) FNAL

(vi) KEK

(vii) LBL

(viii) SLAC

(ix) University

(x) Other (please specify in commentsection below)

6. How large is your current collaboration[collsize]?

(i) 1-5 people

(ii) 5-20 people

(iii) 20-50 people

(iv) 50-200 people

(v) 200-500 people

(vi) 500-1000 people

(vii) more than 1000 people

7. Are you attending Snowmass [atsmass]?

(i) yes

(ii) no

8. Additional comments:

35

Balance vs. Focus

For the following questions, we define”next machine” as the next energyfrontier or flagship machine. Pleasecircle one response for each of thefollowing questions.

9. Is it important that the ”next machine”host a diverse (multi-physics) range ofexperiments and collaborations [divnext]?

(i) very important

(ii) somewhat important

(iii) not important

(iv) don’t know/no opinion

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

(i) very important


(iii) not important


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

(i) redundancy is very important

(ii) redundancy is somewhat important

(iii) redundancy is not important


12. Is it important to promote a balancebetween the numbers of theorists,phenomenologists, and experimentalists[prombal]?

(i) very important/mandate the mix-ture

(ii) somewhat important/encourage aparticular mixture

(iii) not important/let the market decide


13. Additional comments on this sectionincluding what HEP can support givena limited budget:

36

The Impact ofGlobalization

In order to best understand yourresponses, we ask that you answer anumber of questions on your presentsituation. By ”regional centers” we meanfacilities that function as remotevirtual control rooms with experts present(monitoring, data acquisition, voltages,setting parameters, etc), withexceedingly good video conferencing anddata processing capability. Please circleone response for each of the followingquestions.

14. How frequently do you currently see orwork on your detector [seedet]?

(i) daily/weekly

(ii) monthly

(iii) yearly

(iv) every few years

(v) N/A - don’t have a detector

15. How important do you feel it is to havehands-on hardware experience [handsdet]?

(i) very important


(iii) not at all important

(iv) N/A - don’t have a detector

16. It may be the case that your supervisoris in a different location than yourdetector. In your current situation, giventhe choice, how do you rate being nearyour detector versus being near youradvisor/supervisor [advisdet]?

(i) detector proximity more important

(ii) advisor proximity more important

(iii) roughly equal in importance


17. If the next machine is not located inthe U.S., will the quality of beams andphysics results improve if we have”regional centers” in the U.S. [rceasy]?

(i) yes

(ii) no

(iii) maybe


18. How frequently should these regionalcenters be distributed [rclocate]?

(i) less frequently distributed than thenational labs

(ii) as numerous as the national labs

(iii) more frequently than the nationallabs

(iv) don’t need them

19. What should be the importance of theU.S. national labs in 10-25 years [uslabs]?

(i) reduced role/some labs should close

(ii) much the same role/current labsshould persist

(iii) strong role/additional labs shouldopen

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

37

Outreach toInfluence FundingAgencies and/or

the Public

How important is outreach tocontinued support of our work? Pleasecircle one response for each of thefollowing questions.

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

(i) more than enough

(ii) adequate

(iii) not nearly enough

(iv) far too little

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


(ii) adequate


(iv) far too little

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

(i) yes

(ii) no

(iii) maybe

24. Your brief comments on this section andthoughts on what we might dodifferently. What we might do better:

38

Building the Field

Your personal experience can be insight-ful. Please circle one response for eachquestion.

25. What is it that most attracted you toHEP [attrhep]?

(i) interest in physics/science/nature

(ii) strong mentor in the field

(iii) allure of working at a HEP lab

(iv) intellectual atmosphere

(v) whim/it was cool

(vi) nothing else is interesting

(vii) salary and benefits

(viii) possibility of fame

(ix) enjoy hardware work

(x) enjoy software work

(xi) academic freedom

(xii) lifestyle/travel/hours

(xiii) gain valuable experience for anycareer choice

(xiv) spiritual/religious reasons

26. What is main reason you have stayed inthe field so far [stayhep]?















27. Do you think we are currently retainingadequate numbers of talented physicistsin HEP [talenhep]?

(i) yes

(ii) somewhat

(iii) no


28. What feature of the field do you thinkmight most influence young physiciststo leave the field [neghep]?

(i) lack of competitive salary

(ii) large collaboration sizes

(iii) length of time spent in grad school

(iv) amount of travel required

(v) lack of permanent jobopportunities

(vi) lack of professional environment

(vii) weak or unstructured management

(viii) other (please specify in comments)

(ix) not an issue (don’t think many willleave)

29. Additional comments are welcome. Howdo we encourage talented young peopleto do graduate work in HEP, and thenstay in the field? What issues facingyoung physicists in the future concernyou the most?

39

Physics

The direction you select for the field islargely driven by the fundamentalquestions you find most compelling.Please circle one response for each ofthe following questions.

30. What physics would you personally findmost compelling in the next 10-25 years[persphys]?

(i) QCD/strong interactions

(ii) Higgs physics/EW symmetrybreaking

(iii) CP violation

(iv) neutrino physics

(v) exotic particle searches

(vi) accelerator physics

(vii) cosmological constant/dark matter

(viii) cosmic ray physics

(ix) quark gluon plasma/hadronic physics

(x) other (please specify below)

31. What do you think is the most impor-tant physics for the field over the next10-25 years [fieldphy]?



(iii) CP violation








32. Does the science you selected aboverequire a major new facility [facphy]?

(i) yes

(ii) no

(iii) maybe


33. If so, do you think it is important thatthe new facility be in the U.S. [facusphy]?

(i) yes

(ii) no

(iii) maybe


34. Your additional comments on thissection are welcome:

40

Finding Consensus,Picking a Plan

Please circle one response for each.

35. What has most affected your currentopinion(s) on the options for the futureof HEP [affopin]?

(i) your advisor

(ii) your current work

(iii) reading

(iv) talking to colleagues

(v) attending workshops/conferences

(vi) attending talks

(vii) joining working groups/performing studies

(viii) sitting and thinking

(ix) other

36. How much do you know about TESLA[knowtes]?

(i) enough or alot

(ii) fair amount, but need to know more

(iii) very little or nothing

37. How much do you know about LC non-TESLA versions, i.e. NLC, CLIC [knowolc]?

(i) enough or alot



38. How much do you know about the VLHC[knowvlhc]?

(i) enough or alot



39. How much do you know about theNeutrino Factory [knownfac]?

(i) enough or alot



40. How much do you know about the MuonCollider [knowmumu]?

(i) enough or alot



41. Do you think you know enough to forma decision and chose from the variousoptions [knowenou]?

(i) definitely yes

(ii) probably yes

(iii) unsure

(iv) probably no

(v) definitely no

42. If you had to choose from the follow-ing options, which one would you pick[choose1]?

(i) a new e+e- collider (TESLA,NLC,CLIC)in the U.S. soon, with continuedresearch in VLHC and muon stor-age ring/muon collider technologies

(ii) TESLA in Germany soon, with thegoal of a post-LHC higher energyVLHC in the U.S.

(iii) TESLA in Germany soon, with thegoal of an eventual muon storagering/ muon collider in the U.S.

(iv) reserve judgment for several years,continue research

(v) other (please specify in commentsection below)

43. Your comments here, please amplify onyour response to the above:

41

References

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

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

[3] The Young Physicists Forum (YPF) Town Meeting occured at Snowmass, Tuesday, July10, 2001 (http://portia.fnal.gov/~bfleming/calendar.html).

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

42

arX

iv:h

ep-e

x/01

0804

0v3

27

Aug

200

1

http://ypp.hep.net

The Young Physicists Panel (YPP)

presents

Results of the Survey on the Future of HEP

submitted to the DOE/NSF Subpanel on Long Range Planningfor U.S. High Energy Physics

August 23, 2001

http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0108040v3

ABSTRACT

The Young Physicists Panel (YPP) summarizes results from their Survey on the Future of

High Energy Physics, which was conducted from July 2 to July 15, 2001. Over 1500 physicistsfrom around the world, both young and tenured, responded to the survey. We first describethe origin, design, and advertisement of the survey, and then present the demographics ofthe respondents. Following sections analyze the collected opinions on the desire for balancein the field, the impact of globalization, the necessity of outreach, how to build the field,the physics that drives the field, and the selection of the next big machine. Respondents’comments follow the survey analysis in an appendix.

2

Contents

1 Introduction 7

2 Methodology 8

3 Demographics 10

4 Balance vs. Focus 14

5 The Impact of Globalization 17

6 Outreach 20

7 Building the Field 21

8 Physics 23

9 Finding Consensus and Picking a Plan 26

10 Conclusions 33

11 Acknowledgments 34

12 Survey 34

Bibliography 43

13 Sound Bites 44

13.1 Separate Letters Sent to YPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4413.2 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4813.3 Balance vs. Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

13.3.1 Timelines: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4913.3.2 Budget and Funding Issues: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4913.3.3 Universities: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5213.3.4 Importance of Using Existing Resources: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5213.3.5 Importance of Redundacy: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5313.3.6 Maintaining Diversity: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5613.3.7 Balance of Theory and Phenomenology: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6013.3.8 Balance with Astrophysics: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6313.3.9 Survey-Specific Comments on Balance: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

13.4 Impact of Globalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6613.4.1 Global Collaboration: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6613.4.2 Proximity to Detector: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7113.4.3 Regional Centers: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7513.4.4 The Role of National Labs: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8413.4.5 Survey-Specific Comments on Globalization: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

13.5 Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9113.5.1 How to Do Better: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9113.5.2 Outreach Organization: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

3

13.5.3 Value of Outreach: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10413.5.4 Schools: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10613.5.5 Reaching Funding Agencies: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10813.5.6 The NASA Model: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11313.5.7 Survey-Specific Comments on Outreach: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

13.6 Building the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11613.6.1 Timescale for Projects: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11613.6.2 Leadership and Large Collaborations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11813.6.3 Salary and Benefits: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12213.6.4 Attracting Students to HEP: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12413.6.5 Availability of Permanent Jobs: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12713.6.6 Leaving the Field: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12913.6.7 Survey-Specific Comments on Building: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

13.7 Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15013.7.1 Most Compelling Physics: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15013.7.2 Does the Physics Require a New Machine?: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16313.7.3 Location of a Frontier Facility: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16513.7.4 Survey-Specific Comments on Physics: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

13.8 Picking a Plan andFinding Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17513.8.1 Selecting the Next Machine: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17513.8.2 Decide to Wait: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20113.8.3 Survey-Specific Comments on Picking a Plan: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

4

List of Figures

1 Current career stage of survey respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Continent where survey respondents grew up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 On which continent do you currently work (greatest part of the year)? . . . . 124 What type of physics have you been working on this year? . . . . . . . . . . 125 Where do you do your research (greatest part of year)? . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 How large is your current collaboration (in number of people)? . . . . . . . . 137 Place where respondents currently work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Should the “next machine” host diverse experiments and collaborations? . . 159 Is it important to have at least two detectors? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1510 Is it important to balance the numbers of theorists and experimentalists? . . 1611 Is it important that the HEP labs host astrophysics efforts? . . . . . . . . . 1612 How frequently do you currently see or work on your detector? . . . . . . . . 1713 How do you rate being near your detector versus being near your supervisor? 1714 How important do you feel it is to have hands-on hardware experience? . . . 1815 Should we have “regional centers” in the U.S.? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1816 What should be the role of the U.S. national labs in the next 10-25 years? . 1917 How frequently should these regional centers be distributed? . . . . . . . . . 1918 Are we currently doing enough outreach to funding agencies? . . . . . . . . . 2019 Are we currently doing enough outreach to the general public? . . . . . . . . 2020 What is it that most attracted you to HEP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2121 What is the main reason you have stayed in the field so far? . . . . . . . . . 2122 Are we retaining adequate numbers of talented physicists in HEP? . . . . . . 2223 What most influences young people to leave the field? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2224 What physics would you personally find the most compelling in the future . 2325 What do you think is the most important physics for the field in the future . 2326 Does this science you selected require a major new facility? . . . . . . . . . . 2427 Do you think it is important that the next new facility be in the U.S.? . . . 2528 Do you think it is important that the next new facility be in the U.S.? . . . 2529 What most affected your current opinion on the future options? . . . . . . . 2630 How much do you know about TESLA? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2731 How much do you know about LC non-TESLA versions (i.e. NLC, CLIC)? . 2732 How much do you know about the VLHC? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2733 How much do you know about the Neutrino Factory? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2834 How much do you know about the Muon Collider? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2835 Do you think you know enough to decide? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2936 Snowmass: Do you think you know enough to decide? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2937 Which of the following machine options would you select? . . . . . . . . . . . 3138 Which would you select, after summing TESLA options. . . . . . . . . . . . 3139 Which would you select, separated by where the respondent works . . . . . . 3140 Selections of people claiming to know enough to make a decision. . . . . . . 3241 Selections of people who were unsure or claimed they do not know enough . 32

5

AUTHOR LIST

[email protected]

B. T. Fleming1, J. Krane2, G. P. Zeller3, F. Canelli4, B. Connolly5,R. Erbacher6, G. T. Fleming7, D. A. Harris6, E. Hawker8, M. Hildreth9,

B. Kilminster4, S. Lammers10, D. Medoff11, J. Monroe1, D. Toback12,M. Sorel1, A. Turcot13, M. Velasco3, M. O. Wascko14, G. Watts15,

and E. D. Zimmerman16.

1Columbia University2Iowa State University

3Northwestern University4University of Rochester5Florida State University

6Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory7The Ohio State University

8University of Cincinnati9University of Notre Dame10University of Wisconsin11University of Maryland12Texas A&M University

13Brookhaven National Laboratory14Louisiana State University15University of Washington

16University of Colorado at Boulder

6

1 Introduction

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

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

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

7

2 Methodology

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

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

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

More than 99% of the surveys were received via the web. The approximately 10 paper copiescollected at Snowmass were entered into the web interface by hand. At two points duringthe course of the survey we refined our advertising focus after examining demographic data:the fraction of young respondents and the individual lab response rates. None of the othersurvey data were reviewed until three days before the close of the survey. This practice min-imized the chances of accidentally biasing the survey’s sample pool and still allowed time toprepare plots and talks for presentation at the Snowmass Young Physicists’ Forum on July17th, 2001 [3]. There were no additional advertisements after the full review. The resultsdid not change to any significant degree in the final three days of the survey.

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

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

8

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

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

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

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

9

3 Demographics

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

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

Figure 1: Current career stage of survey respondents.

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

Young Tenured TotalAmericans 334 328 662Non-Americans 523 323 846

Total 857 651 1508

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

10

Figure 2: Continent where survey respondents grew up.

Of the 662 respondents who grew up in North America, almost all of them still work inNorth America (Figure 3). In contrast, roughly half of the 676 European and 125 Asianrespondents (including Russia and the Indian subcontinent) have traveled to North Americato work (Figure 3).

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

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

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

inadvertently reversed.

11

Figure 3: On which continent do you currentlywork (greatest part of the year)?

Figure 4: What type of physics have you beenworking on this year?

12

Figure 5: Where do you do your research(greatest part of year)?

Figure 6: How large is your current collabora-tion (in number of people)?

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

13

4 Balance vs. Focus

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

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

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

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

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

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

14

Figure 8: Is it important that the “nextmachine” host a diverse (multi-physics) rangeof experiments and collaborations? Recallthat the solid lines indicate young physicists,and dashed lines indicates tenured physicists.

Figure 9: If the “next machine” is a collider(e+e−, pp, µ+µ−), is it important to have atleast two large, multipurpose detectors versusa single detector?

15

Figure 10: Is it important to promote a bal-ance between the numbers of theorists, phe-nomenologists, and experimentalists?

Figure 11: Is it important that the HEP labshost astrophysics efforts?

16

5 The Impact of Globalization

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

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

Figure 12: How frequently do you currentlysee or work on your detector?

Figure 13: In your current situation, given thechoice, how do you rate being near your detec-tor versus being near your advisor/supervisor?

The prevailing opinion is that hands-on hardware experience is very important (Figure 14).In a future survey, it might be interesting to learn how much hardware work is enough tosatisfy the need. Likewise, one could ask how much analysis work is sufficient to make awell-rounded physicist.

17

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

Figure 14: How important do you feel it is tohave hands-on hardware experience?

Figure 15: If the next machine is not located inthe U.S., will the quality of beams and physicsresults improve if we have “regional centers”in the U.S.?

18

Figure 16: What should be the role of the U.S.national labs in the next 10-25 years?

Figure 17: How frequently should theseregional centers be distributed relative to thecurrent national labs?

19

6 Outreach

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

Figure 18: Are we currently doing enough out-reach to funding agencies?

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

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

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

20

7 Building the Field

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

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

Figure 20: What is it that most attracted youto HEP?

Figure 21: What is the main reason you havestayed in the field so far?

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

21

Figure 22: Do you think we are currentlyretaining adequate numbers of talented physi-cists in HEP?

Figure 23: What feature of the field do youthink might most influence young people toleave the field?

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

22

8 Physics

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

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

Figure 24: What physics would you person-ally find the most compelling in the next 10-25years?

Figure 25: What do you think is the mostimportant physics for the field over the next10-25 years?

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

23

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

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

24

Figure 27: Do you think it is important thatthe next new facility be in the U.S.?

Figure 28: Do you think it is importantthat the next new facility be in the U.S.?Responses are now separated based on wherethe respondent currently works and not wherethey grew up. Top plot are those currentlyworking in North America, bottom plot arethose currently not working in North Amer-ica.

25

9 Finding Consensus and Picking a Plan

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

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

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

We asked respondents to rate their knowledge of each of the various machine options, includ-ing TESLA (Figure 30), NLC and CLIC (Figure 31), the VLHC (Figure 32), the neutrinofactory (Figure 33), and the muon collider (Figure 34). Non-American physicists are moreknowledgeable about TESLA than their American counterparts, and significantly less knowl-edgeable about the VLHC.

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

26

Figure 30: How much do you know aboutTESLA?

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

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

27

Figure 33: How much do you know about theNeutrino Factory?

Figure 34: How much do you know about theMuon Collider?

28

Figure 35: Do you think you know enough toform a decision and choose from the variousoptions?

Figure 36: Respondents at Snowmass: “Doyou think you know enough to form a decisionand chose from the various options”. Errorsare statistical only; here, the total number ofresponses is 356 for all four histograms com-bined.

29

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

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

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

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

• Reserve judgment for several years, continue research.

• Other (specify in the comments section).”

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

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

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

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

2If one of the listed options requires more than “several” years to begin construction, or if an unlisted

option becomes viable in that time-frame, then the results would have to be interpreted differently.3In hindsight, we wish we had listed JLC instead of CLIC, which is a longer-term project.

30

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

Figure 38: Which would you select, after sum-ming TESLA options.

Figure 39: Which would you select, withresponses separated by where the respondentcurrently works instead of where they grew up.

31

Figure 40: Selections of people claiming toknow enough to make a decision.

Figure 41: Selections of people who wereunsure or claimed they do not know enoughto make a decision.

32

10 Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

33

11 Acknowledgments

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

12 Survey

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

34

Survey on the Future of HEP

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

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

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

This survey was prepared by the Young Physicists Panel (YPP). More information can befound at the following website:

http://ypp.hep.net

35

DemographicInformation

1. At what stage are you currently in yourcareer [career]?

(i) Undergraduate

(ii) Graduate student

(iii) Postdoc

(iv) Untenured faculty or term staff

(v) Tenured faculty or permanent staff

2. On which continent did you grow up[contrais]?

(i) Africa

(ii) Asia

(iii) Australia

(iv) Europe

(v) North America

(vi) South America

3. On which continent do you currentlywork greatest part of year [contwork]?

(i) Africa

(ii) Antarctica

(iii) Asia

(iv) Australia

(v) Europe

(vi) North America

(vii) South America

4. What type of physics have you beenworking on this year [worktype]?

(i) theory

(ii) fixed target experiment

(iii) collider experiment (pp, e+e−, etc.)

(iv) beam research/accelerator physics

(v) astrophysics

(vi) other (please specify below)

5. Where do you do your researchgreatest part of year [labwork]?

(i) Argonne

(ii) BNL

(iii) CERN

(iv) DESY

(v) FNAL

(vi) KEK

(vii) LBL

(viii) SLAC

(ix) University

(x) Other (please specify in commentsection below)

6. How large is your current collaboration[collsize]?

(i) 1-5 people

(ii) 5-20 people

(iii) 20-50 people

(iv) 50-200 people

(v) 200-500 people

(vi) 500-1000 people

(vii) more than 1000 people

7. Are you attending Snowmass [atsmass]?

(i) yes

(ii) no

8. Additional comments:

36

Balance vs. Focus

For the following questions, we define”next machine” as the next energyfrontier or flagship machine. Pleasecircle one response for each of thefollowing questions.

9. Is it important that the ”next machine”host a diverse (multi-physics) range ofexperiments and collaborations [divnext]?

(i) very important


(iii) not important


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

(i) very important


(iii) not important


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

(i) redundancy is very important

(ii) redundancy is somewhat important

(iii) redundancy is not important


12. Is it important to promote a balancebetween the numbers of theorists,phenomenologists, and experimentalists[prombal]?

(i) very important/mandate the mix-ture

(ii) somewhat important/encourage aparticular mixture

(iii) not important/let the market decide


13. Additional comments on this sectionincluding what HEP can support givena limited budget:

37

The Impact ofGlobalization

In order to best understand yourresponses, we ask that you answer anumber of questions on your presentsituation. By ”regional centers” we meanfacilities that function as remotevirtual control rooms with experts present(monitoring, data acquisition, voltages,setting parameters, etc), withexceedingly good video conferencing anddata processing capability. Please circleone response for each of the followingquestions.

14. How frequently do you currently see orwork on your detector [seedet]?

(i) daily/weekly

(ii) monthly

(iii) yearly

(iv) every few years

(v) N/A - don’t have a detector

15. How important do you feel it is to havehands-on hardware experience [handsdet]?

(i) very important


(iii) not at all important


16. It may be the case that your supervisoris in a different location than yourdetector. In your current situation, giventhe choice, how do you rate being nearyour detector versus being near youradvisor/supervisor [advisdet]?

(i) detector proximity more important

(ii) advisor proximity more important

(iii) roughly equal in importance


17. If the next machine is not located inthe U.S., will the quality of beams andphysics results improve if we have”regional centers” in the U.S. [rceasy]?

(i) yes

(ii) no

(iii) maybe


18. How frequently should these regionalcenters be distributed [rclocate]?

(i) less frequently distributed than thenational labs

(ii) as numerous as the national labs

(iii) more frequently than the nationallabs

(iv) don’t need them

19. What should be the importance of theU.S. national labs in 10-25 years [uslabs]?

(i) reduced role/some labs should close

(ii) much the same role/current labsshould persist

(iii) strong role/additional labs shouldopen

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

38

Outreach toInfluence FundingAgencies and/or

the Public

How important is outreach tocontinued support of our work? Pleasecircle one response for each of thefollowing questions.

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


(ii) adequate


(iv) far too little

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


(ii) adequate


(iv) far too little

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

(i) yes

(ii) no

(iii) maybe

24. Your brief comments on this section andthoughts on what we might dodifferently. What we might do better:

39

Building the Field

Your personal experience can be insight-ful. Please circle one response for eachquestion.

25. What is it that most attracted you toHEP [attrhep]?















26. What is main reason you have stayed inthe field so far [stayhep]?















27. Do you think we are currently retainingadequate numbers of talented physicistsin HEP [talenhep]?

(i) yes

(ii) somewhat

(iii) no


28. What feature of the field do you thinkmight most influence young physiciststo leave the field [neghep]?

(i) lack of competitive salary

(ii) large collaboration sizes

(iii) length of time spent in grad school

(iv) amount of travel required

(v) lack of permanent jobopportunities

(vi) lack of professional environment

(vii) weak or unstructured management

(viii) other (please specify in comments)

(ix) not an issue (don’t think many willleave)

29. Additional comments are welcome. Howdo we encourage talented young peopleto do graduate work in HEP, and thenstay in the field? What issues facingyoung physicists in the future concernyou the most?

40

Physics

The direction you select for the field islargely driven by the fundamentalquestions you find most compelling.Please circle one response for each ofthe following questions.

30. What physics would you personally findmost compelling in the next 10-25 years[persphys]?



(iii) CP violation








31. What do you think is the most impor-tant physics for the field over the next10-25 years [fieldphy]?



(iii) CP violation








32. Does the science you selected aboverequire a major new facility [facphy]?

(i) yes

(ii) no

(iii) maybe


33. If so, do you think it is important thatthe new facility be in the U.S. [facusphy]?

(i) yes

(ii) no

(iii) maybe


34. Your additional comments on thissection are welcome:

41

Finding Consensus,Picking a Plan

Please circle one response for each.

35. What has most affected your currentopinion(s) on the options for the futureof HEP [affopin]?

(i) your advisor

(ii) your current work

(iii) reading

(iv) talking to colleagues

(v) attending workshops/conferences

(vi) attending talks

(vii) joining working groups/performing studies

(viii) sitting and thinking

(ix) other

36. How much do you know about TESLA[knowtes]?

(i) enough or alot



37. How much do you know about LC non-TESLA versions, i.e. NLC, CLIC [knowolc]?

(i) enough or alot



38. How much do you know about the VLHC[knowvlhc]?

(i) enough or alot



39. How much do you know about theNeutrino Factory [knownfac]?

(i) enough or alot



40. How much do you know about the MuonCollider [knowmumu]?

(i) enough or alot



41. Do you think you know enough to forma decision and chose from the variousoptions [knowenou]?

(i) definitely yes

(ii) probably yes

(iii) unsure

(iv) probably no

(v) definitely no

42. If you had to choose from the follow-ing options, which one would you pick[choose1]?

(i) a new e+e- collider (TESLA,NLC,CLIC)in the U.S. soon, with continuedresearch in VLHC and muon stor-age ring/muon collider technologies

(ii) TESLA in Germany soon, with thegoal of a post-LHC higher energyVLHC in the U.S.

(iii) TESLA in Germany soon, with thegoal of an eventual muon storagering/ muon collider in the U.S.

(iv) reserve judgment for several years,continue research

(v) other (please specify in commentsection below)

43. Your comments here, please amplify onyour response to the above:

42

References

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

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

[3] The Young Physicists Forum (YPF) Town Meeting occured at Snowmass, Tuesday, July10, 2001 (http://portia.fnal.gov/~bfleming/calendar.html).

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

43

Letters to YPP 44

13 Sound Bites

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

13.1 Separate Letters Sent to YPP

• I must first applaud your efforts to actively involve the community and provide manyopportunities for individuals and groups to voice their opinions. Thank you.

I am nearing completion of the graduate student life cycle on the BaBar experimentat SLAC, and want to share a few thoughts on the U.S. high energy physics (HEP)community. Our spokesperson, Stewart Smith, recently introduced BaBar (before theannouncement of a new result) with the words, ”Our experiment has two products:new science, and highly trained people.” This is, I think, the key issue. The field of highenergy physics, be it experimental or theoretical (or perhaps not even high energy),has TWO products, two purposes: discoveries about our Universe and the relation-ships that govern it (exciting enough to be pretty heady); and the rigorous training ofindividuals in the skills of critical thinking, clear communication, and objective obser-vation (a rewarding and necessary challenge). This duality is not divisive, rather it isinclusive – it asserts that there is more to HEP than merely a derived understandingof the Universe; there is a practice, a paradigm, a set of skills that are part of highenergy physics.

Some argue that the educational aspect of HEP training is most well carried out byhaving a machine here in the U.S. Though I might be inclined to agree, having livedthrough the SSC experience, and not seeing currently a much better political climatefor science (if not a worse one) I personally worry about whether we as a communitywill be able to make our leaders understand why building a large-scale machine suchas an ILC is important for so many reasons. So for now – I am completely willing tosupport all efforts for getting Congress to fund a machine within the U.S. However –before working on it myself, I personally would like more assurance if it ever beganthat the project was going to be carried through to completion.

Also, having recently seen a talk by Albrecht Wagner, I am very impressed with howfar DESY has progressed on the TESLA concept, and if we as a nation decide *against*funding such a machine here in the U.S., I would be *most* happy to support themand send funds over in the model of how we have for LHC. I think it would be anothergrievous blow for science in this country, but again – HEP is always becoming moreglobal (we did invent the Web, after all), and I would be quite content to live abroadfor many years to do the necessary research. I do like the idea of regional educationalcenters, akin to the National Labs, but serving the primary purpose of disseminatingthe culture, knowledge, and excitement inherent in the HEP quest. Further, Wagnerhas stated that he expects future generation experiments will have *much* highermaintainability and operability from afar. (Clearly not the hardware, but the softwarehe’s envisioning would be much superior to EPICS in how well the machine can be runremotely, from what I gather). Given the limited resources in the world, and the manyother pressing problems society needs to address, I do feel that there should only be

Letters to YPP 45

*one* large world lab doing e+e- at the 500 GeV range, and I would offer argumentssimilar to those of Shelly Glashow’s who said much the same thing many years agowhile the LHC and SSC were both being built.

Further, the emphasis of high energy physics on education is critical to the fitness,indeed, even the existence, of a successful U.S. HEP future. The strong attitude ofelitism within our field is, I think, contrary to that purpose (and contributed stronglyto the demise of the SSC). Many high energy physicists consider HEP as self-evident,the only fundamental science; other fields are devalued as mere large statistic studiesof ensemble behavior. Additionally, the physics institution still maintains that mostHEP-trained physicists should be doing research in academia; failure to do so is consid-ered an admission of inadequate talent. These messages are all utterly ridiculous; highenergy physics is no more fundamental than psychology, which studies the perceptiveapparatus by which we make all of our observations. These pervasive attitudes havetwo consequences: they alienate practioners of other sciences, and they prevent opendialogue between those in the community and those that have left it. I point again tothe two ”products” of HEP: we’re producing new science, and we’re producing highlytrained individuals; we should welcome customers of the latter. Having HEP ”gradu-ates” dispersed across the professional world is clearly advantageous to the field. AsHEP ”alumni,” these people not only bring the strength of cross-disciplinary trainingto other fields, but they also enthusiastically share and teach what they have learnedfrom the high energy community. They are an under-utilized resource, an inactivealumni network that still has passion for the ”alma mater.” We don’t need to ”keepyoung people in the field;” we need to send more trained high energy physicists outinto the world! I feel this very strongly, and feel that the Young Physicists Panel ques-tionnaire is fundamentally slanted towards the more common view mentioned abovewhen it talks about ”how can we keep more HEP researchers in the field?”.

I strongly feel that the HEP community is not sufficiently focused on outreach andeducation efforts. It is clear that the dividends of our work need to go back to thegeneral public, again in terms of our two products: new knowledge and trained individ-uals. But the difficulty in organizing outreach efforts is in defining the target audiencesand the principal actors. I think this is where we need more focus. At present, theformula seems to involve press releases which are then distilled into exciting narrativesby trained journalists. Is this the most appropriate interaction? Should we insteadencourage more of the principal researchers to work on the front lines? But we can-not expect all successful researchers to be renaissance-persons, capable of submitting aPRL draft and a New York Times science article in the same evening. We can, however,ask a greater number of active HEP researchers to engage the public in workshops andtours, rather than retreating behind the cloak of traditional media.

Lastly, I feel that there is a large sector of the general public that is greatly dissatisfiedwith (overlooked by?) HEP outreach – the well-educated, middle-class professional.Some are business professionals, some are scientists in other fields, some are motivatedamateurs; they are capable and enthusiastic, and want something between ScientificAmerican and physics graduate school. HEP education often targets children, becausethese teaching situations are often easier and more successful because the material canbe correctly represented and controlled. I say that we must tackle the harder audiencesas well, the ones with intellectual training and critical thinking skills; they can become

Letters to YPP 46

our best customers, and our strongest advocates.

I think it’s quite reasonable that we should spend say even 1% of our budget oneducational outreach. Currently, it’s probably about ... 1%, if *that* – at least atSLAC, I’m not sure how FNAL compares, I know CERN does a better job and, as manyhave observed, on the whole, NASA puts us all to shame with their incredible publicoutreach machine, and I think it’s very short-sighted for us to continue in the mode ofnot reaching out to the public more. As far as a few vague ideas (some a little moreSLAC-specific) that would need filling out much more before being serious proposals,how about: making IMAX movies, multimedia CD’s, traveling roadshows with demos,art + science exhibitions (CERN does these well), more fun knick-knack merchandisewe can give away/sell on the web for cheap, open houses for all neighbors at the VentureCapital firms to come see what we do, giving all lab users/employees a half day seminaron occasion to educate them on all the amazing things that have come out of HEP (e.g.first U.S. website, medical technologies from SSRL, Silicon Valley connections etc.),some kind of economic estimational analysis of the contribution of SLAC per year tothe U.S. economy through these things (similar to what environmental economists dowhen they estimate the economic impact of externalizing things like pollution) etc.

• I would like to add some extra comments to the survey form I just submitted. Just tolet you put my comments in context I include at the end of the message my answersto the form. I share the general concern for the future of HEP, and I think it maybe useful to look at how the whole thing started. Until the 40s, nuclear physics was”small science”, done in University labs with very little funding. The amount of newdiscoveries done in the early part of the century was amazing, although still withrelatively little impact on society. The bomb changed it all, showing how this abstruseresearch field could change the world, forever. It created a strong political consensusto fund the HEP field, which really started in the 50s. The discoveries of the 60s and70s showed rapid, albeit not truly understood, advancement in knowledge, with anacceptable increase in funding, especially considering the level of economic expansionthat all developed countries where then experiencing. But the mood changed in the80s, for a number of reasons. Discoveries have become rare, advancement slow andincreasingly obscure, funding enormous, the economy has been slowing down makingit harder and harder to defend this kind of pure science project. In the U.S. thisculminated with the termination of the SSC project; in Europe the larger continentalinertia allowed LHC, but with delays and enormous and still lingering funding problems(Atlas alone lacks 45MCHF at this day).

Looking at this from a distance, I can’t help wondering whether the ”next big machine”is real necessity for the advancement of science, or instead is dictated by the sociologicalneed of keeping the HEP community together, of preventing the accumulated knowl-edge from vanishing into retirement. I’m not a small science champion, I’ve alwaysbeen working in big experiments and I appreciate what a big project can do. Still ...How can we attract young brilliant scientists, when the prospect is to work for yearsto give a small specialized contribution to a huge experiment one may not be able tosee running? There is something wrong in the model.

Of course I have no magic solution. The direction I think we should be moving on,though, is to violently promote the unity of science. What I mean by this is that notonly we should foster a much higher level of communication between theoreticians,

Letters to YPP 47

phenomenologists and experimentalists, but also increase our knowledge of, and out-reach to other physics fields. As a field, we know very little of what happens in solidstate physics, or material physics, or even in astrophysics. The example of the rela-tively recent astroparticle physics field is illuminating. Studying subtle effects at lowenergies (say ”Higgs boson corrections to Cooper pairs energy levels”, just to inventone) may be more effective, more rapid and in the end more rewarding than walkingthe relatively clear road of the next energy frontier.

Thanks for the effort of taking this survey, I think it can be very useful.

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

• I just sent in my answers and comments. You all are doing a very important job. Toget to a sensible policy for the future will take a great deal of prodding – your groupcan be a major factor.

Comments on Demographics 48

13.2 Demographics

• ”Graduate students” are fictional char-acters invented by the American sys-tem of higher education. Once past theM.S. level, they are mature researcherswho are paid below the federal mini-mum salary levels.

• I am working in the field of nucleonnucleon interactions at the Research Cen-ter Juelich, Cooler Synchrotron 3.2 GeV/c.A few of your questions can also be pre-sented to and answered by a nuclearphysicist as well and I feel free to doso.

• I have problems answering the questionabout the size of my current collabo-ration since I collaborate with differentensembles of people on different projects(as most theorists do I suppose).

• I do 50% accelerator research and 50%collider physics data analysis (50/50 wasnot an option in above questions).

• I’m Canadian; for demographic purposesCanada probably shouldn’t be lumpedin with USA since we have distinct fund-ing agencies, aren’t particularly affectedby DOE budgets etc.

• For question 4, I find complete inatten-tion to non-accelerator particle physics.I work in neutrino physics, which couldbe called “fixed target” at some level.I also work on atmospheric neutrinos.This is NOT astrophysics.

• This survey represents a very narrowview of HEP. The committee seems tobelieve that any work not being done atan accelerator (fixed target, or collider)qualifies as astrophysics. Is the commit-tee unaware of the exciting physics tak-ing place away from accelerators (SNO,Super-K, MACRO, Monolith, Soudan-2, just to name a few)?

• Previously in neutrino physics. Biggestshock for me was the very limited (andnarrow-minded) focus of the ”big physics”community; re: other HEP subfields.For CDF people, if you’re not at LEP,CLEO, SLAC, FNAL or DESY, you’renowhere. This close-mindedness is badfor the field as a whole.

• 1) I grew up on an island, not a con-tinent! (and not even near one!!) 2)Need to allow for people who work inmore than one category of physics (inmy case, pbar p colliders and astrophysics).

• Very trivial, I grew up on an island thatis not part of any ”continent”.

• I grew up in the middle east, which isnot usually called Asia.

• Too bad the type of research doesn’tspecify the type of physics because cor-relations in bias and opinions could havebeen made with that info. People alwaysseem to vote for what they are/ haveworked on.

• This survey doesn’t seem to be gearedtowards ”members of the HEP commu-nity” but towards ”members of the HEP-experiment community who work in theUSA” - and it’s not the same thing.

• These questions seem to be geared towardsexperimentalists. I am a theorist.

• A year ago I formally retired from activeresearch by resigning from E871. I havebeen active in Science Education for thepast 10 or so years. I am 79 in a fewweeks.

• Many of us, including myself, work equallyon more than one experiment. You havenot taken this into account in your ques-tions.

• Maybe I could have said ’fixed target’but I put ’other’ because I am in neu-trino oscillation physics.

Comments on Balance vs. Focus 49

13.3 Balance vs. Focus

13.3.1 Timelines:

• NLC VLHC CLIC

• Design the next machine to be staged,with each stage component being ableto yield interesting physics while ulti-mately contributing to the final colliderphysics program. This way one avoidsan ”all or nothing” scenario, similar towhat happened with the SSC.

• I strongly support incrementally upgrad-ing Fermilab to a) proton Driver b) Col-lecting and cooling muons c) Neutrinofactory d)Muon collider. This producesdiverse physics. Each stage is under$1B. Neutrinos oscillate and provide thefirst evidence of physics beyond the stan-dard model.

• Whatever course is chosen toward thefrontier (and I personally lean towardVLHC), the mantra ought to be ”stageddevelopment”. This approach shouldsmooth funding profile, provide for moresustained experimental program, and per-mit strategic reassessment at appropri-ate times.

• One accelerator in the world next. EitherLC in Germany or US. If Germany, afterconstruction, then go for VLHC or muoncollider in the U.S. (VLHC I prefer).

• Often a staged approach might be use-ful: start out at a new machine withone experiment, but add a second onelater. However competition and redun-dancy are very important in the longrun.

13.3.2 Budget and Funding Issues:

• It is important NOT to commit morethan 15-20% per year from the base bud-get to a long-term project that will not

supply research results for 10 years. Thebulk of U.S. support for such a newfacility must come from NEW MONEY.If this principle is violated, the actualscience activities and achievements fromU.S. HEP will wither and die in themeantime.

• The assumption of a fixed budget is plainwrong and should not come from youngphysicists. Young physicists, togetherwith their senior colleagues should workhard on expanding the budget. Look atbiosciences! Mere whining about lackof money, so popular these days, is thebest way to ensure that we won’t getany expansion. Go to local schools, doPR, talk to journalists, talk to your neigh-bors, for God’s sake, but don’t tell methat the richest country in the worldcan not afford broad science programsafter 5 years of bullish market!

• It is essential that we expend sufficientresources to properly analyze the datawe work so hard and spend so muchmoney to acquire. To do otherwise, wemay as well just skip doing the experi-ment.

• In times of constant/decreasing budget,it is important to invest in efforts tokeep the cost of new accelerators down.There is also a tendency within the HEPcommunity to inflate the cost of newaccelerators to saturate the current bud-get.

• I do not accept the premise that ourbudget is limited. It is true that it hasbeen flat (or declining, if you count infla-tion). But the future depends on ourenthusiasm and willingness to pull foreach other. Right now we have too manysour pusses, harping on the imperfec-tions that any project will have.

• Over the next 20 years, world HEP cansupport three machines at roughly $5B


each: An e+e- collider, a neutrino fac-tory and stage one of a VLHC. This willrequire a construction add-on of about$0.8B a year shared around the world...sayhalf in the US. It should permit a veryactive program of support of existingfacilities, niche experiments some astro-physics while we are constructing in somephased way. If VLHC is in the U.S., wewill have a tunnel to exploit over thenext 20 years.

• Economics and politics mandate thatthe next machine be a low energy e+e-collider. We must do what is econom-ically feasible. A program that opti-mizes the physics potential but can neverbe carried out is a disaster for the field.

• Preferred next choice: Linear e+ e- col-lider with one experiment for e+ e- andone for e-e, e-gamma and gamma-gammacollisions. A significant attempt shouldbe made towards a multi-science cen-tre to attract and reach support by awide scientific community - this is mostprobably the only way that the neces-sary resources can be found.

• Probably need to close some centres tofund new initiatives. A nasty choice.

• For the next 20 year we can supportonly LHC and the linear collider.

• Some standardization to save money.

• In an era of limited resources and pub-licity/personality driven political deci-sions regarding both short and long rangediscretionary budgetary policy, the firstthing HEP should support is a strongpublic and governmental relations pro-gram it would perhaps be prudent foran umbrella organization such as APS(or a consortium of such organizations),to consult with public/ governmental/media relations experts from the busi-ness world HEP has an advocacy and

image problem in a world which, often,bases its decisions on images, perceivedrealities and received wisdom.

• We can afford a frontier ee and a fron-tier pp machine as well as smaller machines.Of course, the construction of the twobig machines will be sequenced.

• We actually have a limited number ofideas; a new machine is ten years awayto its impact at least; A budget that cancontemplate $10B is not very limited;WE FAILED TO USE THAT ORDEROF MONEY WITH THE SSC ANDWITH ISABELLE ... run flown intothe ground with our eyes wide open withlearned committees run by theorists andorganizational scientists; budget reviewsand slogans, management teams over-sight committees, Harvard Directors, (fir-ing the experienced director); examinehow Bob Wilson DID it and with whom.I find the NLC program more like oneexperiment which would be very goodif it could be done now; a lot like theSLC but a one shot deal very expensiveno future and makes an oxymoron of”high energy physics” mantra: rather isphysics at 1/2 TeV when we can see eas-ily how to do physics at 100-200 TeV ...and this has to be where we want to bein 10 years ... There is no Z pole gloryhole to make e+e- the known physicsof choice; NLC physics is very likelythat of the Tristan, SLC and LeP IIera: damn few events ... We would havehad hints something useful at a 1/2 TeVattackable with e+e- is just around thecorner in hadron physics; putting thefuture of U.S. particle physics for thenext generation on the e+e- option issuicide for our field in the U.S.

• Put off very expensive experiments. Maybein the near future new technologies willhelp to greatly reduce the cost. Justkeep the minimum going.


• It’s not at all clear we can afford anynew machines.

• Given the SSC debacle, without consen-sus inside HEP it doesn’t matter whatbudget we have.

• As to question 11, the number of detec-tors, and indeed even the size of themachine, can’t be just decided by fiator even physics desires; we need to seri-ously consider doing what most otherfields do, and figure out what we can doAFTER we have some idea of how muchmoney we can get, not BEFORE. Doingso requires us to fight against critics,rather than working with them to fig-ure out how to get the most bang forthe buck.

• Keep funding for accelerator physics R&Dat a generous level to encourage youngpeople who would like to enter the field.

• Value for money is more important nowthan it ever has been. Providing forother disciplines to work at our big toysas well is the way to go.

• Support the scientists and the field willsurvive. HEP budgets tend to demandmore clever ideas from its proponents.There are limits, but we must maxi-mize our resources and work to increasethose resources.

• More effort must be expended to restorea budget sized to our needs and expec-tations.

• There is much work to be done withcurrent major facilities. It also is impor-tant that the community find a way tobreak the cycle of increasing capital expen-diture and lengthening development times.Advanced accelerator R&D is one approach.

• We should ask for the machine whichallows for good and frontier science. Then

we should make the case for it and jus-tify the cost. We shouldn’t expect anymoney without justification and shouldn’tdecide on the machine based on our under-standing of the limited budget.

• What do you mean by limited budget?One should not assume that the bud-get is necessarily all that limited. Howlimited it is depends majorly on howwell the HEP community can convincethe funding organizations and Congressthat a particular facility is importantenough to fund. This in turn dependson how united the HEP community isin supporting one specific major facil-ity. A continually split community mayvery well cause the demise of the field.

• Dispose of a large fraction of staff whichmerely functions as unwanted by-productof funding; this will free resources andopen positions.

• Good research needs enthusiasm and ade-quate support including financial sup-port.

• Limited budgets restrict options for newmachines. More important than ever tobase decisions on best science. Whena new facility comes on is much lessimportant than that it be able to addressa range of important topics.

• The HEP budget is quite large com-pared to many other areas of science.We can support many disciplines andbe very diverse, if we avoid placing toomany of our resources in one activity.

• Money will always be limited in research,especially in fundamental research. Inmy point of view the combination of aHEP machine (really fundamental research)with a more applied subject (like e.g.the use of a free electron laser beam)gives unique arguments in our hands inorder to convince politicians to give us


the money to build such a machine. Itis also very good if we can tell our chil-dren that in our lifetime we did not onlystudy the properties of the Higgs butalso better understood the functional-ity of proteins in our body.

• Lab budget is now 90% of HEP funding.Universities, only 10%. This imbalanceis bad for long term future of HEP cre-ativity and funding.

13.3.3 Universities:

• The University Research, including equip-ment development, must be more stronglysupported at Universities. Universitiesare the traditional source of ideas, andyoung people. National Labs. (e.g. BNL)were started as places where Univer-sities did together what they are toosmall to do separately. The NationalLabs should NOT be in control. There-fore the funding should come throughUniversities whenever possible.

• Must always have a component that sup-ports undergraduate as well as gradu-ate student involvement. Otherwise wehave no future.

• To attract young physicists, Universitysupport must improve.

• A balance is important and studentsshould not be given false encouragement,but given the time lag between whena student decides what to study andwhen she/he is looks for a potentiallypermanent position, I don’t see whatcould reasonably be done. At the fac-ulty level, the interplay between govern-ment funding and what a department/university wants is complicated.

• A small number of universities eat upthe majority of the HEP budget. Thisneeds to be better distributed. A mini-mum of one post-doc or technician and

one grad student per university projectwould be a good start.

13.3.4 Importance of Using Exist-

ing Resources:

• Building a new accelerator at an alreadyexisting lab would be the most cost-efficient thing to do.

• The energy frontier is the holy grail.This is where the important discover-ies will come. Pushing accelerator anddetector technology is extremely impor-tant. I also believe that building on toan existing facility is a wise move. Thatis, using a facility with a trained staff,infrastructure, existing research program,and running machines would overcomemany of the problems the SSC encoun-tered.

• The infrastructure for HEP is extensiveand expensive. It is most productivewhen concentrated at few (national) labs.We must be very cautious when propos-ing a new lab rather that expandingan existing lab. The SSC is the posterchild for inadequate planning.

• Put money into increasing Tevatron Lumi-nosity.

• The next collider should not be a ”startfrom scratch” effort, since I believe itwould lead to another SSC fiasco. Itshould rather be viewed as an upgradeto an (existing?) facility. Each upgradeshould be associated with particular physicsgoals to justify funding and instigatethe necessity for the next one.

• Support research at HEP facilities.

• In order of priority : 0 - Base programat FNAL 1 - Superconducting LinearCollider 2 - LHC participation 3 - VLHCMagnet R&D 4 - Superconducting RFtechnology.


• We should be upgrading current machinesto maximize their physics potential anddoing R&D for the next big machine.It is premature to be building the nextbig machine now in the US, or to beproposing to do so.

• There is a difference between the ”nextmachine” and a new facility. Nationallaboratories are natural places for a rangeof experiments, because they already havea critical mass to build an infrastruc-ture. Smaller experiments can run par-asitically off of this. Also, while formy personal career it would be betterif phenomenology support was ”man-dated,” I do think that the communityresponds to needs. Just not necessarilyon the time scale of our careers.

13.3.5 Importance of Redundacy:

• It is obscene to spend $8B on a machineand get 1 or max 2 interaction regions.Can you imagine collaborations with greaterthan 2000 physicists! Diversity is impor-tant. Only neutrino factory approachwill guarantee this. VLHC timescaleis after LHC, since its physics case willonly be made by the LHC.

• Two cheap detectors are probably notbetter than a single, good detector.

• It is not clear that we can afford mul-tiple detectors at the next facility. Iftwo detectors means the death of every-thing else (which is almost certainly thecase), then the cost is too high. Whilethe next big machine is very importantto the future of the field, we cannotkill everything else for it. Whateverthe facility is, it will not answer all theimportant questions.

• May not be feasible cost-wise to have 2multipurpose detectors at next collider- far better to put sufficient money into

1 detector. This is not happening at themoment, where redundancy is favoredover adequate investment in each detec-tor. If budgets allow, would be betterto have a 2nd collider with a differentphysics reach.

• Presumably many facilities will exist (notjust new ones, so balance does not haveto be maintained only within a new facil-ity. What HEP can support depends onthe size of the limited budget. Giventhe current limited budget it may bewise to have less redundancy.

• Redundancy is a great thing, but atthe cost of these detectors, it is not anoption that is worth the money it willtake away from other experiments.

• Not all machine designs are able to rea-sonably support multiple detectors. How-ever, if two or more detectors are feasi-ble they should be built.

• I think its more important that the ”nextmachine” host a large range of experi-ments, but at the same time the numberof collaborations is not as important.The important issue should be to get asmuch physics as possible out of the nextfacility. At the same time, astrophysicsefforts that have some bearing on whatthe physics being explored should behosted, not just ”oh we need some astro-physics efforts here too...”

• A very interesting fully dedicated projectwithout multi-physics can be very valu-able too. There is no general rule.

• For an LC, one detector is probably fine.For a hadron machine, two are best.

• For any new collider to be built it isabsolutely essential to have at least twodetectors WITH EQUAL STANDINGand OPPORTUNITIES. If there wouldbe one then effects below say the 6 s.d.


limit cannot be believed. The numberof phenomena/reactions studied will bemuch less diverse. The construction ofthe detector which will be of the sev-eral hundred million dollar size will takemuch (1.5 - 2 times) longer. One detec-tor only is unhealthy for the field.

• Next machine: only one, detectors: atleast 2.

• In reference to question 11: I wouldrather see multiple interaction regionswith significantly different experimentsrather than multiple regions with thesame type of detectors.

• A second collider experiment doesn’t haveto be completed when the acceleratorstarts running, but the option to at leastadd one later should be there. Includ-ing other physics (e.g. a fixed targetexperiment and FEL/synchrotron radi-ation experiment) is important.

• Regarding question 11: There is lessneed for redundancy in e+e- than inhadron collider experiments. The mea-surements are generally cleaner, gener-ally more precise, and generally can bemade in many channels in the same detec-tor (as a cross check) and less likelyto be created by instrumental effects.It is reasonable for detector emphasisto vary for a high energy e+e- collider,especially where there is a desire to beable to make specific precision tests - byswitching for example between Z0 polemeasurements and continuum/ thresh-old discovery measurements ... Unlikehadron colliders, these detectors are gen-erally less costly to build per discov-ery hence making the construction oftwo or more distinct detectors, a rea-sonable course of action. The signifi-cantly greater baseline cost and com-plexity of a detector for a hadron machinemakes it much more cost effective tobuild one device and upgrade it as the

physics and environment becomes bet-ter understood.

• I don’t think detector redundancy forthe sake of redundancy is something ourfield can easily afford anymore, attrac-tive as it may be. On the other hand,if there is a physics case for two differ-ent kinds of beams (e.g. Z pole plusfull energy e+e-, or a gamma gammaoption), then a second detector may bejustified.

• The argument about number of detec-tors, experiment, etc. is quite impor-tant, but the REALLY important ques-tion is the physics. Independent confir-mation of new results is VERY impor-tant, but might be achievable within asingle experiment.

• With regards to redundant detectors, Ibelieve that they should be built if com-patible with the accelerator design. Ipractice this means I favor multiple IP’sat a storage ring, but would not com-promise the design of a linear colliderto accommodate multiple detectors.

• I assume the next machine will have atleast one general purpose detector. Ifthere is significant physics that the gen-eral purpose detector can not do, but aspecialized detector can do at a reason-able cost, this is obviously a good idea.

• HEP lives from the interaction of peo-ple and of different experiments. In theextreme limit, having 1 collider with 1experiment for a single purpose (witha rigid hyrachie) would make the ”sci-ence” that comes out of it not worth-while. Single plans should be scaledthat variety fits into the budget.

• Redundancy is a minor reason to havetwo detectors. The two detectors arenot identical ever.


• Two detectors is not an option for a lin-ear collider. Redundancy is important,but I don’t see a solution for a linearcollider.

• If we are to only have one linear col-lider/VLHC in the future, I think redun-dancy is very important to give credibil-ity to results.

• Quality is much more important thanquantity. Neither the number of detec-tors nor the number of theorists playsany role. Rather one excellent deviceoperated by careful bright experimen-talists and a few outstanding theoriststhan the unfortunate present situationwith too much mediocre people in allthese areas.

• Given budget constraints, I would picktwo different but complimentary pro-grams (e.g. collider and fixed-target)over two large experiments on the samemachine looking at the same physics.And that’s not just my background speak-ing ! Redundancy is ”somewhat impor-tant”, but it is also important to notput all eggs in one basket.

• The redundancy between experiments(4 at LEP, Belle and BaBar etc) has sofar increased the thoroughness of results.

• Because of the limited budget, new machinesneed to have a wide range of experi-ments. But at the same time, any newmeasurements/ discoveries need to bebacked up.

• General purpose detectors, expandablemachines.

• Greater facilities. Redundancy of detec-tors. But no redundancy of accelera-tors in the world. More collaborationbetween theorists, phenomenologists andexperimentalists. Experimentalists should

focus on physical measurements the phe-nomenologists suggest them. Experi-mentalists should also understand howtheir results are interpreted by phenome-nologists (meaning of error for exam-ple).

• The answers to these questions dependon the resources available. For instance,two detectors are required but only iffunds are available.

• Even though redundancy is very impor-tant, cost may make it impractical.

• Having two or more large multi-purposedetectors does not mean that they woulddo things in a redundant manner.

• Past experience with multiple detectorsat a single machine has been mixed.The competition both helps and hurts(especially when it becomes all politics).For the money and manpower invest-ment, I’d rather see more variety andless redundancy. Experimenters havebecome very much more sophisticatedin recent years about how they analyzedata and how they take steps to avoidfooling themselves, so the redundancyis less necessary. Better to focus theresources on making one experiment reallygood, and having variety in the otherexperiments/endeavors that are goingon.

• The cost of detectors should be balancedagainst the cost of an accelerator. Themain argument for multiple detectors isnot redundancy per se, but the abilityro make optimal use of the substantialinvestment in an accelerator

• I feel that redundancy and a rich rangeof experiments and collaborations is essen-tial to the success of the next machine.A good mix of different disciplines isnecessary to keep the paths of commu-nication open. Astrophysics and the


HEP labs should coexist where they can,but I think that there are some areaswhere this is not feasible.

• Identical detectors are a waste. Redun-dancy should be considered along withcost, expected physics need for redun-dancy,

• Redundancy between experiments is impor-tant, however, there are lessons to belearned from the proliferation of B-factories,which may have been more politicallythan scientifically motivated. More coor-dination between labs and institutionscould reduce ”unneccesary” redundancy,i.e. 3 B-factories in the U.S. alone, whilepreserving scientifically motivated redun-dancy, i.e. the ability to experimentallyverify measurements.

• Your choices are limiting. Redundancyin any important measurement is vitalat many levels. This doesn’t necessarilyimply that two detectors are needed if asingle, well conceived and built detectorcan look at a phenomenon in more thanone way.

• HEP should focus on a world class facil-ity and eliminate marginal and dupli-cate projects.

13.3.6 Maintaining Diversity:

• Breadth and balance are far more impor-tant than trying to ”pick the winner”for the field as a whole.

• It is important that the next machinebe able to host a variety of experimentsin order to be most prepared for newphysics.

• In order to increase the chance of gov-ernments funding a large project, it isimportant to show that it will serve alarge community and that it has a broadspectrum of science topics to cover.

• We should concentrate on our own fieldfirst and then if other fields can makeuse of the facilities they should be madewelcome to. If money is a problem thenthe U.S. should stop competing withEurope/Japan and agree to work on themajor projects together. Competitionmight be healthy but we’re not playingsport.

• Question 9 has may aspects. If youask whether diversity is important fromthe political point of view, the answeris a clear ”very important”. From thescientific point of view it is importantthat the various fields of basic researchare supported, but whether or whethernot this happens at a future HEP cen-ter should be decided on the basis ofthe needs of the researchers. Hence theanswer is ”very important” if an accel-erator (like TESLA) is needed for otherdisciplines (e.g. as a light source), butone shouldn’t define multi-disciplinarityas a primary design goal.

• Medical physics research should be val-ued. Also it would be better to offersignificant amount of lectures for theexperimentalists who are far away fromthe institutions.

• The LHC and Tevatron have clear goals- find the Higgs and see if SUSY existsin the 100 GeV-1 TeV range. I don’tthink any such consensus exists for thenext generation machines. Therefore,diversity (and new ideas) is important.

• Question 10: I feel it is important toexpand the definition of HEP to includeparticle physics that is not done at col-liders. Question 11: The size of a mod-ern collider experiment somewhat alle-viates the fear that a whole experimentwill run lock-step into some error. Onthe other hand, experiments have shown(17 keV neutrino, e.g.) that this sortof lock-step can occur even in distinct


experiments. So neither is a panacea.Question 12: I’m not sure parity is theright mixture, but some mixture is cer-tainly good.

• Anticipating reduced experimental facil-ities, it is important to develop and pur-sue a strategy for maintaining combinednuclear, astro, and HEP physics stud-ies. Perhaps more coordination betweenthese branches/labs would be economicand positive.

• The importance of the collaboration: Ibelieved the new facility should supportas many research programs as possible.That not only will make our case strongerbefore the Congress but also will bringdiverse ideas to the field of HEP. Also,the possibilities of getting funds fromdifferent sources will increase if a verydiverse program is supported by HEP.

• It is important to try to maintain a mar-ketplace of possibilities so that peoplehave some choice of project to work on.

• We need to focus on the science; muchtoo much emphasis on the sociology thesedays... A lot of dead wood as well...

• I find the balance extremely important.However we should try to convince peo-ple and not to force them.

• We should concentrate on a ”machine”that gives the widest range of physics aspossible. It’s time for HEP to move onfrom one machine=one measurement. Let’slook at astronomers for one minute: onemachine = hundreds of measurements.That’s a different paradigm.

• I would hope the next machine is goingto be truly versatile, for instance a mumucollider with great neutrino beams aswell, etc.

• HEP must maintain its core mission ofaccelerator based experiments. The com-munity has to support ”one” new accel-erator in the U.S. To obtain this accel-erator other projects will have to beeliminated. This is a policy similar tothe one adopted by CERN to build theLHC.

• It is crucial that the next big thing notkill the field... either if it fails or if itsucceeds. The ”base program” must bevital.

• Most of my opinions on these questionsare not very emphatic since it is not yetclear to me where the focus of the nextmachine should be. That will dependon what current and near-future machinesfind. The exception is my answer to11, since repeatable results are a funda-mental part of science, no matter whatthe field. The problem, of course, isthat doubling the number of detectorsand broadening the scope of scientificstaff support invariably increases the cost.Development of an entire new labora-tory, with its associated site acquisitionand infrastructure costs, is probably outof the question. Given the demograph-ics in the areas of existing labs, it isprobably also out of the question to buildan accelerator that would extend muchoutside of their present boundaries. Thenext machine will most likely have tofit within the real estate we have. Thismight mean pursuing new acceleratortechnologies rather than just trying tomake existing ones bigger.

• Whilst it is important that we aim tocover a broad range of HEP topics itis obviously equally important that theinvestment in new areas does not detractfrom the quality of existing programs ofresearch.

• Take care of a good pay-off of invest-ments. No unused interaction regions in


colliders, multi-physics purposes. Servea large community, encompassing otherfields than only HEP.

• In my opinion it is very important tofocus the available resources on ”world”projects in order to avoid duplicationand maximize the physics return. Atthe same time, a set of smaller projects,such as astrophysics experiments, shouldbe promoted to complement the physi-cal scope, and to bridge the necessarilylarge gap of ’non-physics’ periods dur-ing the construction of large projects.

• Maintain diversity; retain (Bob Wilson’sconcept of) ”nook and cranny” small-scale experiments, in addition to the(unquestionably important) major detec-tors.

• HEP should remain focused on high energyparticle physics, rather then indulgingin interdisciplinary activities.

• We should not spend all available resourceson a single project.

• Need to support a diversity of efforts,including flagship facilities at the highenergy frontier.

• The field has to retain a balance of diver-sity while maintaining focus on the mostimportant goals. The Higgs search hasto be one of the highest priorities. Neu-trinos is second. Searches for ”beyondStandard Model” physics is a third.

• There must be room for the small exper-iments which are much more beneficialto students than the large experiments.There must be a mix of small and largeprojects – HEP should not support onlythe biggest projects.

• A diverse program is essential to thesurvival of the field. Squeezing out smallprojects is basically death to innovationand creativity.

• I think that also smaller experiments/projectsshould be supported even in a limitedbudget scenario.

• I believe diversity in our experimentalapproach to be vital to the health of thefield. I find the tendency for the fieldto coalesce into a handful of extremelylarge experiments to be very disturbing.This trend is particularly damaging forthe younger physicists who will strug-gle to obtain a well rounded educationand who will have difficulty in exploringthose ”off the wall” ideas that have inthe past provided some the more excit-ing breakthroughs.

• Given a limited budget HEP should sup-port small groups at the expense of thelarge projects because the field needsdiversity to be prepared to take advan-tage of opportunities which have not yetpresented themselves.

• HEP must advance on multiple frontsto search for new (as well as expectedphysics): (1) highest cm energy possi-ble to search for Higgs and SUSY, (2)neutrino oscillations, (3) Dark Matter,(4) Cosmology and Astrophysics. Andfinally, ”big” as well as ”small” experi-ments.

• Have continuous physics results comingout of labs.

• Doing good science requires a broad approachand trying to come at the problem frommany different angles. Having few col-laborations and few kinds of colliders(eg. only hadron colliders) is kind ofdangerous. So we have to figure outhow keep the field broad despite decreas-ing funds and increasingly expensive exper-iments. One way is to try and be asmulti-purpose as possible: electron machinesmight also be used as X-ray sources (alaAPS or NSLS). Maybe this would allowus to build a photon collider as well.


I don’t think it’s possible to mandatethe mixture of theorists, phenomenol-ogists and experimentalists. The bestthat you could hope to do is encour-age balance by choosing how to allocatemoney.

• Right now, nature seems to be telling usto put more effort into neutrinos, whilego slow on precision studies of physicsfor which there is no direct evidence asyet. If the debate over e+e- collidersrestricts the opportunity to make newstudies of the neutrino sector, it will besad for the field...

• Balancing the overall program will bekey to the future survival of HEP. Thismeans not only balancing experiment/phenomenology/ theory, but large andsmall scale experiments. Large scaleexperiments/ facilities offer economy ofscale, and broad physics reach at theexpense of long lead times in construc-tion data taking and analysis. Smaller,more narrowly focused experiments offera chance to take advanges of rapidlydeveloping trends in HEP research whichmay take decades to pursue in a largerexperiment.

• I think that the possibility of havingmore than one detector at the ”nextmachine” should be determined by thebudget. I’d be more interested in puttingthat money into smaller experiments (pos-sible next generation fixed-target expts).

• Having a machine that is able to sup-port a diverse range of experiments isimportant, but I believe that one shouldnot spread one’s self too thin; the fieldneeds machines that are high enoughenergy to get at what we’re looking for(alas for the fallen SSC!); in my opinionthis should be the primary objective ofthe field.

• Also allow lower energy important exper-iments in a booster section (or equiva-lent).

• Training the ”next generation” of physi-cists is also important. Training is eas-ier on a small scale than in a huge col-laboration. Could one of the experi-ments be ”small” and the other ”large”?

• HEP needs some multi-billion facilities.But needs in addition multiples of cheaperand ’more exotic/risky’ experiments. HEPshould realize opportunities in astrophysics.

• If HEP can afford several experimentswith 500-1000 people budgeted at 100M$+, then it should also give priority tosmaller (10-50 people, 10-50M$) projects.

• Diversity of different experiments includ-ing underground and astrophysics; alsoR&D work on development of new detec-tors and accelerators.

• Very important to maintain diversity inareas and not concentrate all funding inone area (e.g. linear collider).

• Diversity is very important ... wouldsacrifice redundancy on a collider machinefor different kinds of machines, smallerexperiments, etc.

• Significant results are beginning to comefrom particle astrophysics and so sup-port should also include funding for suchexperiments. In addition, it is impera-tive that we continue with the traditionof many ”smaller” experiments address-ing very focused physics questions, i.e.,g-2, and future experiments which promisehigh sensitivity tests of the SM (not justa factor of 2 improvement in sensitiv-ity, but 10X higher sensitivity). Fur-thermore, we must strengthen our com-mitment to new technologies, for theyare the future of this field. The currentgrowth required to perform high energy


tests of the SM is not sustainable, andonly through R&D on new techniquesfor particle acceleration, and radiationhard technologies for particle detectiondo we have a hope for the long termfuture in this field as we know it today.

• Given a limited budget, supporting diverseresearch is much more important thanbuilding a ”flagship” machine. We aremuch more likely to learn interestingphysics with a diverse program than witha single concentrated and centralized effort.Further, the diversity can help promotephysics to the general public.

• It looks to me we can now do a ”Tesla”type of machine. Let’s support it. Alsowe need to have 5% of the HEP budgetallocated to ”small” experiments withgreat physics importance without hav-ing to compete with ATLAS, etc.

• Important to have small experiments aswell as large ones, so that the youngphysicist can learn hardware as well ascomputing. A large experiment in Europeand one in the USA/Japan is very impor-tant.

• The big money is in large experiments.We should stop doing dumb things likeCERN to Gran-Sasso, duplicating MINOS.

• A wide array of physics is needed, butnot necessarily at the flagship facility.There are still places where relativelysmall budgets can produce substantialresults.

• I think it is crucial that HEP support arange of physics experiments, becausewe don’t know which area will teachus the most about getting beyond theStandard Model.

• I think the ”next machine” should notbe so dominant in importance, I’m infavor of more diverse work like cosmic

rays, neutrino beams, heavy ions, andnuclear phenomenology.

• It is wise to bet the future of the field onoutcomes that seem very likely, ratherthan on poorly supported possibilities.LEP learned that only with intense col-laborations of experimenters and theo-rists could they deduce any results ofsignificance. That will be even moretrue in the future.

• The emphasis now has to be on the physicswe can do and for the machine builderswe need support. The machine physi-cists are considered second class and thathas landed us where we are. We haveto make the machine part of the servicework to do an experiment. It shouldjust be part of the specialization.

13.3.7 Balance of Theory and Phe-

nomenology:

• Phenomenology is under-supported inthe U.S. (I am an experimentalist).

• Phenomenology is too poorly supported.

• On question 12, the important thing isfor the theorists, phenomenologists andexperimentalists to work together andcommunicate effectively, not to have aparticular mixture on site at one par-ticular machine, though this may help.

• It is important to have a mixture, butthe market should decide.

• I feel strongly that “theorist” and “phe-nomenologist” should not be distinct cat-egories, for the same reason that, as Iexpect, the authors of this survey wouldnot accept “hardware” and “analysis”experimenters as distinct categories. Thebest people do both.

• Phenomenologists concentrating on the-oretical calculations important for exper-iment (such as QCD processes relevant


for Tevatron/LHC) should be hired byexperimental collaborations to preventtheir knowledge from being lost.

• There are too many theorists. Thereare way too many string theorists. Thereare not enough phenomenologists.

• Theorists: Phenomenologists : Experi-mentalists = 3: 1 : 2.

• HEP can easily support theorists givena limited budget.

• Theorists are cheap relative to exper-iment, and it would be crazy to cutHEP support to theorists to incremen-tally increase funding for a facility.

• A healthy balance between experimen-talists concerned about physics analysisand detector building is in my view alsovery important, as is a healthy balancebetween phenomenologists (related tocurrent experimental efforts) and “pure”theorists. In particular, the later seemsto be grossly off balance at the moment.

• There is a severe and very obvious lackof phenomenologists available to workclosely with the experimenters in theplanning of future experiments and anal-ysis of experimental results.

• Do not support string theory.

• Being a theorist I do believe that sometype of quantum field theory/string the-ory describes nature at the next gener-ation. However, my opinion is we havenot yet learnt to solve non-perturbativeaspects of QFT/Strings. Thus it wouldbe important to use the funds that encour-age this type of research in theoreticalphysics. The solution to a QFT goesfar beyond identifying the symmetriesthat govern it and being able to performperturbative calculations at weak cou-plings. In terms of experimental research

I think we should definitely look for sig-natures of SUSY.

• Now, as we enter a phase of many newaccelerator and non-accelerator experi-ments, and related important astrophysicsexperiments, it is important to have moreexperimentalists and more phenomenol-ogists. (We probably have an excess ofstring theorists now.)

• At least in the US, way too much moneyis given to ”string” theorists and notenough to phenomenologists. Europehas a much better balance.

• 1) HEP labs should support astrophysicsto the level that the experiments impactHEP, or the sites are the best place toperform an experiment. 2) The sepa-ration of phenomenologists as separatefrom theorists is bad for the field.

• With regard to 12), I think it is impor-tant to get theorists and others who arelooking at ideas beyond the programs atan existing machine. Also people whocan write up results in a way others canunderstand and appreciate.

• With regard to question 12), the actual”balance” (proportion of each category)needs to be determined appropriately,and this determination is independentof the need for a balance. The mixtureis not 1:1:1, but more like 1:1:8.

• It is important to provide adequate fund-ing to the theoretical community, par-ticularly to invest in the computing nec-essary to carry out lattice QCD calcs,etc.

• String theory is largely irrelevant to fal-sifiable science, and therefore should befunded at a small fraction of its cur-rent level. In particular, the number ofstring theory faculty positions is grosslyout of proportion to its contributions toour understanding of nature.


• Strong theory program is an essentialcomplement to any experimental pro-gram.

• New generation of HEP experiments willrequire a closer collaboration betweenphenomenologists and experimentalists.About future accelerators, two e+e- lin-ear colliders would be ideal but if thisgoes against (politically or financially)the elaboration of a strong research pro-gram for the next muon collider, it shouldbe avoided! I also believe that lookingfor a post LHC hadron collider is pre-mature.

• Labs and experiments need theorists andphenomenologists who work directly onthe physics issues that are explored bythe experiments.

• There are way too few phenomenogists.

• I don’t think we can mandate a bal-ance of fields, because academic free-dom is a very strong reason people pur-sue this field. However, I think it is ashame that certain types of physicistsseem to fall between the cracks, partic-ularly phenomenologists whose work isnot flashy but is still crucial to the inter-pretation of experiment.

• More support for phenomenologists. Toomany young theorists end up in stringtheory while many areas of phenomenol-ogy are not adequately covered. Thismakes it difficult, if not impossible, tocorrectly interperet experimental results.

• It is very very important that there is abalance between phenomenologists andexperimentalists. Of course, phenome-nologists should also be talking to theo-rists, but eventually, theorists will even-tually have to come back down to Earthand consider field/string theories whichcan be realistically measured (I shouldknow - I am one !).

• I consider it essential for the experi-mental HEP community to collaborateclosely with theorists and phenomenol-ogists to push the frontiers of researcheffectively. The mixture, in my opinion,depends on the kind of physics underquestion.

• Presently, there is a gross imbalance betweenspeculative theory/phenomenology on theone hand and real phenomenology whichis critical to extract physics from exper-imental programs in all colliders in thenext couple of decades (cf. speech byMatt Strassler at the Town Meeting).If YPP does not push hard for supportof the later, the future of HEP will bebleak.

• For (12) I think the mixture is counterproductive. There should naturally bemore experimentalists than phenoms thantheorists. So it is important and themarket should decide.

• I think, at the moment, there are lotsof theoretical models around but notenough data to test them.

• Not related to budget limitations : com-munication and work between experi-mentalists and theorists should be empha-sized.

• The experimental community relies uponphenomenology, but there isn’t enoughsupport given to phenomenology by thefunding agencies and by the nationallaboratories. This is an issue that needsto be addressed.

• We have a long tradition of a fruitfulmix of theorists and experimentalists whounderstand each other and know wherethey are needed. Science more or lessmandates what that mix should be; itcannot be established by executive fiat.

• Question 12: Who would decide whatbalance is if not the ”market”?


• Funding for HEP expt and theory shouldbe allocated within input from both spe-cialties, i.e., expts should be able to encour-age useful phenomenology, theorists shouldbe able to have input on which expts areinteresting. Current situation with sep-arate review structures leads to a non-optimal mix of both.

• ”Balance” should not be promoted throughthe use of inflexible quotas. The situ-ation at a given institution should bejudged by experts on a case-by-case basis.

• There is a tendency for students to becometheorists. This is probably due to thehigh status given to theory by the physicscommunity. We should promote pro-grams to drive very well qualified peo-ple into experimental physics. Experi-mental physics is full of interesting andintellectually rewarding challenges.

13.3.8 Balance with Astrophysics:

• Not all need be invested in machine-based experiments. Correct mandatesare a hard thing to anticipate. Flexi-bility is important and the best physicsshould drive the choices, not the priorinvestment decisions...

• We have no business supporting astro-physics. I think two detectors are goodbut not if it chokes off upgrades as wesee with CDF/D0. FNAL ought to haveforced them to join into one collabora-tion instead of this ridiculous competi-tion for non-existent resources.

• I feel that only a limited number of astro-physics experiments are asking (or areable to ask) the questions that HEPseeks to answer. There is correlationbetween the fields but the goals are notthe same.

• Astroparticle physics efforts are a muchcheaper way of doing HEP physics inthe next generation.

• I think that using the same facility forexperiments in different fields of physicsthan HEP, like astrophysics or nuclearphysics, is very fruitful and helps shar-ing costs.

• Future of HEP only in combination withastrophysics - we HAVE to merge ourefforts.

• Don’t confuse “future of HEP” with “nextmachine”. Future of HEP may well bein theory or particle astrophysics.

• I think astrophysics is very cool. I haveno objection to it being done anywhere.However, it does not seem to me thatastrophysics must be supported in HEPfacilities if there is some benefit to notdoing so.

• Next machine should probably also includethe ∼ $500M nonaccelerator proposalstoo.

• The astrophysics side gets a large bangfor the buck, but traditional HEP accel-erator types often discount what can bedone with it. Dunno how to change thisperception.

• Detector technologies and physics becom-ing much closer in HEP and astrophysics.Very important to have cross-checks ofresults - keeps people honest and givescompetition.

• Astrophysics and space-based experimentsare good for finding inconsistencies inour understanding of the Universe; theycreate more unanswered questions thanthey provide answers to. It is there-fore important not to lose focus andcontinue pushing the energy and lumi-nosity frontiers in collider-based exper-iments.


• It is time to think of space based experi-ments in collaboration with space agen-cies, as an option.

• Astrophysics is important, but it maynot be necessary to do it at the labs.Certainly, it’s not necessary to do it at*every* lab.

• Much more attention should be givento particle astrophysics. This sort ofresearch probes energy scales and physicswhich cannot be done at accelerators,attracts wide public interest and sup-port, and naturally complements accel-erator efforts.

• Try to get more out of cosmic rays ratherthan build colliders.

• I think that HEP should concentrateon supporting experimental and theo-retical efforts. Whereas there is a lotof overlap between our field and astro-physics/cosmology. I feel that fundingefforts such as the Sloan Digital Skysurvey is outside of our remit. Suchefforts should be funded from other partsof the budget. Our focus should beon promoting experiments and theorywhich impact particle physics in a moredirect way.

• Hosting astrophysics efforts is one thing,collaborative efforts is quite another.

• I believe that major HEP labs shouldpursue both their primary acceleratorprograms, as well as non-accelerator projects.One of the best subfields to pursue isparticle astrophysics or high energy astro-physics. The tie-in to astrophysical pro-cesses which illuminate fundamental physicsquestions is necessary for a proper breadthof perspective at a major lab.

• I’d like to emphasize that HEP effortsmust include the fileds of cosmology andastrophysics and non-accelerator exper-iments. Reliance on larger machines

will eventually (and soon) end the fieldof high energy physics.

• Diverse research is essential as none ofus know where the data which leads tothe next breakthrough will come from!It might be astrophysics, so we shoulddo what we can to support GLAST etc.but not at the expense of major HEPfacilities.

• In order to train graduate students/postdocson particle detectors, astrophysical (oreven nuclear) experiments are impor-tant.

• We should look for more passive exper-iments. The future of HEP is not incolliders but in innovative combinationof astrophysics and passive experiments(like detecting neutrino masses).

13.3.9 Survey-Specific Comments

on Balance:

• The questions in this section are almostrhetoric questions: the ”right” answeris already in the question. Anyway, Iagree with the ”right” answers...

• Answers here require considerable qual-ification.

• The questions are based on the assump-tion that there will be a next machine.It is also possible that we have used upour credit with the public. If there isno next machine, all detailed questionsof relative importance are irrelevant.

• Redundancy is a loaded word. One mightalso say independent verification.

• Your way to ask questions is very bias-ing, I do not know what you will dowith the answers but for sure I knowwhat you want people to answer. Youget an F for fraudulent questioning.

• Question 9 is rather obscure?


• I don’t understand question 9. All col-lider experiments provide multi-physicsresults over a huge range of particle physicssubfields. Does this mean that a largefacility hosts smaller ”other-purpose” exper-iments?

• Question 11: you are leading the wit-ness ... nobody will answer that redun-dancy is not important. Still people canthink it is too expensive, waste of man-power, etc.

• The answer to question 11 depends onwhat type of collider.

• Question 12 is meaningless without adefinition of ”balance.” Perhaps direct-ing this question more toward the ”pro-motion of funding for” is more to thepoint.

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

• For question 12, it’s not clear what theword ”balance” mean, from what pointof view.

• Again, astrophysics and non-acceleratorphysics are NOT identical. This part ofthe survey shows rather incredible igno-rance of the field of high energy physics.

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

• Options for answers oddly structured,combining issues that need not be cou-pled the way they are in the selections.

This is how surveys ”with an agenda”are constructed. What’s up here? 9)”diverse (multi-physics)” is ambiguous11) It is at least ”somewhat” impor-tant for a collider to have > 1 detector,but redundancy is not the only reason.12) Why can’t I select ”very important”but ”let the market decide”.

Comments on Globalization 66

13.4 Impact of Globalization

13.4.1 Global Collaboration:

• HEP should support the advancementof the design of a machine (funded inter-nationally) that enables particle physicsto be done at the energy frontier.

• International collaboration is the key tomaintaining a diverse program on a lim-ited budget.

• The international HEP community needsto come to a conclusion over physics pri-orities. We cannot afford to give inco-herent information to world governments.

• I very much believe in open discussions,followed by determined action, so wecan formulate a consensus on how ourfield can achieve public acceptance forscientifically honest and intellectually properpursuits that mesh well with our inter-national colleagues’ activities.

• First, support running approved experi-ments. Second, try to get a next machinein the U.S. Don’t send too much moneyto Europe without getting much back.

• American HEP should be committed tointernational collaboration/cooperation.

• Stress international cooperation; do notdemand U.S.-only efforts.

• The world is getting smaller every daywith the increase in networking, videoconferencing etc. If our field is going tobecome global we must learn to worktogether from large distances. Part ofthe fun of HEP is working with peoplefrom many different places. This shouldnot be ignored.

• International collaboration is importantto the next series of machines. There isprobably only enough money for 1 lin-ear collider and 1 new hadron collider

after LHC. A single country cannot doit alone.

• Some redundancy is good, but interna-tional integration of goals is necessary,in particular in the TESLA and NLCquestion. It is a waste of money tohave two or more redundant accelera-tor physics programs in different coun-tries. United, the fields stands; divided,it falls. Let us not allow our individualpride to override the needs of the fieldas a whole.

• Some international collaboration and lessU.S. university politics would increasethe available funding (even if you don’treceive more). People are too busy mak-ing sure their little part of the detectorworks. HEP needs to change the waycollaborations are structured.

• Due to budget realities, we need to formREAL international collaborations in orderto accomplish the physics.

• Science is broad and financial supportshould be accordingly. Large projectslike a new big accelerator requires inter-national (for us at least of Europeansize) support.

• Focus on HEP interest as opposed tonational interest. Build the best col-lider in the country that could do itbest. Think international.

• I think the argument that the next bigproject must be ”truly international”is incorrect. We should work to insurethat U.S. HEP is strong. Internationalcollaboration will continue to develop ifall collaborators are independently strong.

• Most crucial is to get the lab directorsand policy makers thinking that globalcollaborative work is essential.

• The idea of having international collab-orations is currently taken as a neces-sity. However, I also think it vital that


even given international participation,that detector elements produced shouldbe created by those in the position tobest manufacture them, and not dis-tribute by, ”oh, well they needed to getsome hardware done, so we’ll get the’insert name here’ to get these.

• I feel the key benefit of global collabora-tion in the design/ construction/ oper-ation of HEP facilities is that expertisein these areas will not be limited to thephysicists living in the host countries– in the future one could imagine onecountry having lots of resources but noexpertise, and vice versa.

• Due to the high cost/complexity of HEPresearch in the future the number ofHEP labs will be limited to 2 or 3 glob-ally with specific research goals (neu-trino physics, very high energy hadronphysics). The inevitable ”global collab-oration:” will result in: 1) A multidisci-plinary environment with a high level ofbiasing and company like work style. 2)A shrinking of the physics community3) Lower quality training since hands-on experience for graduate students willbe limited. 4) A cutting at the Uni-versity funds, in favor of the NationalLabs (to complete the expensive exper-iment).

• Strong U.S. computing leadership is veryachievable and very important for thehealth of the U.S. role in the global HEPenterprise. U.S. computing strength inATLAS and CMS is currently under-funded and the U.S. leadership role isendangered.

• I am currently working on CMS, andanswered the above questions with respectto that R&D work. CMS and Atlasare good examples of functioning globalcollaborations. The key to having itwork is to not make the mistake we

made with the SSC contracts, i.e. requir-ing the money to go back to U.S. corpo-rations if possible. Each country involvedneeds to feel that it has something atstake, including getting contracts for work.

• We have several global collaborationsalready, and they work. Local institutevs local detector presence is not a newproblem, it can be dealt with.

• I think we have ample experience in mak-ing large global collaborations work.

• Many of us already work in global col-laborations. In OPAL at LEP we havephysicists from Europe, Japan, and NorthAmerica. It is important for physiciststo spend a significant amount of time atthe center of the collaboration, at theexperiment. One can do quite a bit ofwork using e-mail, the web, video tele-conferencing, telephone, etc., but sig-nificant presence is necessary. I don’tsee how one can run an experiment oran accelerator without some hands-onpresence.

• Non-U.S. HEP physicists in Europe/Asiahave much experienced on attending theexperiments in U.S. (in the offsite of itsown country).

• HEP has always been a global enter-prise (e.g., the exchange of informationbetween physicists). The funding tendsto be local. While HEP has done muchto promote globalization, the interestsof governments tend to be more local.

• Global collaboration works already prettywell with physicists, but there is no hopethat governments will collaborate glob-ally for the length of time needed tocarry out the big projects: 10 years toget approval and construct it, 10 moreyears of running and upgrades based onthe original construction, 10 more yearsof running based on a major upgrade.


• Large collaborations should have itiner-ating collaboration meetings matchingthe percentage of physicists from eachcollaborating country rather than theshare of investments. Past experienceshows that the politics of ”everybodysigns every paper” should be maintainedonly in case there is a chance for a con-troversial paper to be published with aminority of signatures. The advance-ment of physics should not be tied tothe opinion of the majority of contrib-utors to large experiments (which willinvolve in the future large percentagesof all active physicists in the field, insome cases).

• It is important that there be severalhost locations (large experiments) forthe global collaborations. It is not goodto have one project based at, say CERN,and no other reciprocating projects inthe U.S. or Asia.

• HEP should become even more a globaloperation. Continental separation/isolationis not an option. The next step in HEPshould be planned in an internationalcontext, taking into account redundancyvs. complementary experiments on aglobal level.

• It won’t work – we squabble badly amongstourselves, and adding politicians to themix will make things even worse. Noone country (among Germany, Switzer-land [which really also means Britainand France], the U.S. and Japan) willlet their lab close.

• When it comes to working on experi-ments we are internationalists. But whenit comes to decisions about the ”nextbig thing” each country wants its own”next big thing”. We shall be forcedto be more sensible and to pay morethan lip service to global decision mak-ing. How? I don’t really know. Butsince it is the youth who will inherit

the future we should help them found aglobal organization, with a budget andstaff and formal links to national orga-nizations. This body would provide aformalized forum for ”thinking globally”.

• 1. What seems to be missing in thepresent climate is a mechanism for deci-sion making as to proposal by differentmajor labs. In the past, these labs pro-vided a decision making structure fortheir internal program. Now, some kindof international PAC is needed. Theimmediate example is the choice betweencold and warm rf technology for an e+e-collider. The labs that sponsor eachtechnology seem completely dedicated(as perhaps they should be) to theirchoice, and will never voluntarily acceptthe other technology.... 2. ”Regionalcenters” is a possibly contentious topic– if it is an initial to duplicate many ofthe facilities of existing national labs atnew sites. It doesn’t appear that thereis enough financial support for HEP inthe U.S. for grand expansion in this direc-tion. Rather, the existing labs will moreprobably evolve towards ”regional cen-ters” if they no longer host a majoraccelerator facility.

• Again, this cannot be decided by cen-tral command; its anwer must be man-dated by the specific activities we willhave our review panels recommend forfunding, hoping that these recommen-dations will be accepted by our moneytree.

• There will need to be better guidanceand leadership than at present, as bet-ter management is needed for larger col-laborations. A lot of money is wastedby inefficient management at the moment.One major problem will be giving recog-nition for the people who actually runthe detector(s) rather than those whodo the physics analyses. At the moment


there is little or no reward for detec-tor work. I expect this will diminish asthe collaborations get larger. Similarly,a greater role for technicians, engineersand com. scientists within the collabo-ration is needed.

• Let’s for once take an example in multi-nationals. Particularly where it con-cerns management, physicists are bet-ter of *not* to reinvent the wheel.

• It is important to develop U.S. plans inan international context, with interna-tional support and cooperation.

• Greater contribution of a global collab-oration would be to provide a guaran-teed funding profile. Participation ina global collaboration without such abasis will be impossible.

• Global collaboration could be success-ful if and only if there are efforts fromphysicists of different countries but sim-ilar scientific interests.

• Form small groups of people, 4-6 all inter-ested in working on the same small area.These groups should report progress tothe physics subject area leaders The sub-ject area leaders in turn reporting tothe spokesman. It is rather importantthat the small group of 4-6 all be closeenough to talk to each other in person.Good quality software tools, well docu-mented are a must. Real responsibilitymust be taken for software.

• I can only comment on Fermilab, whichis a wonderful place, with many resources...R&D, computing, and software, can bedesigned there, for a global machine.

• Pragmatically, global collaborations aredesirable, and inevitable. National labswithout accelerator facilities cost muchmore per physicist and have much weakerimpact on students than university labs.

Argonne and LBL HEP groups shouldbe absorbed into U. of Chicago and U.Cal Berkeley, and funded per physicistat the level of university research groups.

• If U.S. physicists wish to partake in aglobal collaboration then they need tobe prepared to travel overseas, ratherthan expect foreign collaborators travelto the U.S.

• Global collaborations are bit more com-plex to keep going than national onesand those a bit worse than regional andon down until the best is all in one insti-tution - still, the new detectors are large,the collaborations are large and extendedbut that is only one more difficulty. Ifthis were easy we wouldn’t want to doit.

• There are numerous examples of globalcollaborations that work adequately. How-ever a future enormous collaboration ona future large project will not be a goodplace to initiate and train young people.Smaller and much faster local projectswill be needed as a foundation for biginternational efforts.

• I think the major facilities should bebuilt by international collaborations, butbe located in the countries with mostdeveloped infrastructure, experienced inge-niers and qualified workforce - like U.S.,Eorope, Japan. Regional centers, likedescribed above, is a good idea, allow-ing reduce the need for travel, and eas-ing access for students to such facilities.

• Globalization of HEP is not just a U.S.issue as this section has leant towards.If this ’flagship machine’ as you call it isto be built in the states then we need tothink long and hard about the locationof it.

• Clear goals and leadership for the wholecollaboration and for each regional com-ponent. Autonomy (as far as possible)


in carrying out each major sub-project.Detector design, development and con-struction to take place in all regions.[By region I mean Europe, USA, Japan].Strong involvement of theorists, fromdesign of accelerator through detectorto ultimate physics analysis.

• Living and working in Europe makesit difficult to judge the U.S.-situation.Still, competition and collaboration areboth very essential, as is complemen-tary equipment. I hope that the U.S.(or America as a whole) will get an largeaccelerator of the future (TESLA) gen-eration, but would strongly advocate thatit is not a national lab, but rather a typeof ”world-lab”.

• A global collaboration working togetheris possible. It has been tested and itworks! Is the best way for the promo-tion of science (HEP).

• Global collaborations can work very well.Collaborations definitely should be global.

• The U.S. has to develop a ”culture” ofinternational collaboration, i.e. to giveup the leitmotiv: ”We are second tonone”.

• Globalizaion is a mantra I don’t sub-scribe to; we will have leaders that willcause things; the Germans WILL buildan NLC because they believe in it stronglyenough to do it the physicists them-selves; internationalization is with usNOW as is; our current generation islargely analogus to the previous gener-ation of bubblers; they did a lot of thephysics and substantially inherited thefield but rode the coattails of generation1 who built all our machines and startedthe physics; the bubbler generation dida terrible job of running the next ini-tiatives; Isabell, the SSC etc etc... TheJapanese, Germans, and even Europeansare making a laughingstock of our vaunted

”can do” ability look a the initiatives ofthe last 15 years..

• You will always underestimate the valueof a multi-national collaboration (withequal participation among the nations)until you are actually in one.

• HEP communities in U.S., Europe andAsia must work out a coherent long termplan that can be supported by the gen-eral public and governments.

• I’ve taken part in quite a few experi-ments that can be defined as ”globalcollaborations” and I’ve found them veryeffective. My opinion is that the futureof particle physics,in both accelerator-based experiments or astrophysics exper-iments will greatly benefit from the globalcollaboration approach

• Physicists should start to realize globalaspects. I don’t care whether a lab or acolleague is in the U.S., Japan, Europeor on the moon. The quality of physicsresults on this globe is relevant. Therest is outdated nationalism.

• I welcome global collaboration workingpowered by modern communication tech-nologies.

• A global collaboration will only workif the discoveries are shared. LHC willbe a test case. If $500M from the U.S.results only in discoveries by ”Europeanscientists” then I think globalization isnot going to work. We must also becareful with the results from the Teva-tron in Run 2. The good publicity shouldbe spread around to all the participat-ing institutions - not just the nationallabs.

• At networking bandwidth increases globalcollaboration will become easier. Mycurrent collaboration, BaBar, is alreadyintercontinental, and I work at my uni-versity rather than SLAC. As to regional


centers, it’s really a matter of determin-ing whether it’s cheaper to build/maintainthem or to fly people to the detector. Ofcourse the real experts (those who canfix hardware problems) will always needto be stationed near the detector. Withregard to national labs, I think there isenough to do in the next 25 years tokeep all of our current labs busy, butsee no need (or practical possibility) foropening a new one.

13.4.2 Proximity to Detector:

• It will always be important to spendtime at the site of the detector.

• The international collaborations basedon facilities outside the U.S. require large,continuous presence of U.S. personnelat those sites. Too many U.S. physi-cists want to play remotely (i.e., stay athome in the U.S., and participate onlyvia teleconferences or occasional collab-oration meetings). This ends up plac-ing all the burden on on-site personnel,and destroys the goodwill in the col-laboration. Instead of having remote-operations facilities in the U.S. for exper-iments based abroad, it would be muchbetter for U.S.-based personnel to relo-cate to the site of their experiment, andprovide remote-conferencing for them toparticipate in activities back at theirhome institutions back in the U.S. Putthis question the other way – how com-fortable would U.S. collaborators at U.S.-based facilities feel with having theiroverseas colleagues remain overseas, par-ticipating only remotely? This wouldnot really make for a very cohesive col-laboration. Same principle applies inreverse. DO NOT promote remote oper-ations as a substitute for on-site pres-ence. There is no substitute for humanpresence on-site.

• I think that being closer to the detec-tor is fundamental and if one has tochoose I would in the end choose to becloser to the detector than to the super-visor (provided the supervisor can han-dled it!). As for the U.S. national labs,I really believe that the ones that arein being are necessary for the future ofHEP, but I also believe that before eval-uating whether open or not new labsthe HEP community as a whole has tobe involved: the ”next machine” needsa truly international effort and ”national”labs might not be the right answer!

• I am definitely in favor of internationalcollaboration on experiments. I thinkthe major element of a students’ edu-cation that will suffer is lack of prox-imity to the detector. It is also notclear to me how the experiment will sur-vive with all component experts awayfrom the detector. I think physicistsshould remain committed to spendingsome amount of time away from theirhome institution.

• Hands on hardware experience with thedetector or in the case of acceleratorphysics hands on experience with thedifferent components to control the beamis important if the student doesn’t havea strong experimental background. Theidea would be that students receive theadequate education in experimental physicsat their universities before going to thelab. I believed that global collaborationcan definitively boost the progress inscience. It will allow to have more andreliable results with lower investments.It will improve communication amongscientists with positive consequences intheir research.

• Hands on experience is important forpeople in the formative part of theircareer. I rarely do hardware/ electron-ics/ DAQ, but I can do it if needed.


It is the fluency that is important. Asa supervisor, I find that some studentsneed more direction than others and ben-efit by my proximity. Other mor inde-pendent students thrive at the lab. Iam not sure I understand the role ofa regional center in lieu of a lab. It isnot clear that developing the infrastruc-ture for a center at a greenfield site is awise use of resources. If a linear colliderwere sited somewhere in asia, I wouldbe more inclined to spend my summerat the lab than a domestic center. Sim-ilarly, the center of LHC will be CERN,and that would be were I would spendextended leaves.

• Travel will remain important, but tele-conferencing, especially if it can realis-tically simulate a physical gathering ofscientists will help many aspects of thedesign and analysis of data. I feel aboutlabs much the way I feel about detec-tors, redundancy is important, even ifit is only partial. And labs scatteredaround the world helps to insure thisdepth.

• If anything I think for young people trav-eling overseas to work is an advantage.It adds important perspective. It getsmore difficult as you get older.

• Globalization has an impact on personallifes. It is no coincidence that nobody inour European based group is married orhas a family and being single is seen asa bonus by the department head. It isdevastating to one’s life, going beyondthe bimonthly problem and taking it tocompletion: no family possible. Alter-natively one cannot participate in physics.

• A collaboration works much more effi-ciently if everybody is at the locationof the experiment. Teleconferences etc.cannot replace permanent personal con-tact. Travel budgets are important.

• Working in or near a lab when learningexperimental physics make a big differ-ence ...

• The question of advisor vs. detectorproximity depends strongly on the indi-vidual, this can’t really be answered ingeneral. Labs should be kept open aslong as they are doing good physics. Ifthey are not doing good physics theyshould close.

• Students should learn not to be depen-dent on their advisors, particularly whenworking in large collaborations. it isalso not essential to be continually nearthe detector (in fact, to concentrate onindependent analysis it can be betternot to be).

• Students would have to be resident atthe lab, since it is the only way to learnwhat they need to learn.

• Proximity to the detector is importantto the roles that a large number of physi-cists take on. But it is also very impor-tant to have access to a large numberof collaborators. In question 16 this islargely why I side with detector.

• Hands-on hardware experience is impor-tant, but needn’t be with the particulardetector you’re working on. It’s not likewe all know EVERY bit of our detectorsinside out, is it? Or am I in trouble withmy supervisor ?

• It’s hard to predict the future. Every-thing depends on the broadband tech-nology and storage breakthrough. Mak-ing an ”educated” decision now is illu-sory. Look at video conferencing - it’sbeen around for 20 years, and it stillcan not replace a day worth of presenceat the detector site.

• Building of a detector or of an acceler-ator can be distributed easily. Once it


comes to analysis the best place to beis where the detector is.

• Hardware experience: As annoying asI personally find it, it really is a goodthing re: building character and stay-ing in touch with reality. Advisor vs.detector proximity: Depends on the stageof one’s career in which one finds one-self. When trying to learn to swim,advisors are crucial. After some mea-sure of autonomy is gained, some qual-ity time with the detector is probablyin order. Use common sense.

• It is critical that people working on anexperiment work together. Teleconfer-encing is a pitiful substitute for coller-ing someone in the hall. The usual placefor meeting is the central place – theexperiment’s site. If the site is over-seas, our grad students will live there(as usual), but so will the postdocs anduntenure - types and their families. Whybother moving back to the States afterthe experiment is over?

• Broadband is going to help a lot, espe-cially when we have learned to use itbetter. However, people need to workon their detectors and beams physicistsalso need to have hands on in manyimportant situations. This means thatthe foreign travel process has to be ade-quately funded and the approval pro-cess simplified. Maybe this is not aproblem outside of the national labs,but it is a major problem within. Idon’t know what the highest level multi-national institutional structure shouldlook like; inevitably it will be formal,remote, and less responsive than desir-able. However, at the collaboration levelexisting models will probably work.

• Collaborations need to improve infor-mation flow. The technology exists.

• People who use space satellites have been

doing this for years, though one groupstill controls the ”experimental appara-tus”.

• Computer technology allows a true inter-national collaboration for virtually anyexperimental facility. This should belargely exploited to attract the best tal-ent worldwide for any set of experiments.

• This seems rather obvious. It’s possi-ble to operate an apparatus intelligentlyanywhere in the world, from anywherein the world with today’s technology.In ten years, I can imagine we wouldno longer actually fly somewhere justto take shifts.

• We already have lots of experience inexperimental HEP. Working in globalcollaborations will become easier as com-munication technology improves. How-ever, there is no substitute for spend-ing significant time on site to developan understanding of the hardware!

• Question 15: unless you are a theorist,or you plan to continue your career onWall Street or in the Silicon Valley. Ques-tion 16: it is important to be in anintellectually-stimulating environment,especially for grad students. Sometimeslabs provide that, but quite often uni-versities have an edge. For a student,it is important to be able to see ”howthe lab works” and have hands-on expe-rience, but it is also important to beexposed to the life outside HEP, espe-cially given uncertain career prospects.Therefore, as an issue of ”globalization”,it is important for universities to be ableto be actively involved in the physicsanalysis, and not have to go to the labto run software.

• 1) A global collaboration will only workif the members also have direct in-personcontact at reasonably close periodic inter-vals. Near future technology is inca-


pable of replacing the vital role of per-sonal contact. Communication will dete-riorate, and regionalized banding-togetherwill become a major problem if there isno central gathering.

• I think globalization of experiments andof machines is of vital importance. Whileit is still indispensable that at some timein the career one has hands on experi-ence, this is not vital during the longtime an experiment runs. There work-ing on one continent while the experi-ment is on another is certainly possible.In fact many of us are already doing thisquite successfully.

• It will be very tough, considering thatthe less developed countries will haveless sophisticated video facilities, lesstravel money. Basically, if one wantsto be a productive member of a collab-oration, then one should be stationed inthe first world (that includes Japan).

• At a fundamental level, people need tofeel involved and needed. Large col-laborations have succeeded so far b/cthere has been strong effort to spreadthem around the world, so most insti-tutions are ”near” something. Addi-tionally, the construction/maintenancetasks have been specifically chosen sothat small university groups can specif-ically and markedly contribute.

• Question 16 is a serious problem. Hav-ing young people live at the experimentrunning ”open loop” is bad for every-one. On the other hand, doing an exper-iment remotely is just not feasible; toomuch of the communication is lost. Thesupervisor needs to spend more time atthe experiment and/or a mentor sys-tem needs to be established to help theyoung people stay near the real axis.This tends to undermine the supervi-sor, but that is just life. Question 17:Regional centers as described above really

require just good network access. Thisdoes not necessarily require big hard-ware at all labs. On the other hand, itis not clear from the question how largethe investment needs to be to have aRC. For example, if the cost is a few$M, then both LBL and SLAC shouldhave it; if the cost is $100M, then onlyone needs to have it. Question 19 isweird. What is the relation between the”importance” of labs vs. reducing thenumber? We might have only 1 lab,but it would be very important. BNLis moving towards nuclear physics, andits HEP is winding down. Where doesit fit in this question?

• We need to do as much as possible tokeep down the ”barrier of entry” intoHEP, particularly HEP-experiments. Ifit is possible to do productive work nearyour home institution we would attractmore physicists and perhaps more money.I wonder if we’re approaching another”split” in HEP: between detector buildersand data analyzers. (How do we bal-ance this with the value of hardwareexperience? I don’t know). Or perhapswe should be moving towards makingdata publicly available. I mean TRULYpublic, rather than what D-Zero is doingwith Quaero -which is a good start. Maybepeople can get early access to the databy doing service-work. A collaborationwould then publish its data rather thanits analyses. This would allow real spe-cialization in the process of detector build-ing which could help keep costs and man-power requirements down (imagine hav-ing a ”standard” silicon detector or calorime-ter). The danger to this approach, ofcourse, is that the detector builders mightloose respect and job-prospects. It mightnot be seen as ”exciting” and interest-ing. I’m thinking of the example ofaccelerator physics here. How do weavoid this? I don’t know.


• It’s all about networking and data dis-tribution. As it is a lot of people onlarge collider experiments only know thedetector hardware as a picture. For futurelarge experiments access to the data andability to communicate with remote col-laborators is paramount.

• We will always need physical presence -after all we’re humans, so are your co-workers, and communication is improvedby physical presence. But meetings 3-4x a year are good enough. For therest of the time a distributed data (mostimportant) and R&D and control schemeshould be sufficient.

13.4.3 Regional Centers:

• Regional centers may be a good ideaeven if the next machine is in the U.S.They also afford the opportunity to belocated in a place with a better qualityof life than FNAL, Sudbury, whereverMINOS is, etc.

• Global collaboration not only on the exper-iments, but also in construction and run-ning the machine is essential. Regionalcenters with expertise and educationalpossibilities for accelerator should be strength-ened and have the possibility to partic-ipate as full members.

• For collaborating groups with hardwareresponsibility a regional center can neverreplace the on-site expert. It can onlyserve to reduce travel efforts for shifttakers. So it should be truly regional,since it almost makes no difference whetheryou fly transatlantic or coast-to-coast.It should be within a day’s drive fromany collaborating institution.

• Regional centers may save money, butthey will NOT have a positive impacton detector/accelerator operations.

• Time lag between regional centers andexperiment will be too long.

• HEP is a international field as such wemust be prepared to work in a distributedfashion at local universities and be pre-pared to travel as required to do theresearch. Most recruitment takes placeat universities and regional centers willonly weaken them.

• It is certainly useful to have regionalcenters with ultra-fast communicationwith experiments; FNAL and Brookhavenwill do that for LHC. I don’t think aremote control room would help.

• I think all data grids, regional centers,and any other such ideas are wonder-ful ideas to broaden participation andincrease the value of the physics.

• National labs are a natural and com-pelling place to host regional centers,especially wrt to U.S. congressional fund-ing. They have immense infrastructure,local support and existing programs.

• The regional centers may be developedat the existing national labs.

• Hardware experience can be gained onR&D and construction projects that canbe run at Universities. Definition of”regional centers” as remote control roomsis unfortunate. I don’t think the remotecontrol rooms are important. Regionalcenters for data analyses would be use-ful.

• As the quality of video-conferences orother telepresence facilities improves, theyshould increasingly be used. There isno reason why some of the shift workcouldn’t be done remotely. However,face-to-face contact and hands-on expe-rience will not become less importantin the near future, even if they maybecome somewhat more rare.


• I don’t know if these types of ”regionalcenters” can take the place of ”takingshift” at the experiment. With the improve-ments in computers and networking, thepossibilities of monitoring detector per-formance can be done from home onyour laptop. I don’t see how this couldreplace ”taking shift” at the sight. Trav-eling to take shift is nearly equally oner-ous whether the experiment is near byor half a world away.

• Regarding question 17 ... I am not surethat the quality of the physics resultswill improve, since this is dependent onother factors, like accelerator performance,detector performance, and the abilityto adequately record interesting physicsevents. These facilities might not beable to impact these factors, but theywould certainly be important for remoteusers to understand the experiment theyare working on at a more fundamen-tal level, which will allow such users tobetter understand the quality physicsresults derived from this next machine.

• In order to keep the field exciting, weneed to keep pushing the frontier. Thismeans bigger facilities, not more facili-ties. If it is necessary to close some labsin order to make the largest facilitieseven bigger than we ought to. On theother hand, if the others can contributein to the main one, then we should sup-port them. The notion of shifting ona detector when all of the real hard-ware is at another location is prepos-terous. You would spend far too muchtime and money getting the remote sys-tem working and keeping it maintained.Also, if the remote center will have theability to actually do anything, thinkof the security breaches possible. Ona collider experiment like D0 or CDF,it may not be possible to check out thedetector itself when the beam is on, buthaving a shifter who can’t even look

at the hardware just seems like a pooridea. Shifters should also be able totake advantage of beam problems bygoing in which would be impossible ona remote shift.

• I really don’t know how this is goingto work. I believe we have to moveto the model of regional centers, but itis a brave new world and I can’t pre-dict how well this will actually work.I do think that while contact with thedetector is important, the most impor-tant thing is contact with your fellowphysicists. It is the successful inter-action among people that determinesour progress more than anything else.In my mind this mandates ”centers” ofsome sort. Right now, those are the biglabs, but in the future the role couldbe replaced by regional centers providedthey develop enough critical mass. Inter-center relationships are likely to be com-plicated and may develop (unfortunate)political tones. Closeness to the detec-tor and the hardware is important forthe people with strong hardware inter-ests, but the notion that we all need tobe close to the detector is based on oldideas that date back to the days whenexperiments were smaller, cruder, andmore tabletop. As for the role of U.S.labs in the next 10-25 years, I’d likevery much to see one of them (FNAL!)host the Linear Collider. The otherswould make great regional centers, plushave strong programs of ”smaller” scaleprojects, astro-particle-physics, etc.

• The communication technologies thatwould be needed for such a thing willnot be mature enough to trust in quitea long time. The problem is not theability to build prototypes, which I’msure we can do — it will be problemswith the very large scale that we won’tdiscover until we are already deep intothe project. Such experiments would


be far more meaningful for computerscience and network engineering thanfor physics (which isn’t a bad thing, itjust needs to be kept in mind). Besides,when the dust settles and the technol-ogy *is* working well, we’ll probablyfind the band of access too narrow forour needs: tinkering is only possible whenone is immersed in an environment.

• Clearly defined responsibilities assignedto each participating institution. Clearlylaid out metrics for performance. Achain of command with some teeth in it.Without it, regional centers will merelybe the same hotbeds of confusion thatthey are now. Also, individuals shouldnot be allowed to split their time amongmore than one large collaboration (>500)and one small one (<100). Does any-body seriously believe that people whoare members of more than one large col-laboration can seriously contribute morethan name power to either ?

• Regional centers are VERY good for somethings (data crunching) but remote con-trol rooms can be bad as young peoplecould end in a ”virtual reality physics”.Physics is (still) flesh and blood.

• My experience on Auger is that remotestations are very important. It is veryexpensive to travel to the southern site(Argentina), and it is difficult to spendmore than 2 weeks down there due toother commitments at Fermilab.

• I believe that it is extremely important,especially early in ones career, to bepresent at the experiment/lab. This isin part so that the full experience ofworking with the apparatus occurs, andin part to broaden knowledge of the field.In this sense, regional centers would bea disaster, since they would remove theincentive to send students abroad andpromote provincialism in U.S. high energyphysics.

• I’m working in Canada, and I’m notsure what exactly is meant by ”regionalcenters”. My answers to question 18and 19 refer to distribution of particlephysics centres in Canada.

• Regional centers would help, if for noother reason than it gets collaboratorsworking in the same place. However,they’d only work if there was alreadya lot of collaborators who are alreadyworking at the site of the regional cen-ter, and the travel costs to get therewere noticeably less than to get to theactual detector site.

• Difficult as an outsider to comment onspecifically U.S. problems. The GlobalAccelerator Network sounds great, detailneeds to be investigated to see if it reallyworks. A pilot project would be a goodidea before committing ourselves to thisfor evermore!

• The proposed Global Accelerator Net-work seems like a good start.

• I don’t think Global Accelerator Net-work will work that well.

• It will hurt to have people remotely look-ing at problems. Ownership of the detec-tor/lab will only accrue to the residentteam. The GAN is a nice sounding ideathat will not work.

• Re: regional centers - How to monitora detector and approve physics resultsin a 1000-member global collaboration(without using up the whole week inmeetings/travel) are questions that needto be addressed. Regional centers willneed very good connections to the detec-tor site to do any of the monitoring,DAQ etc. tasks listed. Even in theU.S., connections from a university arenowhere near good enough to accom-plish these tasks remotely. A demon-stration that this is feasible and reliable


is needed to make any informed deci-sion on this. Will funding for travelto/from these regional centers be jus-tifiable? Traveling from a home uni-versity to a regional center just to usevideo-conferencing seems to miss the wholepoint of video-conferencing. Why notimprove links to existing universities andorganize/streamline meetings better? Toimprove the quality of physics resultsand of the peer review process, espe-cially if attending meetings by video,more documentation on analyses andtheir progress would be very helpful: slideson web before meeting, descriptive notedistributed before meetings, analysis codein a public area specific questions sentto speaker before meeting. Re: Nationallabs: Current national labs are funded;it’s clear that the funding for buildingnew ones is not there, eg SSC in Texas,NIF over-budget. CERN/FNAL are goodexamples of what you can do by build-ing on what’s already there, rather thanstarting from scratch, which usually costsa lot more in terms of infrastructureand people. Closing some labs? ANL,LBNL, LLNL, BNL, FNAL,... do diverseresearch. Could this really be done atany one university? A list of what wewould lose in terms of resources andresearch projects is necessary to makeany informed decision on this.

• We should have regional centers whichalready correspond to national labs whichdo HEP: BNL, FNAL, SLAC mostly.Other nations may also be included inhaving regional centers (Japan, Brazil,Canada, India, Russia, China, Australia,S. Africa).

• Work will always be centered physicallywhere detectors and accelerators reside.Virtual control rooms (aka. regionalcenters) are ridiculous.

• There is a role for distributed analysis,

but I do not see the need for regionalcenters to monitor data taking. Thisdoes not mean that remote access byexperts as needed is bad, just that itcan be accomplished without the invest-ment in regional centers. As far as anal-ysis is concerned, it is distributed now,and it will continue to be distributed,whether we like it or not. Again, I donot see the need for regional centers tofacilitate this aspect of accelerator-basedexperiments

• About ”centers”; quality not quantity.

• I think this is very important, but Iwould prefer to leave details to thoseexperienced in this area. Difficult issuesinvolve money, credit, and politics.

• The existence of regional centers will bea benefit, but it’s not clear to me whatthe cost/benefit ratio will be comparedwith other ways the money might bespent.

• I feel that a hands-on feel for the actualdetector is very important in gettinga feel for the data being collected andhelping in wringing the most out of it.I feel that ”regional centers” will helpto keep communication between those,with valuable experience, that can’t relo-cate to the lab and those that are localto the lab. I feel that the current U.S.labs can play a large role in this andthat they must play an integral role inany future machines to be built in theUS. to the lab

• A single collaboration could have many(dozens perhaps) centers around the U.S.These would be at universities and labswhere many collaborators reside, or wheremany could easily commute to.

• Focused at a national lab with a fewregional centers for Monte Carlo work.Grid connections.


• I think it is impossible to run an acceler-ator, or a detector, remotely. If a powersource dies, someone has to be on site,so that the voltage gets reset and opera-tion resumes. Since there will necessar-ily be staff and scientists on site, I thinkthat regional centers (other than thelabs) will create ”unneccesary” redun-dancy, and result in less efficient datataking and therefore lower quality sci-ence. The efficiency of data taking becomesexponentially more important, as thenew facilities proposed require enormousamounts of power per year- on the orderof 150 MW/yr. At a cost of 0.6M$/MW,(from FNAL power consumption andoperating budget today), inefficient datataking is an insupportable strain on theHEP budget.

• Regional centers will degrade the qual-ity of beams and analyses, but MIGHTimprove the ability of remote physiciststo participate. I don’t think the ideawill work very well.

• Global collaboration would have to haveregion centres but it would still be veryimportant to allow for visits to the realsite. National labs must continue tosupply electronics/detectors developmentexpertise and support smaller experi-ments.

• I very much encourage the cross-participationin different international projects throughthe so-called regional centers. This shouldapply to both European participationin U.S. projects and U.S. participationin European projects, as well as to poten-tial projects in other countries and tothe sharing of responsibilities within theU.S. or Europe.

• Running the experiment should be alocal affair done by professional staff.Data-quality monitoring, testing and debug-ging should be possible externally withgood networking facilities.

• As I see it, there seems to be a some-what natural division in terms of thefunctionality envisioned for ”regional cen-ters” – first, they would provide con-trol and monitoring systems for remotedetectors/accelerators; second, they wouldprovide regional access to full (or per-haps partial) datasets from the exper-iments they are controlling/monitoring,along with concomitant computing resourcesneeded to adequately exploit the datasets

• I regard the integration of human resourcesin smaller countries of the utmost impor-tance. Countries that do not have theeconomical resources to contribute moneybut do have a lot of young physicistsin need of guidance. This will bringnew ideas to the field and can easily beachieved using video conferencing tech-nologies and such. ”Regional Centers”should be cloned also in these places.

• Virtual control rooms are a poor sub-stitute for ”hands on” detector work.They will help run an experiment, nodoubt, but should not be used as anexcuse to prevent students from travel-ing to the actual experiment.

• We’ve learned a lot about global collab-orations from current large-scale exper-iments. We should use what we learnedthere and see where the problems areto be able to ensure some truly globalteam-work. Regional centers with lotsof resources sound like a great step inthe right direction.

• It is crucial for the students to be at theexperiment. I personally to not believein regional centers.

• Regional centers are a good idea butthe host inatitute will always carry themost weight since where the hardwareis that’s the place where the action willbe.


• It could become chaotic or just be anorganizational nightmare if there wasmore than one of these regional centers.

• It already works in some cases for detec-tors. It can also work for acceleratorstudies, but with local hardware expertson site.

• BTW, the issues here apply to LHCoperations, as well as to future facili-ties. 17) There are other reasons for”regional centers”, including greater easeof participation by both senior experi-enced physicists, and young physicistswho would benefit greatly from the expe-rience. 19) I’d like my answer to be”much the same role” AND ”about thecurrent mix of lab sizes and types”, BUT”the role of some labs may have to change”.

• Regional centers should replace long tripse.g. to Europe due to shifts; a role ofregional centers easing analysis is alsodesirable; personal discussions cannotbe replaced by video conferencing; regionalcenters should work as well for HEP asthey are for international companies!

• The next machine is already being builtin Europe with large U.S. participation.Regional centers are probably a goodidea but need to be tested. I wouldadvocate regional centers plus ability towork from everywhere. Technology willallow it.

• Local centers are probably fine, for dataanalysis and processing etc. Maybe evenfor shifts. Nevertheless a shift needsinteraction with the hardware and localexperts to fix things, so you won’t getaround to have a center among centers.

• As a member of an experiment takingplace outside of the United States, Iencourage all young members of a col-laboration to spend as much time at the

experiment as possible. Regional Cen-ters are not a good idea. People learnby interacting - and I do not mean byvideo conferences. It is crucial for peo-ple to work at the experimental site asmuch as possible.

• We have to realize that s/w is a big-ger and bigger issue for collaborations.This means that efforts in that field shouldcount with a significant weight with respectto h/w activities on the detector. Beinga European working at SLAC I couldalso see the many advantages of havingmore remote control options available.It does however need to be built in tothe experiments right from the begin-ning.

• Regional centres are very important, notonly in U.S. but also at other placesof the world. All high energy physicsexperiments are facing a manpower short-age. Situation can be improved if workis distributed properly all over the world.

• This is the first I’ve heard mention ofthe idea of ”regional centers,” and I’mskeptical. Access to the hardware andface-to-face communication are very impor-tant. Access to the detector is probablyslightly more important than proximityto the advisor for a graduate student,but I believe the difference is small.

• I think the main advantage of ”regionalcenters” is the effect upon people’s lifestylesand the balance between finding a joband needing to commute. I would thusplace them near large cities that do notcurrently host national labs.

• I’m not sure the remote control roomitself is a good thing. However, a regionalcenter which brings together scientistsfrom different collaborating institutionsis very valuable. This would be a moreimportant aspect of regional centers, inmy opinion. You might need a virtual


control room to give the place focus, Iguess.

• Regional centers strike me as an extremelystupid idea.

• In case regional centers take over fromthe national labs on certain physics pro-grams, the later may be restructured topursue state-of-the art technologies andpossibly house test grounds for futureexperiments.

• Sort of like how an unmanned interna-tional spaceprobe is operated.

• I am worried about the decline of hard-ware/software work at the universitiesbecause it reduces the opportunities toexcite undergrads about HEP and reducesopportunities for outreach to the pub-lic. Also funding grad students/postdocsas sub-contractors to the labs on lab-funneled money is worrying because oflack of stability. We should think care-fully how to maintain the strength/presenceof HEP at the universities while imple-menting the regional centers idea.

• I find it hard to believe that an acceler-ator or a complete LHC-scale detectorcan be run remotely. The goal shouldbe to maintain operation of smaller detec-tors or sub-detectors from remote places.An extremely good computer network iscrucial.

• A global collaboration will work best ifthe focus of collaborative technologies ison enfranchising collaborators as well aspossible at their home institutes, ratherthan focusing on regional centers.

• I’m not 100% sure what you envisagehere: do you mean the entire experi-ment run from a single virtual controlroom, or a dispersed shift crew spreadbetween several such plus the actual con-trol room near the experiment? In any

case, I’m a sceptic. Shift crews (afterinitial phase) are small, so dispersingseems unhelpful (I’d expect average occu-pancy of one of these remote controlrooms would be zero or one). HenceI assume you mean to run the entireexperiment from the remote site? Mightwork, but network links are not infalli-ble, and I cannot see any collaborationaccepting that the control room couldlose contact with the experiment (which,if it is remote, it *will* do at some point).Given that there will probably be someneed for physical intervention (at thelevel of removing faulty DAQ modules)and that initial data recording will belocal (you will not ship the RAW DAQstream to a site on another continentto record it), I just don’t see this beingvery helpful. DAQ teams put a lot ofstock in reliability, and this proposalcould only reduce it. Remote advice,yes, but not remote control. If shiftcrews were large, with many experts aroundto monitor (as opposed to control), Icould imagine these people being dis-persed, but my experience (from PETRA,LEP and PEP-II experiments) is thatthis is not how things will be after thefirst few months (and in the first monthsall experts will be on-site with the detec-tor in any event). I *do* see a role forregional analysis centres, but not forremote control rooms. Oh, and whileI answered ”don’t have a detector” toQ14, that is because my role in BaBaris offline software and ATLAS does notexist yet. I was a DAQ expert on OPAL,and am a first-level trigger designer forATLAS - hence my normal role is intrigger/DAQ (but not with my currentlive experiment). I should perhaps remindyou at this point that I’m European,so don’t have strong views on the U.S.national labs (personally I’d prefer themto stay open, but I don’t think the Vir-tual Control Room is a strong argument


if that is the objective).

• Regional centers could make gigantic col-laborations tolerable when it come todata taking and analysis.

• More than control rooms, you need placeswith a critical intellectual mass to under-stand and advance the physics of theexperiment, along with data taking.

• Coming together and working togetherin the main places (e.g. next machine)is much more important than outsidecontrol centers.

• Comments: 1) experts need to know thehardware precisely (i.e. expertise) so heneeds to work with it on place, there-fore I disfavor regional centers 2) addi-tional national labs (whether in U.S.or Europe or wherever) are only costintense and do not contribute to newphysics more cost-effective is one physicsplace and multipurpose/redundant detec-tors.

• I don’t think ”regional centres” are impor-tant - I don’t think we could run theDAQ / control room by video confer-ence! But we will need many sites car-rying out data analysis/ monte carlogeneration, much like the SAM modelat D0 or the grid for LHC.

• The point about ”regional centers” isequally valid for collaborators outsidethe U.S. - if you aren’t in the countrythe ”next machine” is in, it can becomevery difficult to do good physics work.The quality of beams and physics atthe detector might not improve with theexistence of reasonably easily accessible”regional centers”, but the quality ofwork done relating to physics done atthe detector could be greatly harmedby the non-presence of those trying tobe active collaborators.

• National centers are great, but most impor-tant would be to have enough funds toensure frequent travel to experiments.

• My last answer is what I think shouldhappen; not what I believe will happen.As for regional centers, one needs to becareful about how such things would becoordinated. While there could be asmany monitors as desired in principle,in fact there should be only one activecontrol room where such things as volt-ages and detector parameters are set.One could envision control rooms in dif-ferent hemispheres handing off controlof the experiment at shift change so thateverybody works the day shift (althoughmany prefer evenings). But it can bedifficult enough to track what happensshift-to-shift in a single control roomwhere only one group at a time is incharge. Multiple, simultaneously oper-ating control rooms is a recipe for con-fusion, no matter how good video con-ferencing eventually gets (and it has along way to go). Such centers mightprovide advice or input to an opera-tional control room at the experiment,but their number should be limited. Theywould undoubtedly cut down travel expensesin a global collaboration, but sometimesthere is just no substitute for being there.

• Quarterly face-to-face collaboration meet-ings; 2-3 regional data-taking monitor-ing centers in the U.S., others in othercountries at same per-physicist densityas in U.S.; hands-on work on hardwarefor all young experimenters at home andat the detector during early part of career,with periodic returns for detector upgrades;expanded role for video conferencing asthis technology matures.

• The regional centers should be at uni-versities as well as at national laborato-ries students at all levels must be involvedresearch must be recognized by univer-


sity administrations as an intrinsic partof responsibilities of faculty members

• Virtual control rooms might be sited atUniversities.

• Instead of ”regional centers” better facil-itate international meetings, support abroadtrips for the scientific staff etc. Collab-orations should not be split in nationalsubsets.

• A new ”green-field” site looks awful hardto create in the current funding climate.If we pursue this, we have to under-stand why we are creating this new infras-tructure and be able to defend it scien-tifically.

• Although I currently don’t have a detec-tor, I did work on D0 at Fermilab as agrad student. In my case, I didn’t seethe detector for several years after join-ing the experiment because it was com-missioned and well into running. Later,I did become involved in the upgradedetector R&D and construction, and giventhe choice, I was closer to the detectorthan my advisor. I believe that whileregional centers could prove to be use-ful in the more globalized situation weseem to be entering, there will still needto be a large number of people actuallypresent at the host lab. I don’t thinkregional centers can replace the person-nel needed at the host lab (at least notyet and certainly not during commis-sioning). I also believe there is greatvalue in being physically at the lab forsome time where the experiment/acceleratoris running. I do think the regional cen-ters can minimize the time spent at thelab, and would facilitate bringing newstudents onto an experiment. I also thinkthey would enable people to avoid uproot-ing an entire family to work on an exper-iment across the globe. Finally, thesecenters would hopefully enable more peo-ple to remain interested and active in

the fields of high energy and acceleratorphysics. In order to realize these bene-fits, there is a great deal more work tobe done in order to make these centersfeasible.!

• We need to concentrate on a few largelabs. Wherever the next collider willbe, people there are able to run it, i.e.U.S. people are not essential. On theother hand, we need ’regional centers’for those involved in machine/experiments(hopefully incl. people around the world)to reduce necessarity of traveling. Itwill/should be a global project.

• The quality of beams and physics mayor may not be improved; however, theaccessibility of the physics throughoutthe U.S. is important to physicists, thelarger physics community, and the gen-eral public - especially current K-12 stu-dents who embody future particle physi-cists.

• I don’t think the quality of beams wouldimprove but the quality of physics resultswould, so I have separate answers forthose two things. I put yes anyways.Also, I don’t see an option stating thatthe national labs should act as regionalcenters and then some other centers shouldbe created as well in other geographicalareas. I would choose this option.

• Regional Centers are important. If theproliferate, they could weaken the roleof the national labs. This would not begood. On the other hand, the universityroles should also not be weakened andare already under stress in the currentenvironment.

• Identify a number of centers (3-5) iden-tify a core of people at each center (15-20) daily involvement in operation androtating shifts among the centers.

• The concept of ”regional centers” is flawed.As a faculty member, I would be more


than willing to send my students off towork at the lab where our experimentis operating – but if that’s not feasible,the next best thing is to have the stu-dents at my university. I don’t see thatthe benefits of regional centers comesclose to compensating for the diminu-tion of the universities’ roles.

• I worry about regional centers for exper-imental control. Will the host lab reallyallow someone sitting across the oceanto change the trigger for example? Manytimes, there is no substitute for being atyour detector.

• I am a strong supporter of regional cen-ters. The large detectors may be sup-ported by professional staff. Hardwareexperience is critical and can be gainedin R&D, test beam work, etc so we candevelop and build new detectors whenwe need to. We need some kind of nationallab structure. Your response choiceswere limited. I do not really know whetherall existing labs should continue but Ihope that they will be given a chance toevolve to follow the community’s needs.

• I doubt if the beams will get any betterwith remote centers – you really needsomeone standing beside the operatorsand attending their meetings to get someaction on beams. More or less the samewith physics results – you need someoneto go and power-cycle the power supplyor whatever needs to be done to get thedetector going again, and that personhas to be present at the detector. Anexperienced team of shift-takers usuallyoutperforms people who come in to doone or two shifts/year in detector relia-bility. But it is important for the physi-cists to be familiar with their apparatus(and to know when it failed and how,so they can do their work accordingly).CERN collaborations are already global.We use the web heavily for documen-

tation, have phone conferences (videoconferences are awkward but we are start-ing to use them), but mostly fly peo-ple out for collaboration meetings andshifts (and even sometimes for very dif-ficult detector problems). E-mail is awonderful tool.

13.4.4 The Role of National Labs:

• National labs should become ”regionalcenters” also.

• Build new colliders at existing labs -labs without colliders (and without plansto build colliders) should be reduced to”institute” level.

• What I really mean is that labs shouldcontinue to play a strong role, but thatin order to ensure a strong physics pro-gram we should not take it as a giventhat all labs should remain. The empha-sis should be on ensuring a strong HEPphysics program, not ensuring the sur-vival of labs IF (and only if) they haveoutlived their usefulness. At the moment,no lab falls into this category.

• Some of the national lab HEP groupsare really just massive University groups(e.g. LLNL, ANL, LBL). Other labsshould be encouraged more in this direc-tion as the direct accelerator operationsroles are eliminated.

• The role of national lab will depend onwhat they can contribute to the discov-ery of new physics. If there’s nothingthey can do on this they will have noimportance.

• Having a domestic program for smallerexperiments is extremely important, andthe labs must continue to play a leadingrole in this. Right now flavor physics ismore exciting than its been for decades,and an active flavor physics program


(particularly neutrinos) is very desirablein addition to a high energy collider.

• I would like to clarify answers to 18 and19. For 18, there should be at leastone center per experiment. For 19, Ibelieve that national labs will still playa very strong role in the future of HEPon a global scale, but this may requirea reduction in the number of these labsbeing operated.

• The issue of the future of the U.S. labsis a thorny one. At the present level offunding and with the current numberof labs, it is difficult to nurture devel-opment groups of excellence in criticalareas (most HEP software comes fromCERN, for instance). Fewer labs (withthe same budget, of course) would allowthis. On the other hand, a single mega-lab (like CERN) has its own dangers.The diversity that comes from differ-ent labs with different emphasis and dif-ferent directorates would be lost. Forinstance, would SLAC objectively con-sider hadron colliders or Fermilab e+/e-colliders? I am at a loss to make a firmchoice between the two directions.

• I think the labs should have an impor-tant role, perhaps more important, thatdoesn’t mean there should be more ofthem.

• Ludicrous to even consider closing anynational lab that has a strong physicsprogram - as all do, when you take thetime to understand their program andthe physics that they do.

• Some national labs should be closed ordevelop in very different directions. Otherlabs should continue at the same or greaterlevel.

• Close a national lab and/or convert itto an international lab ala CERN.

• Closing some labs is probably the onlyresponsible way to strengthen others.

• Funding is going to be a bigger and big-ger issue as we try to get more money ...consolidation of labs could potentiallysave millions a year. Especially sinceI see us having fewer machines in thefuture than we do now (one e+e- LC asopposed to 2 high energy e+e- machinestoday) due to funding constraints, itseems silly to keep open more labs thanwe need to to support the machines.

• It would be nice to have less competi-tion *within* labs for new ideas, R&D,resources, experimental proposals.

• The importance of the U.S. national labsshould be driven by the status of HEPresearch. I don’t understand question19. If there is motivation to do a newexperiment and open a new lab for that,let’s do it. If there is no motivation,what are we talking about?

• Question 19: I do not understand, though,what closure of a lab means. Argonneand LBL are closed for direct HEP exper-iments, but they are the host of syn-chrotron facilities and have strong usergroups. LBL also has a strong accelera-tor R&D group that is synergistic withthe synchrotron radiation lab. In thefuture, Brookhaven and SLAC mightalso ‘close’ in this way, but it wouldbe unrealistic and counterproductive tohave them drop out of HEP and returntheir full budgets to a common pool.

• Not all labs have to have centers; somecould be at universitities. But too manydilutes strength. The role should besimilar. It is too early to say “someshould be closed”. That is anyway acase-by-case thing for politicians.

• Labs are not only to be seen with respectto the one large major machine in the


world. There should be a variety offurther, somewhat smaller experimentssupported by local labs.

• Existing labs should provide support cen-tres for universities, to ease access tomachine site - leading machines shouldbe distributed regionally including U.S.

• Labs should be much more closely con-nected to universities, i.e. students shouldbe encouraged to go to the labs etc.

• I think consolidation of high energy physicsinto a smaller number of labs would bebeneficial if the freed resources couldbe made available for important futureprojects (such as NLC).

• The labs should be staffed by researchers;how can afford to do research on a longtime scale. The University model workswell on a much smaller time scale, andindustry is of not help.

• I hope, you mean ”national labs doingHEP”. We do not need such centers atLANL, ORNL, NREL, etc. Addition-ally, LBNL and SLAC probably needonly one such center.

• In the future only two labs will continuewith high energy physics at colliders -CERN with LHC and another with thelinear collider.

• National labs are important for largeprojects to be carried on; it is impor-tant to keep the funding of UniversityResearch at a

• Some labs should close to allow newones to start up higher level than now.

• U.S. national labs have provided greateropportunity for international interactionwith both experimental and theoreticalphysicists. It has helped me a lot, andI hope, the U.S. physicists too.

• To suggest that some labs should closeis not the same as declaring that thelabs are crucial. It is quite possible thatsome labs have completed their mission,however important they have been orwill be in the near future.

• ”National labs” doesn’t necessarily meanHEP or even physics labs; some shift-ing, depending on the market, will occur.It should be a combination of what thepublic finds important and what fore-sighted government knows is best forthe nation, for the world, and for human-kind.

• If the budget for the new facility requiresthat some labs should close that’s ok,but we should be careful not to kill allsmaller projects that may exist at theselabs, like fixed target experiments.

• Labs without active accelerators shouldprobably be closed. We cannot affordthe luxury of maintaining inactive labsin the present budgetary climate.

• Budget constraints might force the clos-ing of one of the HEP labs, but theU.S. program would be much better offif we can keep the current labs. Withrespect to whether it is more importantto be near the detector or near the advi-sor...it depends on what stage of careera student is in. During data-taking it isimportant to be near the detector. Dur-ing anaysis, it is more important to benear the advisor.

• I believe that the role of national labsis very important ... BUT ... there maybe a need for rationalization.

• If national labs perish and the next machineis outside the U.S., we will need an enor-mous travel budget to get necessary hands-on experience and take part in an exper-iment.


• I believe that the national labs will remainuseful as staging centers for the futureaccelerators, but that their role shouldbe carefully examined. The dominanceof DOE support for the laboratories needsto be better balanced against the Uni-versity program. Much of the leader-ship and innovation comes from the uni-versities.

• If the model is regional centers in theU.S., then it seems to me that the answerto 19 should be ”different role/ samenumber”. The role is no longer to pro-vide beam to the experiments, but ratherto support them in other ways. ”Regional”implies at least several, and east/ west/central is an obvious mix.

• Need to allow a greater variety of workto proceed and be undertaken at thenational labs, which are a natural focusfor multi-institutional collaboration.

• The number of U.S. national labs hasalready been reduced and should not bereduced further. It allows some diver-sity which in research is an importantfactor.

• Cannot support too many labs. Dis-tribution of resources can reduce thenumber of experiments due to overhead.These labs need to be globally distributed.

• Question 19: It depends on the roles ofthe labs. There are no entitlements, butthe field should be sufficiently diverseto have at least 2 major labs (and a fewsmaller labs) doing productive work.


on Globalization:

• Again you have poorly worded questions.You assume one detector. You assumea supervisor.

• Geez, do you really think the U.S. arethe center of the particle physics world?

• Don’t see why U.S.-related topics shoulddominate. Is U.S. the motherland ofHEP or the only provider of HEP-enthusiasm?

• Well, globalization seems to be bit self-centered (on the U.S., or have I gottonsomething wrong?)

• Why is there so much focus on the U.S.?

• Some questions are U.S. specific.

• This seems to be a little U.S. bias/emphasishere, given this is intended for the wholeHEP community.

• A little irrelevant unless you’re Ameri-can I feel.

• No opinion about the U.S., I am not inthe U.S.

• This part of the questionary was ded-icated to U.S. people and I am fromEurope...(I answered in replacing U.S.by Europe). Global collaboration willbe working more and more via videoconferencing. As far as management isconcerned, we should make sure thatdemocratic aspects are respected andthat scientific aspects always preveal anydecision.

• I must admit that I do not know exactlyhow many national labs you have andhow they are distributed, so I cannotanswer the last 2 questions. I think any-way that having places where a ”crit-ical mass” of physicists work togetheris surely good, even if the detector issomewhere else. Nowadays communi-cations around the world are very good,but nothing can substitute an old-fashioneddiscussion face to face for the small groupsand especially students.


• I can’t comment on issues relating tolocation of regional centers in the U.S.,since I am not a U.S. citizen nor do Ilive or work in the U.S.

• I’m not an U.S. citizen. America is noteverything (just a remark).

• Sorry, I’m not familiar with the statusof U.S. national labs.

• Why do 17-19 focus on the U.S.?

• Questions 17 and 19 are not U.S. related,they are general questions. Particle physicsis an international effort, the U.S. isonly one of the partners !!!!!!!!

• I don’t understand why you asking meso many questions about U.S. It’s notthe only country which makes Physicsin the world and not event the mostimportant for particle Physics.

• Questions 17-19 should be decided bythe U.S. physicists themselves.

• ... don’t want to comment on U.S. affairs.

• Being working outside U.S., my answerscan be ignored. They ”mimic” answersreflecting my viewpoint

• Once again, you are taking the very biased(and incorrect) view point that the U.S.somehow dominates particle physics. Thequestion you should be asking is ”Howcan the U.S. contribute in a meaningfulway to the future of particle physics?”.Regional centres are a means by whichU.S. physics can CONTRIBUTE to for-eign experiments and are therefore impor-tant to U.S. budgets, but to no one else.

• I have difficulty answering the questionsin this section because: (a) I am anadvisor/supervisor (not a student) (b)I work in Europe, and so do not haveU.S.-biased view implied by these ques-tions. HEP is a global venture. What

is important is that the ”next machine”is constructed somewhere. ”Where?”is much less important. Obviously, forme, it would be more convenient to haveit in Europe, but I’ll use it wherever itis. I currently do my research at SLACbecause that’s where the B-factory is.If it were in Europe, I’d use it there.

• Half the questions are for U.S. residentsonly. Strange kind of doing when dis-cussing globalization. All experience showsthat techniques like video conf or webbased expert treatment is not (NOT!)really working (guess why). I believethat the virtual control room as wellas non local experts is complete bull-shit. At least, alone rising the questionshows full absence of relations to realityor newer practice in running an experi-ment. Sorry!

• What does question 18 mean?

• The questions were geared to studentsand postdocs. For others the issues aresomewhat different and include accessto computing and to expertise on howto analyze the data and participate inthe physics and collaboration.

• As a tenured European some questionsin this section don’t apply. On question14. When OPAL was running I wouldsee it roughly monthly.

• Queston 14: it depends on my responsi-bility which change in time : daily/monthlyetc.

• In question 16 I give my perspective butam, myself, the supervisor.

• Question 16 doesn’t make any sense forthose of us who are supervisors. I answeredin terms of my relation to those whowork for me.

• I found that some of the above ques-tions had no answers that totally apply


to me. For example, I have no ”super-visor.” I thought this questionnaire wasalso for senior folk.

• What is the answer to 16 when you arethe supervisor?

• You give the choice ”N/A- don’t havea detector”, but not ”N/A- don’t havean advisor”. Much better not havingan advisor to not having a detector.

• For answer 16) it depends from the periodof the thesis work. One can also travelback and forth. And spend more timenear the detector or in home institutiondepending on the needs.

• My answer for 18 is not accurate. Thereis no choice for ”no opinion” which wouldbe my real answer.

• The answers to 18 and 19 are very ”modeldependent”.

• My answer to question 19 presumes thatat least one new frontier facility is builtin the U.S. during this period.

• The answer to 19 depends on the pre-cise choices of technology and location.

• The answer to (19) assumes that e.g.CERN will carry the major accelerator.If America hosts the next machine obvi-ously one of the national labs shouldhave an enhanced role.

• On 19) The answer here depends onwhat the future looks like. I would liketo see a program diverse enough to sup-port the current labs, but I would notsay that the labs are a requirement. Ineither case I do not think we need *more*labs.

• Question 19 is naively worded. Labshave not closed, but have turned intostaging areas, in a fruitful way. Oth-ers have evolved. Perhaps a nationalunderground lab should open.

• These questions are not well posed. Forexample, I think question 19 that theimportance of the labs will be at leastas great as now, but that *IN ADDI-TION* some labs should close. Sim-ilarly, the importance and identity ofthe advisor/supervisor changes as a stu-dent’s career progresses.

• You didn’t have my option about U.S.labs. I think they are very importantbut I also think we should reduce toone.

• You didn’t give enough choices. Thelabs will not all have frontier machines... of the four now, only one or at mosttwo have frontier machines. This is boundto get worse but labs can still supportR&D on accelerators, on instruments,on detectors for the frontier machines,on precision experiments on the g-2 model,etc.

• Alas, multiple choice does not cover thenuances ... these are complex issues.

• These questions cannot be answered inthe abstract. The only meaningful answersare those which address specific possi-bilities.

• Again, limiting in your choices. Regionalcenters should be considered economi-cally as well. Can we work effectivelyand more economically with regional cen-ters?

• Your possible answers do not cover allcases, which is why I didn’t answer them.I work within a mile of ”my detector”,but I last saw it a few years ago. Ihave never ”worked on my detector”,since I write software. Or does thatcount? I think hardware experience isvery important, yet I have not workedon my current detector’s hardware (butdid on previous detectors’ hardware). Ido not really have a supervisor in the


sense you mean. While I think regionalcontrol centers are important, I do notthink they will improve beams or physics.Regional centers are primarily impor-tant for social purposes: to give a senseof ”co-ownership” to institutions whowill have worked very hard on the facil-ity, but won’t be close to it. It is thatsense of co-ownership that may result inbetter beams or physics, because of syn-ergistic effects, not because the regionalcenters give access to ”better people” orwhatever. As to the number of nationallabs, one would imagine that the regionalcenters would surely be hosted at thenational labs, so it is not clear how toanswer question 19.

• I don’t understand your question aboutfrequency of distribution of regional cen-ters ... how often they are founded andclosed?

• The questions regarding ”regional cen-ters” is misleading. It would be naturalthat the infrastructure of the nationallabs be used to create the so-called regionalcenters, since the machine componentsand bigger detector components will likelybe fabricated at these central places. Itis also the most cost effective method ofcontrolling and monitoring fiscal issues.

• The question is not clear. Do the resultsimprove because of RC vs. no RC? or:do the results improve because of RCin the U.S. vs. nothing in the U.S.?And why should the quality of the beamimprove?

• Again, your terminology’s confusing mea bit. It’s not clear to me what youmean by ”see or work on your detector”.This year I’ve only physically been atFNAL a few times, so I haven’t seenthe whole detector very often. But, I’mworking on a Run IIB Upgrade project,so I work with a certain part of thedetector (SVX4 chip) every day, at LBL.

Having hands-on hardware experiencedoes not demand presence at the accel-erator. To me, being at FNAL seemsmost important because it’s the centralgathering point. It’s where the great-est number of people are located, andwhere the highest density of work is done.You can get questions answered quickly,etc. This is, in large part, because thedetector’s at FNAL. But, if we’re takingdata smoothly there’s no great need tobe physically near the detector- exceptthat it’s where people tend to congre-gate. Regional centers could provideother high-density gather points. But,would they reduce travel costs/lessentravel headaches significantly? Maybeso.

• My detector is an optical telescope, usu-ally 4-m. I don’t have an advisor. Noappropriate N/A.

• As a theorist, I cannot answer most ofthese questions. However, I would liketo strongly encourage global collabora-tion.

• Seems as if you mainly ask experimen-talists; that’s for me (theoretician) quitedisappointing. Furthermore: The ques-tions seem to concern mainly U.S. exper-imentalists...?

• You are missing the point on ”next machine”.My ”next machine” may be neutrinosat the Oak Ridge SNS. Where does thatplay in the spectrum? Are cosmic rays(supernova neutrinos) a ”next machine”.By asking these leading questions abouta next machine you are pre-supposingan answer and narrowing the range. Regionalcenters just add another level of man-agement, siphoning of resources fromlabs and universities.

• I wrote these based on the present feel-ing. In near future, the situation may

Comments on Outreach 91

be significantly changed by the progressof computer-network technology etc.

• (16) Don’t have a supervisor. (17) Ibelieve physics quality will improve; how-ever, I am not convinced about beamquality. (18) I don’t understand yourquestion. A regional center is some facil-ity, room and so on. How does one dis-tribute this? (19) This question is illposed. The importance of national labsdepends on what their roles are. Is it (inthe context of this survey) where accel-erators are? Is it where we concentratecomputing power for experiments oper-ating at CERN for example? Is it wheresome unspecified concentration of efforttakes place? As an example of the lastone, Livermore is currently a nationallab without its own HEP beams and isnot a site for LHC experiments.

• Again, the questions seem to relate onlyto a new LC and leave out other fields.Examples are B physics, neutrino physicsand astro-particle physics, etc., whichare all fields in the midst of discoveriesand which should also have a future!?

• Your survey ignores the impact of largecollaborations on non-accelerator physics.Overlooking this gaff, the above responsesare still very true.

13.5 Outreach

13.5.1 How to Do Better:

• As long as outreach activities (to thegeneral public or to politicians) are seenas not essential for career development,there will not be enough of it. We shouldtry to build a connection to the generalpublic, but at the same time try to dothis not on the terms set by the indus-try, i.e. ‘what products do you develop’.Our interests are not identical to thoseof IBM, Microsoft or GM and we shouldemphasize the cultural aspects of whatwe do a little bit more. After all, theancient Greeks are not remembered forthe amount of olive oil they sold butfor their cultural and scientific achieve-ments. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’talso take advantage of economic oppor-tunities - if we as a community wouldonly get any royalties every time some-body uses the web, we wouldn’t have toapply for funding ever again.

• I think outreach is like pushing on arope: you don’t get anything but a localeffect. A television series might allow alasting impression, but probably wouldreceive a small viewership anyway. Ithink the only way to improve fundingis to demonstrably MAKE MONEY. Ifyou can PROVE that HEP contributesX dollars to the economy for a giveninvestment N years ago, then you havesomething. Better yet, just have thebeneficiaries of the created wealth lobbycongress directly themselves. I think weshould perform some actual ”value min-ing” to determine what we have thatthe world wants. Our analysis tools,like ntuples and PAW/root, should becleaned up and marketed. Instead ofpaying out a load of cash to developfancy silicon chips, we should developfancy silicon chips and then license thetechniques.


• The ”meet - a - scientist” program is agood thing and need more volunteers.

• Try to find a way to explain to the pub-lic the purpose of HEP, its goals andapplications (e.g. developing detectorsfor HEP we contribute also to the devel-opment of detectors for cancer treat-ment etc). Organize public talks at Uni-versities, advertise these talks with posters,tv, radio, make nice films for CERNor other laboratories, organize visits toschools and universities and tell themabout HEP ...

• I believe we could be more active andmore honest in our outreach. For exam-ple, BaBar’s recent announcement of a4+ sigma CP-violation effect in the Bsystem was reported in the press underheadlines implying that the matter - anti-matter asymmetry of the universe wasnow understood. This is an examplewhere we should have been more clearabout the implications of our measure-ment. The difficulty, of course, is thatit’s very hard to explain what we doto people without a substantial amountof science education. Long-term suc-cess can only be attained by support-ing educational efforts in the elemen-tary and secondary schools that com-municate the interest we all have in learn-ing more about the universe.

• There must be more emphasis upon thesynthesis of the different sciences in thepublic understanding. Connections betweenphysics and the other sciences and tech-nologies must be drawn for the publicin order for the U.S. physics program tomaintain relevance.

• More emphasis should be put on find-ing commercial outlets for HEP, as thiswill pay for the blue skys research of thefuture.

• To involve the general public one good

idea would be to think at our colliderdetectors as big lotteries. Since gam-bling is big in the U.S. (as everywhereelse there is money to spend) we shouldstart funding our experiments by sell-ing events before we collect them. Adollar for one event, with variable pay-offs if the event turns out to be a Wcandidate, a top candidate, etc., woulddo the following good things: 1) bringmoney to HEP from an entirely newsource 2) boost people’s interest in HEPand allow them to get an education inparticle physics; 3) media would becomeinterested too; People buying an eventnumber would become the ”owners” ofthat event once it is collected. If anevent results in a paper being published,the owner of the event would get citedin the paper... Outrageous but fasci-nating, ain’t it ?

• Mini-series as on the Discovery Chan-nel.

• Outreach does NOT mean constructinga webpage. Actual contact with thepublic should be sought.

• Put a complete directory on the webwhere one can get an answer to anyquestion ever asked about Fermilab.

• To answer the public whenever ques-tions are asked every scientist should bewilling. But I hate if propaganda getsmore important than careful work.

• Operating a good Web site promotingHEP might be good.

• Heck, if I knew a sure fire way to informthe public about what we do, I’d includeit. But a big step in the right directionwould be to encourage the young andenthusiastic people to not be afraid ofpeople running in terror when you tellthem what you do.


• The majority of the public has neverheard of a quark or even the photon.We need a massive PR effort.

• I think that outreach to the general pub-lic be increased greatly.

• We need to cultivate a grass roots inter-est, as astronomy has done. Then wehave a base to turn to influence the polit-ical process. What we need is moreof what Lederman has been doing atFermilab and in Chicago. We need toattract private funding. We need to getmodern physics including particles intothe high-school physics curriculum.

• The P.R. situation has improved in thelast few years, but more physicists mustget involved.

• The level of awareness of the generalpublic is, in my view, poor. It’s ourresponsibility to improve that and inso doing attract public backing for ourwork.

• Our outreach seems to be directed atgetting people to support our work. Ourobligation to funding agencies, and thepublic, is to inform and educate regard-less of the outcome.

• I don’t think we have figured out how todo this effectively, given the U.S. (non)culture. In some European countries,such as Italy, there is much more appre-ciation for science than in the US.

• I fear that without educating the gen-eral public and Congress on both thebasics of HEP and reasons why we thisresearch should be done, we will NOTbe able secure funding to keep the fieldof HEP as active, diverse, and dynamicas it is today.

• Be honest! Say why we do what we do:because it is exhilerating. Not becauseit is ”important”. Combating poverty is

important. And be prepared to answer,honestly, why the public should spendbillions to learn about the Universe. Empha-size the core goal: learning about ourplace in the Universe. No, it ain’t aboutfinding yet another bunch of particlesand measuring their esoteric attributes.Who cares about that? No, emphasizethat we do this because, for whateverreason, we (all of us) want to under-stand our place in the Universe. Explainto the public that yes our instrumentsare costly, but very good value for moneywhen compared to many other thingsour governments do, some of which aretruly dumb. We’ve just got to be morehonest all around.

• I do work on outreach, but somehowwe are inspired to do physics early onin our lives. It is not a choice as some-thing that drives us. People don’t wantto work hard to understand things thatmake them feel inadequate. We canonly continue to try to rephrase thingsin language that can be understood butsome will never understand. It is criti-cal though that we don’t sell our souls(GRID is an example) or try to con-vince them that the next project willcure their cancer. Hyperbole is use-less, honesty in what motivates us mustprevail and spin-offs are nice but sec-ondary.

• This is a two way street; you can’t reachout to someone who is not interested inbeing contacted.

• HEP tries to answer some of the mostbasic questions about the universe aroundus. But it is also a luxury, even inthe First World. Past questions fromCongress include ”What use are quarks?Can I eat them for breakfast?” (!) Pastanswers include ”It makes the countryworth defending.” The culture of stereo-typing physics and maths as difficult


is strange. (So History, English andSpanish are easy then?) We need toreach out more and show people howbasic physics principles work in theireveryday lives: from ice-cubes and air-conditioners to aeroplane wings and rock-ets to positron emission tomography andMRI. HEP scientists can do this and, ifthey can bring in the advances made asa result of HEP research, both of bene-fit to society and to the sum of humanknowledge, so much the better. A soci-ety that appreciates the love of learn-ing and the benefits it may bring is farmore likely to fund the next accelera-tor. Personally, I’ve found that peopleare quite fascinated by accelerators anddetectors and want to know how theywork. The most unexpected people willpresent you with a HEP article thatthey clipped out of the local newspa-per. In comparison, astronomers haveit easy: they have the glossy pictures.We have to work a bit harder to explainour pictures. When it comes down to it,a telescope and a particle detector areboth luxuries compared to clean water,stable power grids, medical care, taxrelief...

• Our mission in life is to explore the cos-mos in every way that our collectiveimaginations may conceive. Outreachis important partly for funding/survivalreasons, but also to simply convey thebeauty of what we have found (and arelooking for) to the general public. Thetruest test of our love of the field isour ability to do that effectively. Everyphysicist on planet Earth must take thisresponsibility to heart. I think if weall take this attitude, then the rest willtake care of itself.

• Clearly, we need more. However, thereare great people out there doing at leastthere share on this - working with highschools and younger children. Once a

month I talk with groups of junior high/high school children to answer questionsabout the lab. Suggestions for betteroutreach: 1) HEP needs one person whostands tall and makes public appear-ances. Someone that people will beginto recognize. Where is this person ?NASA has one - hell, the NRA has CharletonHeston. Why can’t we get a single, charis-matic spokesperson ? Also, we needmore PR money. When I turn on thediscover channel I should see lots of showsabout HEP. There should be lots of half-hour shows on this stuff floating around.CNN should have a section for us. Themajor obstacle in this is convincing peo-ple we are as interesting as space. Todo this, we must simplify our languageand not forget to dream... and imagine... NASA is not afraid to show picturesof streets lined with coffee shops on thesurface of Mars. Why are we afraid topredict things like extra, non-standardmodel forces giving us new energy sources? No one seems to have the guts toquote anything unless they have a fewsigmas behind them...

• Small, interested sections of the publicare being reached by various laymens’books, TV and radio programmes, whichpresent frontier research (in terms offactual detail) in an exciting, engagingway, but not enough is done to convincethe public at large of the need for thisresearch. Once you have convinced thepublic of this need, it then becomes pos-sible to convince the appropriate politi-cians. Also, we have to demonstrateto the politicians that we are comingup with ingenious and efficient ideas forexperiments, rather than just throwingmoney into the research.

• Seems to me we are far to ”esoteric” inPublic view. The transistor was onceesoteric too...


• HEP labs should be completely discon-nected from classified research. In thisway, the public would gain more faithand maybe interest in the labs. Thepublic should be allowed to go to thelabs and look around (to a certain extent),even without guides.

• I think each person in HEP needs tocommit themselves to public outreach.Perhaps once per year, each person shouldmake sure to perform some type of pub-lic outreach. I think it is most cru-cial to reach youths at the early highschool level. This can be a guided tourof a lab, a very good talk on particlephysics at their school, etc. These talksMUST be at the proper level to developcuriosity and interest, and not to showhow much you know. Also, one shouldtouch upon the technologies which weuse every day, such as high speed com-puting, superconductors, etc. Also, Ithink we need a budget for public out-reach programs. This includes invest-ment in programming on public TV inaddition to advertised evening demon-strations/presentations at universities ofthe ”Wonders of Physics”. I really enjoyedsuch a show put on by Clint Sprott (atthe Univ. of Wisconsin), who set a greatexample.

• I think we need to point out to the gen-eral public (more clearly and withoutany jargon) the benefits that can comefrom basic research. For instance, I tellpeople that although the electron wasdiscovered over a 100 years ago, it tookmany years of research for us to under-stand its properties. But, if you lookaround now, almost our entire technol-ogy is based on the electron. I agreethat one should not tie current researchto future benefits, but at least we shouldpoint out the fact that basic researchhas the potential of completely revolu-tionizing our way of life - whether that

is a good thing or a bad thing is a wholedifferent issue!

• I think we should all chip in and forma PAC. We need to quantify the eco-nomic benefits of our field better (pre-sumably with the help of professionaleconomists) and make sure this infor-mation is widely disseminated. We needto design a really addictive video gamebase on particle physics.

• The field is dominated by the old whiteboy network. We don’t have many blacks,other minorities or women in our field.How can we talk about outreach whenwe fail so miserably at this level? Sci-ence is not valued by this society andwe are partly responsible for it. Ourchildren will pay direly for this failureof ours. We need to do more to educatethe public, to make the connection ofscience and society.

• Old men’s job.

• I think it is very important to includean inter-disciplinary approach in the plan-ning of future HEP experiments, in theway it is planned for TESLA with thefree-electron laser.

• Need to foster programs with engineer-ing schools and computer science.

• When the Kameoka data came out therewas no place where it was discussed sonon experts could understand it. I heardHarry Lipkin give a good talk whichdid.

• There is a very big difference in theeffects of outreach in the different coun-tries. I consider the present contact tothe general public and the politicians inGermany, the place where I work good.The contact to the schools (in particu-lar teachers) and to physicists workingin different fields and scientist howevershould be significantly improved.


• A real catch 22... In Sweden NSF fund-ing is followed by a documentation require-ment – maybe a similar thing for out-reach should be considered.

• Non-physicists do not understand whatwe do at nearly the level they should,and this is our fault entirely. HEP asksalot from the taxpayer, and the tax-payer should get more in return. Sci-ence education is one area where HEPoutreach could improve enormously. Forexample, if all HEP graduate studentsspent 1 day per year giving a tour forthe general public, or talking with highschoolers, or writing letters to their con-gressmen, or writing letters to their news-paper, the level of education of the gen-eral public about HEP would increaseenormously. We should have an out-reach day, where all students, faculty,staff scientists, etc. make a coordinatedeffort to explain what is is they do tothe taxpayer. Second, a greater degreeof centralization would facilitate outreachfor those who already do it, and makeit much easier for those who do not toget involved. A central repository ofoutreach materials, success/failure sto-ries, listings of local contacts, e.g. highschool teachers who would come for toursor invite classroom talks, would make itmuch easier to get involved in outreach.

• Senior physicists and well experiencedphysicists should dedicate more time foroutreach and less for scientific policy.Young scientist should mainly focus onresearch and in designing new challeng-ing projects. Presently (and this is wor-rying), this is most of the time the otherway around.

• Keep better track of HEP alumni – infact maybe they should be treated morethe way universities treat their alumni.This information could be very usefulfor demonstrating the usefulness of edu-

cation in the field, and generating sup-port for funding in HEP.

• IF, the HEP community did reach aconsensus on what machine to build next,it may not become a reality due to lackof public support. If we spent a fractionof the time we spend solving technicalproblems, on public outreach and gov-ernment education/lobbying, we mightbe successful.

• Sit in the damn boat rather than fight-ing in shortsighted competitions.

• In my point of view: High energy groupis a special group in the physics field.While the other groups, such as, solidphysics, material physics, do a lot ofpractical things, HEP does lot of fun-damental study. It appears that HEPdoes not give good economic output.However, it indeed does a lot! the rea-son is HEP concentrates on those fun-damental questions that human beinghas for this universe. Solving these ques-tions need a great amount of humanintelligence. Therefore, having a quali-fied HEP graduate student means hav-ing a man/woman with great intelligence.Of course, not all of them will stay inHEP field. Suppose 50them leave toother fields. Definitely, they will developnew brand new stuffs that will some-what change the style of the currentworld. As an example, I studied HEPfor 4 years (another 7 years in physics),I found it is very easy for me to under-stand knowledge in other fields, whichis a good basis for invention/revolution.And surely a qualified HEP student hasaccumulate enough inventing abilities whenhe did his absolute and systematic anal-ysis on this complicated universe. I thoughtof working on some other fields once awhile, one example was to work in Genesequencing field to decode all genes sys-tematically! Hoping/thinking is the way


leading to invention. Just thinking ofsome of the modern technology: Inter-net, CD information storage, Laser tech-nique, they are all directly related tophysics. And HEP is a typical and spe-cial component in physics, just like whatnuclear physics did 50 years ago. Notonly HEP provides economic benefits,it also uniquely provides social bene-fits when answering those fundamentalquestions human being has for this uni-verse. And this is a very special advan-tage over other fields. In closing, I amsorry for my poor written English if italready made it hard for you to under-stand this writing.

• Externally changing our approach to thegeneral public with projects like out-reach goes some way, however I feel thatpeople would be more interested in thesubject if we made changes from withinthe field. Making our own language moretransparent and obvious is one way ofdoing this as is releasing data to thegeneral public to use. There is still fartoo much intellectualizing of subjectsthat could be explained in a much moreunderstandable form (e.g. pages teach-ing computer skills for physics seem tobe written by people who are more inter-ested in showing how clever they are,than in teaching people the skills in thesimplest form. It is next to impossi-ble for someone from outside who hasno experience of the field to ever get aproper handle on it.).

• We have to be able to explain impor-tance of our research programs for ourcivilization. It requires very serious think-ing and development of strategy how todo it. Implicit assumption that every-body understands how important is sci-ence can not work forever. Governmentand public have to be convinced. Onthe other side if there will not be longrange plan approved, then there is a

danger that demographic factor mightplay significant role and there will benot enough followers for HEP.

• General public is fascinated by macro-scopic world, e.g. life, the Universe,arguments for strong and fascinating ques-tions. However elementary particles atall scales, from atoms to quarks andbelow, are fundamental to understandmacroscopic phenomena. This must bestressed with strong cases to reach gen-eral public

• Congress/public. Scientists tend to thinkthat laypeople can’t/won’t understandtheir work so they spend little time build-ing enthusiasm by explaining it to them.Every day we teach folks who don’t under-stand physics, why is it harder when itcomes to the general public or congress?PR is the way of (future) science fund-ing.

• The problem is not specific to HEP. Theproblem is that there is not sufficientunderstanding or appreciation of basicscientific research. HEP will not standor fall on its own. We are part of alarger community. We can probably fallon our own, but we can garner signif-icant additional support only if basicscientific research as a whole enjoys ahigher level of support.

• Abate superstitions about HEP, increasepublic support for HEP applications andimportance.

• I’d love to do more outreach. (perhapsmore than physics analysis!) We haveto sell our products (knowledge + peo-ple) to Congress, and other scientists.AND we have to return the public’s invest-ment in us by telling them what we’velearned.

• It is more important to ”educate” to theimportance of basic research and its fall


out than to press release exaggeratedclaims to the importance of a result justobtained. i.e. information, not (moreor less false) advertisement

• I think large collaborations should pub-lish more often even if it’s just updateson what is being worked on. I thinkgeneral information about the impor-tance of basic research and how its by-products have very applied influence onour lives must be given a lot more read-ily.

• Outreach is important because we shouldnot take funding for granted. We needto show that we are doing valued work.However, it is important that the out-reach be of high intellectual value. I wasoften appalled with the claims that weremade about the benefits that would accruefrom the SSC. It is difficult to do a goodjob of education. We need to get advicefrom those in the community who arebest at the job of communicating sci-ence and to learn to do the job well.

• The NIGHTLINE program on neutri-nos was excellent, as was coverage innational magazines. Keep up the con-tacts, strengthen them by periodic vis-its, email, phone conversation, etc. andhave something to say.

• Perhaps work on a video which surveysHEP/astrophysics work and clearly tiesit to the spinoffs which help people.

• Making the work we do as accessibleas possible to people working outsideof the field is sorely overlooked by toomany people. It is my opinion thateveryone is responsible in part to makethe current research efforts of the fieldknown to the general public is any waypossible. Only through increased under-standing will we gain increased funding.

• More activity on the www as is happen-ing in astrophysics hands-on-experiments/

activities for general public more mathat high school.

• I really think that worldwide the HEPcommunity should make a greater effortto outreach the public making them under-stand what we do, why we do it, andwhat comes out of it both in terms ofscientific knowledge and technical devel-opment and spin-offs. Especially for Fund-ing agencies and politicians a strongereffort has to be made since it looks asthe decreased investments in research isa general trend in the world, and HEPespecially now needs great joint inter-national efforts. I believe it is an ethicalduty to all physicists to devote time todivulgation of her/his research activityto the public as it is a duty to be awareof the possible applications of the tech-niques she/he’s developing.

• In a country like India where there isgreat need for rural development I amusing Monte-Carlo simulations for pre-dicting the reliability of rainwater har-vesting system - this is just an exampleof a meaningful outreach.

• Answering the question, ”What good isHEP?” is tough to answer. Unfortu-nately anything that directly or indi-rectly points to an answer is good. Any-thing else won’t convince the public.

• We are trying to reach the public, butwe don’t always talk their language. Weshould try harder to make ourselves under-stood. With Congress I think we alsoneed to stress additional issues such asvisas for physicists from foreign institu-tions.

• You can never do too much communi-cating. Much of what we do is excellent,but I think that we still have a majorproblem in trying to explain WHY wedo it, and what the ultimate goal of the’Theory of Everything’ is - this phrase


(quite amusing to the particle physicinsiders) is meaninglessly arrogant toother scientists, and just meaningless tothe general public. We need a betterarticulated goal.

• Subject of high energy physics and itsoutput is hard to understand for com-mon people and politicians. We shouldtry to show people how the big highenergy physics experiments have ben-efited common people.

• Personal contact (including casual con-versations) changes attitudes in a bigway. If every high school student hada chance to see the big picture in HEP,then even the small amount of cover-age HEP news gets in the popular pressmight be enough to maintain interest.

• 1. Physicists must urgently understandthat the language and methods of infor-mation distribution in the communityand in the rest of the society differentand that we must learn also the otherlanguage even if the other language mightlook trivial. Triviality is a tool in pro-motion. Use it instead of reject it. Weknow that we can do better so don’tthink too complicate. 2. We need bud-gets for promotion, real independent bud-gets. 3. We must use much more pro-motion professionals in strong relation-ship to the community. Physicist witha hand for the public could build thebridge. Encourage them and give themmoney. You know promotion investiga-tions usually come back but not alone.

• Most of us do this job because it’s fun.We need to communicate that spirit offun to kids, both to promote our publicimage and to promote kids’ interest inlearning how things work.

• Get a unified agreement to phase outone lab, in the course of the next few

years. Needs real leadership - and strongprodding from young physicists.

• The amount of outreach in USA is fairlyadequate compared to that in develop-ing countries, which statistically pro-duce majority of researchers world wide.

• If we decide to build a new large facil-ity then educating the public and thepoliticians on it’s importance will becrucial. I personally think that we empha-size the spin-offs from our research toomuch in some cases. We should havesome goal of promoting fundamental researchas being important in its own right.

• Most of the funding or big scale experi-ments comes from the government. Weshould do more efforts to attract peo-ple from other areas. We have accu-mulated enough technological and sci-entific knowledge that can be applied tobring immediate benefit in other areasand to society in general. Society forsure, will give us back all our efforts

• It is almost too late.

• Saturday Morning Physics-style programsor physics road shows to teach high schoolphysics students about HEP/physics ingeneral should be implemented every-where! This could also help draw moresmart young people into physics.

• We have to understand that, as any com-petitor for general interest, we have toput more manpower to marketing (out-reaching efforts) than to production (research).The ratio of 1:50, as it is currently, hasto be changed to 3:2. Nobody can sur-vive who has a domination of produc-tion costs.

• Much more important than press releasesabout work which the general public usu-ally does not understand at all are con-tinuous low-level efforts like days where


the labs are open to the public, publicseminar series, and co-operations withschools and science teachers.

• I am not at all interested in ”outreach”in the sense ”convince everyone that whatwe are doing is wonderful and impor-tant and give us more money”. I emphat-ically believe there are things that arefar more important and worthy of fund-ing than HEP, and I find some HEP”propaganda” rather overblown (and philo-sophically illiterate). I do think it isvery important though, that we try toexplain to the public what we are doing;make the science comprehensible. Inmy opinion, our contribution to ”cul-ture” is as important as anything else.

• First, find out whether anyone outsideof HEP really cares about our resultsand plans. Can you answer the ques-tion: ”Who is interested in what I do?”If the answer is simply ”others doingthe same thing”, then look around forsomething else that could be done. Muchof the outreach I have seen has focusedon telling our message. We need tospend more time listening to what theirquestions are.

• Streamline access to policy-makers andcongressional / senate staff. Host itemsof public interest (e.g. planetarium, pub-lic observing telescopes, displays, etc.)at the national labs and encourage cre-ation of tourist-oriented visitor centers.

• Figure out how to speak and write forthe general public and the press, insteadof other scientists

• We need to have a continuous generalpublic education effort, and rely less on”the big discovery”, since the latter areextraordinarily rare these days.

• I feel that more effort should be madeto inform the general public about the

nature and the goals of particle physics.I an convinced that some budget limi-tations that are being experienced noware to be put in relationship to the factthat the public opinion is skeptical aboutthe fundamental research on particle physicsand little keen on pouring money intoit. Strength should be put on the tech-nological fallout made possible by R&Din particle physics.

• There was a recent issue of Time mag-azine which had an article on the endof the Universe - it spoke about thehistory of the Universe, including men-tion of dark energy and the implica-tions leading to a Heat Death predic-tion. I thought the article was well writ-ten and informative. Today, I saw let-ters to Time in response to that - notonly was there much ado over how depress-ing this outlook is, there wasn’t under-standing of what the alternative possi-bilities are expected to be. This, whilereally a question of cosmology, is to mymind indicative of the problem. Wephysicists often succeed in showing newdiscoveries and such in light of previ-ously understood phenomena; but werarely succeed - and often don’t seem toattempt - to show those same discover-ies in the context of related research. Asearch for the Higgs is interesting, butseems a foregone conclusion when thereisn’t statements made about competingtheories.

• Outreach is very important but hardwork. Open house every year would bea good start. Invite politicians/ Congresspeople.

• Tours and open houses of laboratoriesand experiments are often helpful. Peo-ple of the general public for the mostpart really like the ”gee-whiz” aspectsof our work that we may sometimes takefor granted. An article written for a


local paper (not a letter to the editorcomplaining about low funding) or inter-view with a local journalist about yourcurrent project can go a long way togenerate local interest and support. Con-gressional support is important, but ulti-mately we really do need grass rootssupport. There will always be somepeople who feel that basic research isa waste and the labs should be closeddown,but while these people are a smallminority, they tend to be vocal. Mostpeople haven’t thought much about basicscience one way or another and we oughtto make sure that those of us who sup-port it are heard too.

• Britain has some nice Science Fairs atHigh schools.

• Stress importance of HEP research resultsand possible impact on everyday life

• Physicists both at labs and universitiesdevote a great fraction of their time andresources to teaching, mentoring, writ-ing textbooks. This should be countedas public outreach. ”Outreach” is mis-leading because it implies an inside andan outside. The truth is, we are all inthe same boat. Our research is publiclyfunded because it is done in the publicinterest.

• Tell the truth about HEP. It is a cul-tural activity to discover the nature ofmatter. It is not done to create spin-offs or cure cancer. That type of stuffkilled the SSC.

• Astrology is much more widely acceptedthan the big bang among the public-this is a problem!

• Currently working as lead mentor fora QuarkNet center at my home insti-tute. This is a great program, but onlya start. More needs to be done to con-tact students and the public at all ages.

• There has been visible progress in theHEP outreach effort - programs like QuarkNet, special events at Snowmass are goodexamples. Frequent interactions of fac-ulty with local congressmen etc shouldbe encouraged, increased emphasis onthe society benefits from the by-productsof the HEP activities: web etc, trainingof highly employable people ...

• Programs like QuarkNet and CROP shouldremain strong. Outreach programs likethat run at Snowmass are excellent andshould be encouraged. Whenever a HEPmeeting takes place, there should be anoutreach activity included. be

• The record of HEP in getting the pub-lic, and therefore the lawmakers, inter-ested is abysmal. I believe we need majorefforts to overcome this, including per-haps a popular science magazine dedi-cated solely to HEP (a la Sky and Tele-scope, Astronomy, Discover, etc.).

• Outreach is the key to get more fund-ing. I try to do it on every possibleoccasion and would like to encourageyoung physicist to engage very activelyin science fairs, local school gatherings,talking to your local newspaper people,publishing articles in News bulletins ofyour labs and universities. I am notashamed to act like a used-car salesmanif it brings extra funding and extra pub-lic knowledge to our field. This is whatNASA does very well.

• More frequently inform administratorsand political leaders on science statusby direct formal and informal contacts.

• The public will listen to us if we havediscoveries. Without new results it becomesharder to get attention and funding.

• I am a tour guide for SLAC; it is myexperience that some people come toSLAC as skeptics or cynics about the


justification for our work, but after amere 2 hours of questions and site-seeing,they are overwhelmed by a sense of pur-pose and importance. It is inspiring tome to know that it is possible to takesomebody with some doubt in their minds,and simply by showing them the laband talking to them about physics theyare convinced that things shouldn’t beotherwise!

• I think we need to think this throughfrom the beginning. We are startingwith a product that is complicated andhard to market. We may need to patientlydo a huge amount of education. Theremay be no quick fix.

• I think we definitely need to spend moretime/effort/money on outreach. It isextremely important to educate the pub-lic about our work. This is true both inthe interest of gathering future publicsupport and simply to bring the excite-ment of science to more members of ourcommunity. In order to promote thisprocess of outreach, there must be recog-nition of its importance and of the peo-ple involved. The method of fundingsuch work must improve also. For exam-ple, currently the DoE does not allowuniversities to spend DoE money on edu-cation or outreach. This makes no sensesince they are funding people/programsat educational institutions. Currentlytheir mission statement does not allowfor such expenditures; however, this mis-sion statement could be (and should be)changed to allow such activities. Wecould also take our cue from other scien-tific institutions who maintain extremelygood public and congressional relations.NASA, for example, can! crash Pathfinderinto MARS and still get money fromCongress to continue their work. Andthe general public still thinks that NASAis doing extremely exciting and neces-sary work. Unlike HEP, NASA spends

between 2 and 4

• I don’t really know what folks in theU.S. are doing these days as far as out-reach. However, it is extremely embar-rassing to hear of press conferences beingcalled to pre-announce scientific resultsbefore scientific peers have even had achance to see the results. (Cf. CDF,Babar, Pons&Fleishmann). This prac-tice should be discouraged, via funding-agency pressure if necessary.

• Need to provide a broader base for devel-oping ideas of how to involve the gen-eral public better in physics goals.

• I’m still in school, so outreach for meisn’t an option. Congress as well as thegeneral public are largely in the darkwhen it comes to science due to howlittle science is taught in our schools.So I feel much more emphasis on theimportance of science should be givenin schools (at all levels) such that thenext generation of ”the general public”will” will know it’s importance.

• I used to be a SLAC tour guide – andfound that the people taking the tourwhere very positively impressed with theactivity at the lab. Perhaps such pro-grams should be expanded, perhaps viaTV. And sending physicists to schoolsfor brief lectures.

• Outreach already represents a signifi-cant consumer of resources. Seems tobe ”reasonably” successful at fundingagency level. If activities are to be increasedmaybe this should be done by appoint-ing full-time staff to be most effective.

13.5.2 Outreach Organization:

• The largest problem is that even withincreased “outreach”, our message getslost when we don’t speak with one voice.


Too many divisions or local battles withinthe field are fought in public forums (eg.funding agencies). It’s difficult to get alay-person excited if they are frequentlyhearing a dissenting voice at the sametime.

• I feel that the HEP community presentstoo fractured a face to the funding agen-cies. It is necessary to unit behind some-thing to help in the funding. I feel thatthe general public is very much out oftouch with what we are trying to accom-plish. I have offered to donate some ofmy time in the answering of questionsfrom the public that come in throughthe FNAL webpage.

• Regional outreach organizational mightwork in the same way as indicated abovefor research centers.

• Physicists who are not working with alarge fraction of the time on commu-nication with the public need guidanceon how they can use limited time effec-tively. Some people must devote a largefraction of their time to organizing thiseffort.

• Need for a better control/managementover the huge projects our field requires,in order to avoid shameful endings likethe SSC... Get people to like physics:tough job, but it’s the only way.

• It is incredibly hard to explain HEPphysics to the general public, and doesn’tcome naturally. Courses in graduateschool or workshops on public outreachwould certainly help. This would helpfund-hunting, too.

• We are badly lacking in leadership, ingood communicators spending almostfull time in Washington and in deal-ing with the public through TV, OPED articles. We must raise the level ofrespect for the future Carl Sagans. We

should surely join with other disciplinesto keep a Neal Lane type in Washingtonworking for science. We should award asignificant prize for the best op ed arti-cle in a local newspaper etc.

• We need Carl Sagans and should try todiscover, support and reward them.

• Important to focus more outreach on”decision leaders”. Outreach to generalpublic is important in principle, but isnot a primary path to strong supportfor funding.

• Perhaps more organized ways of con-tributing to outreach could help. I thinka lot of people are willing to commitsome time, but would need to make alarge time investment to get anythinggoing from scratch. Some way of allow-ing people to contribute a little here andthere could really help, and contribu-tions could really add up (a bit the wayproviding bins so that recycling is easyreally promotes recycling!)

• We need to develop training material touse for outreach. This provides a con-sistent and clear message.

• We need training programs in outreach.Too many of us really don’t know howto do it.

• We need more coordination of outreachefforts. We need information on how to”plug-in” to programs which work.

• I would do more outreach if I had bet-ter guidance as to how to do it well. Weshould strongly encourage those who havethe talent for it.

• Hiring people just to do outreach workwould be useful.

• I think people with good communica-tion skills, who have wide general viewof HEP, should do more to popularizeHEP and physics science.


• Outreach should be done by those whohave a talent for it. The rest of usshould give them support and recogni-tion.

• I already spend some time on outreachactivities. My observation has been thatmany who do little or nothing will do agood job if asked. Part of the activ-ity of outreach activists ought to be inrecruiting and organizing capable expo-nents of the sciences who are not suffi-ciently self-motivated to seek the oppor-tunities to connect.

• It’s hard for us as physicists to explainwhat we do in an accessible way. Itwould be good to get people who aregood at explaining (such as science writ-ers) and really get them informed/involvedin the experiments, such that they canuse their skills but actually have theknowledge of the topic to get things right.

• This cannot only be done by a few ”pro-fessional” spokespeople. We have to getmore of our colleagues involved in thevarious ”outreach” activities.

• This is not my forte so would be a wasteof resources for me to reach out to thepublic. Specialists in this area are needed.

• I recognize the importance of these things,but I personally am not that excited bythem. But there are many people in ourfield that are, thank goodness.

• We need to stop talking about outreachand start doing it. People want to doit, but don’t have the support needed.Efforts should be coordinated and adver-tised to build support and excitement,and so that our culture values and rewardsoutreach efforts.

• It’s not only the question of time toinvest. It’s (in my view) the task ofthe ”HEP management” (whoever this

is in the various Labs and countries)to create the infrastructure for outreachactivities (institutionalize public events,visitor days, school and university con-tacts, etc.). Some such activities aregoing on, but they are mostly pushedby individuals.

• Rather improve quality/ coordinationof outreach efforts than quantity.

13.5.3 Value of Outreach:

• The problem with outreach is that itisn’t part of the job. Faculty don’t getpromoted because of their work educat-ing the general public. At best, it is alittle extra - but if the basic researchwork isn’t enough to stand on its own,outreach won’t push one over the edge.And it takes time and talent and, prob-ably, instruction to do well. Question23 - I put ”maybe,” but the answer reallyis ”yes, if it becomes a real part of myjob” and ”no, it isn’t an official part ofmy job which is already very demand-ing, and I don’t spend enough time withmy family now.” Note that I do a fairamount of outreach now!

• Outreach should play a role in decidingtenure/ permanent positions.

• RECOGNITION BY THE LAB/ UNI-VERSITY MANAGEMENT: outreachactivity should be spelled out on eval-uation reports, and be integral part ofthe career path.

• We should value outreach more in thisfield! One example is to give physi-cists an extra vacation day for every twoweekend days that they spend doing out-reach (such as Saturday morning physicsat Fermilab, etc.). Actually, this exam-ple could work for any Fermilab employee/ user who is able to give tours/ lectureson the weekends. In general, though,


we as a field should spend more timeand resources educating the non-physicists.

• To increase outreach, management mustprovide working time for such, for thosewilling to help.

• There has to be a mandate from theagencies and the university/ academiccareer structure to recognize and fosterthese activities. Doing more with lessis getting ”old” and ineffective.

• Perhaps mandate some level/ form ofoutreach for different career levels.

• Outreach is the duty of tenured faculty.

• As a postdoc doing theory I do not havetime for anything other than research.The reality is that selection criteria inthe field depend only on the quality/amount of research. If I dedicate someof my time to outreach (in principle anice and respectable thing to do) thenI produce less research = my chances ofgetting a next position/ postdoc decreaserapidly. Clearly if the system does notchange then I do not see how theorypostdocs can be expected to do out-reach.

• Most people are already overcommit-ted. To spend substantially more timeon outreach, they need to have otherduties lightened. Universities could lightenteaching loads, labs could lighten otherservice work. There are only so manyhours in a day, if people are going tospend substantially more time on out-reach, something else has to give.

• For large experiments, public outreachmight be a recognized service task (maybethis is a bad idea, but it’s worth consid-ering). What else can we do? I don’tknow. To a certain extent, we alreadyknow what to do, but we just don’tdo it. What’s required is more of a

cultural shift within the community sothat public-outreach is seen as more valu-able. As it is, outreach is seen as some-thing that you do in your spare time.

• I would personally be willing to dedi-cate more of my time to outreach, if itwould be also count as much as writinga scientific publications.

• If my career uncertainty were not sostrong, I’d be much more willing to dooutreach. As it is, I feel such effortsdetract from doing things that make mevisible to hiring committees.

• HEP needs better marketing! But out-reach doesn’t pay off for one’s personalcareer.

• I already have dedicated much time toCongressional outreach (2 trips with SLUO+ UEC to D.C.) but am constantly amazedat attitudes of my colleagues when Itell them of my involvement – typicalresponses are ”That’s not doing physics!”.They often don’t understand the impor-tance of these activities.

• I already do a lot of outreach, but reg-ularly get belittled for that effort byfaculty, and ESPECIALLY other grad-uate students. Physics grad studentsand postdocs need to get over them-selves and realize that those ”C stu-dents” in the labs we used to teach arenow the staffers of Congress determin-ing how much funding we get.

• Outreach or die.

• I consider outreach as an integral andimportant part of the faculty position.I will dedicate my time to it when Ibecome faculty.

• Outreach is important, but young peo-ple are not rewarded for this. In fact,in can be detrimental to their careers.On the other hand, the older crowd has


failed to do a good job. I am in a quandaryas to how to deal with this.

• I might do some outreach in my Coun-try instead of in U.S., just to have moretime at the Lab when I am in the U.S.

• Those who do outreach should not beoutcasts. This is an essential part ofour future.

• We need to create incentives for out-reach and obtain an outreach line-itemon the DOE budget.

• Yes, but this effort should be paid aswell, since it is an essential part of thetask of the physics community. I amastonished that most efforts of U.S. labsinto this direction are completely volun-tary. In this respect, CERN seems tobe far ahead when is comes to outsidecommunication.

• Outreach to the public has to be appre-ciated more. So far, it is more consid-ered a personal hobby but it seems notto be adequately appreciated within thescientific community.

• Those doing outreach at university don’tget the recognition of those doing theresearch and bringing in the funding money.

• Outreach to public best done by tal-ented individuals - very important, butmuch HAS BEEN ACHIEVED over lastyears - I can’t do more or quality of mywork would reduce - worse end of stick.

• I’m saturated with outreach activitiesalready.

• You didn’t ask how much time I spendalready. I spend a LOT of time already.

• I already spend an extensive amount ofmy time on physics popularization. (alot more than most of my colleagues).

• I already spend a lot of my time engagedin public outreach, and usually enjoy it.Probably that is also a measure of howmuch one should do...

• I already spend a significant amount oftime in outreach. Let us also not for-get that teaching is one of our mostsubstantial forms of outreach. Whenwe leave students with the impressionin our courses that physics is a deadfield concerned with inclined planes weensure our future...

• My contribution to outreach frequentlyconsists of writing letters to Sci Ameri-can, NY SciTimes, American Scientist,Physics Today, Atlantic Monthly, SanDiego Union Tribuen on topics from whetherPluto is a planet, the play, Copenhagen,to cosmology. These letters rarely getpublished! I’m doing as much as I can.

• I admire my colleagues who perform out-reach activities. I recognize my impa-tience in these endevours, and find itvery hard to participate. Outreach isvery important - it is just not somethingthat I’m good at.

• I have volunteered to help out with var-ious outreach programs. When I haveworked I have gotten primarily positivefeedback, and yet they rarely seem toask twice. Other people have told meof similar cases.

• Science seems to be in the lift again.Nevertheless, persuading the public ofthe interest of physics remains impor-tant. However, being a physicist has nostatus.

13.5.4 Schools:

• More researchers should spend time doingoutreach to local schools. Shape chil-dren’s attitudes when they are impres-sionable.


• The American public does not have agood knowledge of what HEP does. Thisis especially a problem considering thatscientific literacy in the public and Congressis fairly low. More public lectures, labopen houses, education- oriented HEPweb sites are needed.

• Let’s get schools involved. Let’s makeit a standard to have each student visita physics lab once in her/his lifetime!Funding is important, but I care moreabout the general public.

• Reach to the children.

• I think we should help high school teach-ers to make physics lectures more inter-esting with videos, public lectures, smallexperiments, visits in the labs, etc... Atleast here in Europe, physics is thoughtpretty boringly, without much attemptto excite the natural curiosity of youngpeople. And of course if one starts as astudent to consider physics boring andabstruse, it is very difficult he/she willchange mind later on.

• If we expect funding for our field, weneed to do a better job of getting ”good”and exciting science in the hands andminds of the general public. Studentsneed to develop their enthusiasm andinterest at the K-12 level. We need towork with High School Physics/Scienceteachers. We need to be more pro-activewith promoting physics to our congres-sional representatives. Letters and vis-its to congressmen.

• Education starts in school. School physics(and science in general) education inthis country is pathetic, especially forthe enormous resources the U.S. has.Talk to any European and they will tellyou that any time. This should be oneof the messages to the Congress, andthe public at large. Quarknet seemsto be a good beginning, but its success

remains to be demonstrated. Unfortu-nately, it takes a generation to changepublic’s attitude...

• On QuarkNet I’ve hired two high schoolstudents this summer, and all I hopefor is that they tell their friends theyworked in the Physics department, didgood work and were paid a lot.

• Support high school teachers to do researchon HEP experiments in the summers.DoE used to do this, but quit. I workedwith one of these teachers and was veryimpressed with his enthusiasm and hiscontributions to the project.

• Bring in more high school, college stu-dents and high school teachers to uni-versities and nat’l labs during the sum-mer.

• We have generally been a dismal fail-ure when it comes to getting our caseout to the public and to Congress. TheSSC debacle is the best recent exam-ple. It is not clear where to start, but itcertainly would not hurt to have a bet-ter science educated public in general,and that starts in the public schools andwith the public school teachers.

• We need to do outreach right, not nec-essarily more. For example several hun-dred thousand people/ year take intro-ductory physics. They are sitting in aroom with a physics prof for about 100hours. Do we do anything with thiscaptive audience?

• Outreach needs to cover all age groups.Today’s K-12ers can be tomorrow’s physi-cists - but only if we manage to getthem interested in physics. Otherwisethey miss out on the excitement whilemaking lots of money...

• Request to NSF & DOE to provide fund-ing to minority-serving institutions who


are trying to establish a HEP researchprogram at their institutions. Providefunding for HEP research in South Texas,a region with the largest number of Hispanic-American population in the United States.NSF/DOE have traditionally focused onHEP funding to mainly Ph.D grantingresearch institutions, leaving out the non-Ph.D granting minority institutions. Thismust change.

• Outreach to the public is too importantto be left to the HEP field. The physicalsciences need a coordinated approachto this issue. My personal opinion isthat most of the effort and funds shouldbe expended where it will multiply theeffect. That, to me, dictates an empha-sis on training teachers at the grade throughhigh-school level and less effort on sin-gling out gifted students or students fromdisadvantaged groups.

• HEP as well as other great modern physicstopics need to be put into the Fresh-man Physics curriculum, which is wheremost people in the general public getthere life’s worth of physics education.

• Basic science education in schools mustbe improved worldwide. If the scienceteachers are good, the subjects are taughtin interesting ways, the public and politi-cians interest and support will be a freeadditional benefit. Go to the schoolswith the best people!

• Outreach is important and has the great-est impact when targeted at educators.If we prepare kids in school for the intel-lectual and abstract rewards that HEPoffers, then and only then will they (andtheir Congresspeople) be receptive toother forms of outreach.

• An effort in media-ization of particlephysics is needed to gain the interestand maybe support of the public. Somepopularization at the TV needed maybe.

But the most important may be to con-vince high schools to include a sensibi-lization to the questions of science intheir school programs.

• Outreach means more than asking formore, which it seems is all we really do.As far as public education is concernedwe should be in the schools far morethan we are.

• An indirect and very long term way tohelp guarantee funding is to ensure ascientifically literate populace. One placeto start is to help educate those whowill become primary education teachersto be good at and, hopefully, enjoy sci-ence. Such an attitude can help reducethe uncool perception of an interest inscience, particularly among young girls.I do not know exactly how to accom-plish this, but I suggest looking to othercountries, especially Japan and Korea,where the educational systems may notbe ideal, but young people are muchmore receptive to science and there seemsto be much less stigma in being scientif-ically literate. These investigations arenot directly a job for physicists, but weshould be involved.

• I am a part of educational outreach already.Introducing HEP to the classroom is ahigh priority of my collegues and me.

• I already do some outreach — teach-ing various physics courses in local uni-versity’s adult education program – mycourses are specifically tailored to adultnon-physicists who are interested in learn-ing more about what’s going on in mod-ern physics.

13.5.5 Reaching Funding Agencies:

• The funding outreach has been spotty.Some districts do very well others makeno attempts at all.


• I think a wise investment would be acoordinated lobby effort, with liaisonsstationed not only in Washington, butalso at each of the labs. Those stationedat the lab could ”rally the troops” andhave the sole responsibility of organiz-ing support for Congressional petitionsand developing a good repoire with localofficials. Those stationed in Washing-ton could be our voice.

• We need to work much, much harder onmembers of Congress. They are appallinglyignorant. We are appallingly inept inour dealings with them. Recently HEPAPhas done something good, ie develop a”briefing book” on the example of NASA.I think we spend a lot of time and effortin outreach to the public, and I don’tknow that it does much good. We lackpretty pictures; histograms don’t excitethe public’s imagination. I don’t knowhow to solve this problem.

• Hire lobbyist to deal with the legisla-ture. Seek advise from advertising agen-cies.

• Hire lobbyists in Washington. Individu-als should meet congressmen more often.

• We need to get far more physicists inter-ested in lobbying the government to sup-port science. In parallel, we need torestore our reputation among the moreinfluential sectors of the general public– this will be very difficult.

• Somehow, we have to get money.

• Seeing your Congressman is important,but we should take a lesson from theAMA, Gun Lobby, etc. and employsome more professional help to get themessage across. This could be financedthru the large Professional Societies andshould be broader than just HEP.

• It seems clear to me that the currentCongress has little appreciation for the

value of basic science for feeding thecountry’s economic ”engine”. It is imper-ative that we work harder to make thecase for strong support of basic researchboth to the Congress and the generalpublic. Of the G-7, the U.S. is one ofthe lowest per capita investors in basicresearch and unless we can make progressin influencing Congress of the value ofthis research to the long term healthand competitiveness of our economy, itwill be very difficult for us to play aleading role in HEP in the future. Wemust expand our interactions with mem-bers of Congress and the public to makethem aware of the value of this researchand the impact that their budgetary actionshave on the continued viability of theseprograms.

• A great deal of effort has, and is, goinginto outreach. It is necessary, but I amnot sure it is effecting Congress (wellthe HEP budget has been flat for a decade).Hard go to convince the public and theCongress to support HEP.

• I simply do not know if we as a field aredoing enough to ”outreach to fundingagencies.” I know I could do more.

• You can’t wait until you need money tostart doing outreach. No one believesthe words out of your mouth when youhand is outstretched at the same time.HEP is a tool of foreign policy. CERNhas amply demonstrated the values ofscience as a way to encourage nationsto work cooperatively together for thebetter good. The U.S. needs to under-stand this.

• This is a tough problem, given that thefunding techniques used by the U.S. changesand the funding of other countries isquite different.

• Keeping the public informed about theresults of the use of their money for


HEP is mandatory, not optional. Physi-cists should lobby Congress to earmarkfunds for this purpose, or strongly encour-age the funding agencies to do so. Thecomparison of how well people know aboutwhat NASA does with their money towhat they know about what HEP doeswith their money is not accidental. It isbecause High Energy physicists in gen-eral do not communicate well, so theanswer is not to put High Energy physi-cists on outreach, but to put profession-als on the job like NASA does, and payfor it.

• MOVE THE APS MEETING BACKTO WASHINGTON.

• In order to do outreach on the levelrequired to make a significant impactthe funding structure must be changedto allow resources to support these efforts.

• I don’t think that high energy physicshas much clout on the political end; asfor public interest, it doesn’t seem to bevery high; I think the field makes itselfa little bit inaccessible in general; cloutwill come with interest, though I don’thave many thoughts on how to engen-der an interest in it, other than con-tinued efforts to inspire human interestin the fundamental constituents of theuniverse.

• Have better people in the DOE Officeof Science. Rosen & O’Fallon are poorcommunicators with OMB, Congress andphysicists in the field.

• To maintain funding levels we must com-municate with the people why we shouldbe supported. If the people don’t sup-port the science the governments of theworld have every reason to continue toapply cuts, slowing existing projects byyears.

• Since it’s a fact that the governmentcaters to the desires of corporate Amer-ica far more than to the concerns of thepublic, we should step up our effortsto get the so-called ”power lobby” inour corner. The role of public outreachshould focus on attracting bright peo-ple to our field (and retaining them) inorder to ensure a healthy future.

• Do not neglect outreach to corporations.

• HEP has failed to answer adequatelythe question of WHY society should payfor HEP. The reason for this is that noone in HEP has learned enough aboutrecent social science research to be ableto understand the long term impactsthat HEP is likely to have - especiallythrough future career switches by seniorphysicists now in HEP - and how toexplain these impacts to Congress andthe public.

• The public would be far more support-ive if they knew what we were doing.That has to happen before they can beconvinced it is worth their tax dollars.

• Many of my friends and acquaintancesknow a little about HEP (usually byassociation with me) but few folks I meetknow what the HEP labs do or why thisresearch is important. We, as physi-cists, need to sell our field more to thepublic and garner their support beforewe can ask Congress to increase supportfor the field. Particularly now when weanticipate building a new facility withan expense of many billion dollars.

• I think the government would embracephysicists and their projects more if theyincluded as part of their project out-reach to the general public. Politiciansoften don’t understand what the returnon their investment is, which allows themto rescind their funding much more eas-ily. I feel strongly about the commit-


ment we ought to have to educating thegeneral public about what we do.

• Write your Congressman. Write the localpaper. Tell them what you do and whyit is important. Have open houses atyour local university. Invite your repsto visit your favorite national lab. Aboveall, realize the public is interested in sci-ence and isn’t stupid.

• I believe that the recent coupling of pub-lic outreach to funding is a disaster thatneeds to be overcome. It is naive tothink that any election result is likely tobe much influenced by the question offunding for particle physics. The politi-cians need to understand the long termbenefits of funding basic research. Thegeneral public should also be taught thislesson but that is a huge effort whichhas more to do with the education sys-tem than efforts on the part of physi-cists.

• What is the difference between ”not nearlyenough” and ”far too little”? SSC hada very strong public outreach programin K-12 education. This served the roleof helping the country as a whole toimprove science education, and it alsogave name recognition to the project.Doing more of this would be good, butDOE has restricted the use of funds mak-ing this tricky. Labs might use somelimited discretionary funds in this man-ner, but the scale may be wrong.

• Consider allocating funding explicitly foroutreach. In particular, well paid andlarger PR groups in the national labswould be a good start. However, donot neglect the important influence ofthe universities.

• Outreach in a sense can never be enough.However a balance has to be found forthe time spent on these activities. In

general however labs / funding agen-cies have to realize that outreach costsmoney, and have to be more willing tofund such activities.

• I am not well enough informed. In fun-damental research, independence from”money givers” is vitally important!

• Society gives us as much funding as itunderstands of the reasons of our research.Thus, if we don’t do the job of inform-ing society of the importance of whatwe are doing, we should not be aston-ished about the lack of funding we receive.

• HEP needs to work out moral evalua-tions of how much money / effort thepublic should be asked to donate to theuncovering of given pieces of knowledge.e.g. is the supplementary knowledgethat an NLC could provide worth $5-10B? Perhaps the public could be involvedin the process.

• We need to come up with a better planfor selling HEP research to conserva-tive administrations. We need to show-case not only the ’sexy’ physics, butalso immediate (or near-immediate) appli-cations of developed technologies. Wealso need to show how the U.S. willlose much more than just the scienceedge if U.S. HEP funding continues tobe below the rest of the world commu-nity.

• I think many scientists regard the moneywe get from society as something due,and I think it’s wrong. Our societiesare making not negligible investmentsin HEP and we should be able to explainwhy (even if it is more a cultural thanpragmatic reason).

• There are many claims on public moniesand we do not have an entitlement. Itis absolutely essential that we explainour claims to both the public and thefunding agencies.


• The community needs to understand thatbillion dollar facilities are too expen-sive to be an entitlement for scientists.Our gloss from the atomic bomb is longgone, and we are viewed as just anotherconstituent group which wants moneyfor its pet projects. We need to get themessage across that fundamental research,even if it doesn’t make a better mousetrap, is very important to the futurehealth of the scientific and technologicalbase on which our modern prosperity isbased.

• Physicists of the present generation tendto feel entitlement. The world owes thema living for their hard work. My gener-ation (over 70) never felt that way andall of us fought to keep the budget up.We must get support from UniversityPresidents as we had for FNAL in 1965and as we had at the start of SSC (butwe lost it by the end).

• We need to completely eliminate theidea of entitlement so ingrained in theDOE. Both at the agency and grantlevel, people think that they should receivebasically the same funding that theygot last year. This has got to change.NSF is better in this regard.

• The relationship between globalizationand outreach to funding agencies shouldbe carefully considered. The agenciesneed to be sure they will get somethingfrom the investment.

• Two comments: 1.) I do lots of pub-lic outreach in addition to working withstudents. 2.) Although I believe weshould keep our funding agencies, Congress,etc. well informed, I don’t think weshould expect too much from this. Wetend to be rather arrogant in thinkingthat once people understand what weare doing, they will give us 100% oftheir support. This is unlikely in the

face of tough decisions that funding agentsand politicians must make.

• This has to come from each of us; are weworth the public support? I VISITED19 congressional and senate offices lasttime in WDC making this case - Orches-trated formated contacts come across asphony at least to me. Do YOU havevision of our role in U.S. society as ascientist and the importance of the sci-entific enterprise?

• I have absolutely no experience reach-ing out for money. There are peoplewho are very good at this even thoughthey are primarily physicists. Maybethese people should get a full-time posi-tion seeking funding.

• I frankly cannot judge if enough out-reach to funding agencies exists; it isevident though that this outreach is notsufficiently effective.

• Outreach to the general public is by farthe most important in the long term. Alot more needs to be done to open upand justify future projects. If we havetrouble justifying the cost of a futureproject, then this suggests a failure onour part rather than the ignorance orstupidity of the public.

• It just happens that I am in almost dailycontact with Congressional aids. Thisis not a steady state.

• What it takes to reach the funding agen-cies has not really been done and it relieson a creative idea of a few. A seri-ous systematic study of what it takesto get the level of financing and inter-est from the Congress does not seemto have been taken yet. The effort ofinformation to the general public is notrelying in real knowledge on what ittakes to get the general interest and isstill driven by a somewhat aloof atti-tude (big progress has been done though).


• Spend more money on it so we can geton-going national outreach programs.

• We need more federal funds spent onscience. Present government has squan-dered the surplus on a huge tax cutfor the wealthy rather than investing inthe nation’s future. This is the funda-mental reason U.S. pure science is indecline. That includes HEP.

• To maintain a dynamic equilibrium inthe field, we need consistent and pre-dictable funding. Similarly, if the fieldis to grow, we need a well-defined fund-ing profile which will allow for realis-tic planning. Even if we are going tolose funding, we need a realistic profileso that we can plan effectively. Unfor-tunately, the U.S. government lacks ahistory of accurately projecting futurefunding levels, and seems to have littleinterest in doing so.

13.5.6 The NASA Model:

• Learn from NASA; attract topmost peo-ple in science to public work.

• NASA and biology is much more adeptat getting results (even ones that arenot truly ”new”) reported. Even whatwe consider the most mundane HEP resultcan be presented in a way to the public.The APS should do better in this.

• NASA does a good job at outreach. Weshould try to emulate them. But it iseasy to say that we should do more out-reach, and it is even easy to say that Ipersonally would be willing to do moreof it (although I already spend someof my time on that). There are someobstructions that need to be overcome.One is that DOE specifically prohibitsthe labs from the type of outreach andPR that NASA has. Another is thatthere is a general culture in HEP that

could almost be called anti-outreach, orat least ”outreach is fine, as long as Idon’t have to do it”. This inhibition isoften quickly forgotten when it is timeto publish one’s somewhat over-hypedresults in the New York Times.

• NASA and the Hubble Space Telescopeare good examples of groups that havereached out to the public. It will benecessary for high energy to do this ifit wants multi billion dollar support.

• Emphasize what has been learned about”inner space” and tie it with the cos-mos. NASA has good public awareness,even though they’ve had some well-knownfailures. HEP does not. Astronomy ismore glamorous because the sky is rightup there for all to see. Maybe we oughtto hire a Madison Avenue PR firm.

• NASA manages to make much of lit-tle, e.g. showing glitzy computer ani-mations of the Ulysses probe flying bythe Earth. As scientists we tend to shunglitzy presentations, but these roman-ticized presentations appear to work ininspiring the public’s imagination. (e.g.the merit-less International Space Sta-tion is handily gobbling up a budgetof a size comparable to the canceledSSC.). We need another Carl Sagan’s”Cosmos” to do for HEP what he didfor astronomy.

• NASA has shown over the years how itis possible to convince a broader publichow important and in the national/globalinterest it is that a resourceful civilizednation support basic research. We’ll haveto learn how to bring our concerns tothe public in a way that convinces oth-ers that we are talking about the publicconcern. Nobody enters our field just to”make a living”, or to ”make money”.Let that message sink in, and let us tryto convince the public on whose payrollwe work, that we are doing it in their


best (defining understandably what ”best”means) interest. This is by no meanseasy, but it is clearly incumbent on us.

• Get more physics into the news media.(NASA seems to do well there.)

• If you want to see outreach, watch whatthe astronomers do.

• Astronomers beat HEP physicists handsdown when it comes to outreach. Whathave we done to compete with a Hubblepicture?

• Follow the example of astrophysics whoare more efficient in their outreach.

• HEP has got much to learn from theoutreach work carried out by the largeastrophysics project laboratories plus NASAetc..

• I already spend a significant fraction ofmy time on outreach activities. Thebig problem is that it is difficult to pro-vide the public with easy to understandvisual images that can compete withastronomy.

• I think that this area is probably theone most neglected by the communityas a whole. We should really make aneffort to understand issues like” Whycan NASA get funding for a $100B spacestation, while there is a feeling that a$5 B project will somehow handcuff ourfield? What is it about the space pro-gram that captures peoples interests?Can we capitalize on that curiosity tohelp promote our field? What needs tobe differently? I have several ideas onthis subject. First of all, there seems tobe a perception that taking some timefrom research to spend on outreach willbe detrimental to a young physicists career.We need to understand as a community,the value of outreach, and make surethat it is recognized when decisions are

made about hiring/tenure/ etc.? Weneed to try to appeal to the public/Congress on a more visceral level. Itis one thing to explain the importanceof basic research. However, these kindsof arguments seldom seem to have thesame effect as showing someone a beau-tiful picture of a supernova from theHST. More thought needs to be put towardsunderstanding how can we best capturethe beauty and excitement of our field.

• We must figure out how to do outreachto the public as effectively as the astro-physics community does. Without thepretty pictures, this is at least difficultand maybe impossible.

• The field of particle physics could becomethe field of particle astrophysics. Thesum of HEP + astrophysics funding +coordinated outreach to the funding agen-cies could equal more than the currentbase for HEP + astro.

• Above is for astrophysics, which (as waspointed out) ”captures the imagination.”Astrophysics gets a lot of press, and theastrophysics community seems to havemore people willing to interact with thepublic. I feel it is important that thepublic get the chance to interact with”real scientists” – all too often we dependon the press to mediate interactions whichthen become all too far removed fromwhat we are actually doing. Scientistsare real people and should be capableof communicating results to the public(where often they are incapable of com-municating even with their colleagues).I dare say they even have a responsibil-ity to do so.


on Outreach:

• More U.S. specific questions.


• Not relevant for foreigners.

• This appears to only be relevant to U.S.physicists.

• Seems like ”we” means USA here?

• Answers apply to Europe.

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

• NA, I am not an American citizen.

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

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

• Question 21 is naive. Reaching higherlevels at DOE and reaching OMB is asimportant.

• The answer to question 21 requires alevel of political understanding that nei-ther I nor, I suspect, 99% of the physicscommunity has.

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

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

• ”Not nearly enough” and ”far too little”mean the same to me! Outreach (bothto the decision makers and the generalpublic) is clearly extremely important.However, I’ve declined to answer thissection because as a European I havelittle knowledge of what is done in theU.S.

• I think you need to make a clearer dis-tinction between lobbying and educa-tion. I’m not sure it’s appropriate tolump them together as you do here -outreach to funding agencies is reallyis a political question and should be

treated as such. Simply educating yourcongresswoman or -man about your neato-science doesn’t translate to $$$, and weshouldn’t expect it to.

Comments on Building the Field 116

13.6 Building the Field

13.6.1 Timescale for Projects:

• The field is aging and young people areessential for the new ideas and perspec-tives that they can bring. I am afraidlimited budgets the extended time thatyoung scientists spend considering howto secure their next job reduces the over-all vitality of the enterprise.

• It’s frustrating how long it takes to par-ticipate in and get data from an experi-ment. The scale is now 10 years/ exper-iment. If you’re unfortunate to be nearthe beginning, you may never get to seeany physics data!

• As an undergraduate myself, the mostdisconcerting aspect of particle physicsis the time investment required of thescientists. They talk of the VLHC beingfinished in 2030?!? I’ll be fifty then!Unless something changes, young peo-ple are going to be turned away becausethey don’t want to be locked into a path.

• Hey. Everyone knows we can get morecash in other work. We still go into thisfield because we like it. I can trade offpay for doing this - it’s great. How-ever, the time scale of these large exper-iments is getting too large to continueputting PhD’s through as we are doing.Universities need to think about theirrequirements for PhD’s - otherwise howcan anyone think of entering things likethe LHC right now if they know theyprobably won’t get a university-requiredpublication for 7-8 years ?

• I think the ever increasing size, cost andtimescale of experiments is driving peo-ple away from the field. Unfortunately,this is not such an easy thing to change.

• A mixture of astrophysics + accelera-tor based physics in a single field could

encourage more young people to enterthe field. 5yr-time scale astro projectscould balance 20-yr time scale new accel-erator based projects.

• If the field is not making much progressin physics then it will not be excitingto young physicists. (Your options forquestion 28 could have included ”inad-equate rate of physics progress”.)

• Lack of control – What do you tell a stu-dent now who sees that we are alreadydesigning or building machines (LHC,NLC, VLHC) that will span the next30 or 40 years. If the machines areset, then the questions we wish to askhave already been decided. Yes, youcan make an impact ’inside’ an alreadyagreed upon direction of physics inquiry,but there will be no opportunity duringthe span of an entering student’s careerto embark on a new track and actuallysee any result.

• Long project cycles are a big problem.

• In question 28, I worry about the verylong time to mount an experiment andto get results, relative to the 5 years astudent should spend in graduate school.

• No facility! Time scale for results.

• Experiments take too long.

• Bad Morale: Growing size of and timescalesfor experiments are putting larger pre-mium on social-group dynamics that rewardthose who are more politically savvy. Inan environment that already makes itvery difficult to have some semblance ofsecurity, this inevitably lowers morale.Such an environment also suppresses orig-inal/creative thought that perhaps can-not be expressed well at its inception.This then drives a somewhat ”mono-lithic” approach to the science.


• I think people are also influenced to leaveby the lengthy and uncertain timescalesfor future projects. I doubt that theaverage time to get a Ph.D. in HEPis significantly different than in otherareas of physics. But under even themost optimistic scenario, a linear col-lider, for example, is still at least tenyears away.

• Management is also a very big issue,and more than salary, it is the imagethat you need 5-7 years of postdoc (addi-tional servitude) before becoming a sci-entist. It is hard to justify being 34-40before starting a tenure track position.

• Long time scale of experiments from con-ception to first publishable data.

• The pace of discovery in HEP has slowedconsiderably in the last decade and hasprobably discouraged young researchersfrom pursuing a career in HEP.

• The time from entering grad school tobecome a faculty member is a way toolong. Each step, i.e. grad student →

postdoc → faculty is very important;but the phases are too long. Shortageof permanent job opportunities are toblame.

• The pace of discovery has been too slow.

• Large time scale of HEP projects mayinfluence young physicists to leave thefield.

• Duration of big experiments is approach-ing human lifetime. In this prospectivea HEP experiment is no better thanwork in a company, with lower salariesand long hours.

• As an ”old geezer”, I’m not a good ref-erence for these questions. What I findmost discouraging for young physicistsis the fact that the time scales are so

long that they cannot see a whole exper-iment. They gain very little hardwareexperience, and we may end up with anew generation which could not build anew detector in 2025 even if given theopportunity. Additionally, the inputsstudents have in an experiment is verylimited. Rather, they have a hard timedoing anything but work in a corner ofthe big picture and use a large amountof hard- and software which they don’tunderstand at a fundamental level.

• Large experiments imply large collabo-rations and also imply a long time betweeninitial proposal and final published results.For persons to feel they’re contributing,the time has to be less than 5 or 6 yrs.

• Slow rate of innovation plays an impor-tant role in many people’s disillusion-ment with the field.

• Another feature that would influence meto leave the field is the amount of timeit takes to get funding and then to havethe experiment completed.

• Although personal reasons drive this themost, the biggest concern is that theremay be no physics out of a new post-LHC facility for 25 years. A young per-son coming out with a PhD in parti-cle physics today may wonder if *any*machine will be built after the LHC.The community needs to come to a deci-sion about what to do after the LHCon a time scale that is not beyond thecareer lifetime of a new PhD graduate.Postponing the start of construction ofthe next e+e- collider until after theLHC would result in many young peo-ple leaving the field.

• The length of time in graduate programsis also a negative factor for many stu-dents.

• The total amount of time new parti-cle physicists are required to spend in


grad school and then on post doc posi-tions is just not justified. It feels as if itwas a way for universities to find cheaplabor...

• Main concerns: long time needed to grad-uate and to establish yourself; limitednumber of permanent positions. We needto speed up promotion of the best youngtalents in the field, increase rotation atthe management positions, operate withmore realistic schedules.

• The length of time spent in graduateschool needs to be minimized, yet thestudent should still get both hardwareand software experience. They need notwork on one experiment from start toend. Perhaps they can work in accelera-tor physics for hardware experience andeven analyze data from previous exper-iments for software experience. Thereis certainly a lot of good data out therethat could be analyzed. I think if grad-uate school is not so long (∼ 5 years orless), then the issue of pay afterwards isnot so bad as you start earning moneyearlier in you life. But it must be clearthat there are permanent jobs that areobtainable on a reasonable time scale.Not being able to get ”tenure” until oneis in their mid to late 30’s if pretty crazy.One is typically trying to raise a familyat that point and to have so much atrisk that late in life is not a good thing.Perhaps the whole system of tenure needsto be re-evaluated.

• When I think about my future after fin-ishing my last degree the biggest rea-son for leaving HEP is the collabora-tion sizes. Another factor is that thetimescale between experiments is so long.Running ATLAS for a bunch of years,and then building a super-dooper-NLCjust doesn’t seem that exciting. By theway, what was the deal with questions25 and 26??? Lifestyle/Hours, possibil-

ity of fame, allure of working in a HEPlab??? You’ve got to be kidding, right?

• The biggest problem we face is the lengthof time required to mount & performexperiments. This, coupled with theneed to establish a ”physics” reputationin order to get a permenant job, drivesmany talented people from the field.

13.6.2 Leadership and Large Col-

laborations:

• HEP moves too slowly and in the USA,leadership is lacking.

• Field desperately needs more leadership,fewer useless meetings.

• It is important to have scientific leader-ship which present a balanced and focusedphysics program for young physicists.Current sociology in HEP is too fad-driven.

• Lack of vision and leadership from seniorpeople, and the reluctance of youngerpeople to assume the role.

• Lack of jobs and weak management hurtthe field.

• I believe that the deplorable state ofpresent management is the main rea-son for young physicists to leave thefield. The lack of professionalism in theworking place, as well as the incompeti-tive salaries and lack of growing oppor-tunities are merely consequences. Thefield simply is in dire need of influentialpeople with vision. With the decade+timescales for new experiments, scien-tific spin-off needs to be implementedby design in every stage of development.

• We are losing many of our best youngpeople due to poor management (bothin the experiments, and at the nationallabs).


• Lack of permanent job opportunities isclosely connected with weak manage-ment.

• Some problems: oversized, over man-aged collaborations with too little impactof every person; uncertain future (employ-ment, continued viability of field, open-ness to new directions).

• There has been too much politics in HEP.Good/best persons often are not rec-ognized for their contribution. Manypeople take credits without doing work.Too many people just promote their stu-dents, employees and friends.

• Regarding young physicists leaving thefield: one comes with the idea of work-ing to understand nature’s most inti-mate workings, and discover (s)he is themost insignificant gear of an enormousmachine whose control is often dictatedless by physics motivation than polit-ical/ sociological/ budgetarian/ sched-ule, etc. reasons.

• Most of the problems in question 28result from the poor management I selected.

• ’Weak and unstructured management’- a new form of international manage-ment is needed. Otherwise the fundingand the plans for extended facilities willbe refused by any society.

• The main problem is the existence ofan aging generation of physicists withpoor managements skills and overcom-mited to many projects. As a youngphysicist I hate to see all these profes-sors in the mainstream academic insti-tutions to waste millions of tax-dollarsto improve their political positions anddo unauthorized research. Things candrastically change if: a) vanish tenurepositions b) hire managers/ physiciststo manage money and people c) force

university groups to handle graduate stu-dents and postdocs as physicists in train-ing not cheap technical manpower d)teaching professors not allowed to beinvolved in research projects while theymaintain teaching obligations or admin-istrative tasks in their universities. Skill-ful and talented people are leaving fastwhile the old guys are proud for elimi-nating the competition. Finally, youngphysicists should worry about the prob-lem of thousands of people putting theirnames in experiments that they do noteven know what the initial mean. Itshould strictly discourage university teamsto split peoples time into multiple projects.

• The working atmosphere in HEP haschanged. With larger collaborations,the amount of ”corporate politics” hasincreased. It’s not a large group of smartpeople working together anymore butrather may small groups scheming fortheir particular interest. Academic free-dom is diminished, it is almost impossi-ble to do research in a non main streamfield and succeed. Having to put upwith this makes ”normal jobs” that arealso by far better paid look more attrac-tive.

• Current generation of HEP’ists slowlyadopt to new globalized working condi-tions. Once we managed, collabs will bevirtually smaller. So that’s fine. BUTas long as people still think that HEPis about bombs we’re in trouble. See”outreach to schools”.

• My first publication had 6 authors mypresent publications have over 400 authors;my LHC publications will have over 2000authors, and precious few of them areyoung physicists.

• Question 28 is a guess (that large col-laboration sizes is the biggest influenceaway from HEP), but I hear people talk-ing about that the most. There’s less


glory. But rather than playing that aspectdown, we should consider it an inter-esting twist: not only are we study-ing nature, but we represent an innova-tion in the way physics is done. Com-municating well and sharing work seemalmost counter-intuitive to us (our majorproblem here, myself included, is a ten-dency to border off a project and takeit over completely). There are a lot ofthings that established organizations domuch better than us (organization, lesscomplete dependence on any given indi-vidual, managing personality conflicts,etc.) — we’re still beginning to learnhow to merge organization with physicsgoals. And if we can do this on a world-wide scale, physics will be less of a beastplodding along accidentally and moredirected toward human needs and ratio-nal goals.

• The number of people we retain in thisfield is appropriate. The problem is thatwe don’t retain the best people. Oneof the problems with large collabora-tions is that it is the politically savvyones who tend to stand out and arerewarded. We keep people who giveslick talks and lose people who actuallymake experiments run.

• I see people leaving my experiments sothat they can have more control overtheir lives. Being a cog in a large projectoffers little stimulating professional devel-opment, and can leave the most tal-ented looking for an area where theycan have impact and control. Old guys(like me) should develop, encourage, thenempower the young. Don’t expect themto be junior colleagues for the next 30years.

• Large collaboration sizes are a bad thing:since joining D0 (I was on a smallerexperiment before) I have been amazedat the amount of effort which is spent

on management and politics. Not that Ithink D0 is over managed but large col-laborations need this overhead and itsnot really what we are here for. It alsomakes it far harder to affect the courseof the experiment in a big way: thereis too much inertia with large groups ofpeople and you are unable to try outsome ”neat thing” you just thought ofwithout extensive justification. These”neat things” could lead to importantdiscoveries ... or they could be a com-plete waste of time but large collabo-rations are generally less likely to takerisks.

• People leave because the factors thatbrought them to the field are no longerthere. These I think are scientific curios-ity and a sense of being able to con-tribute in a meaningful way. Large col-laborations deprive people of their abil-ity to feel part of a scientific effort. Theyrather feel as part of a group in whichtheir contributions lack any individual-ity and are simple submerged into thegroup effort.

• The greatest concern physicist are fac-ing and the major reason they are leav-ing the field is the general decay of HEP.Lack of experiments. Poorly plannedexperiments, based on political decisionsand non on physics potential. The con-sequences of all these (loss of funds, lesspositions, long time for obtaining results).

• You need to create social organizationswith which people can identify. No onebonds to a group of 500 collaborators.The typical ant colony aspect of collab-orations in which there are no mean-ingful social organizations below that ofthe collaboration is a real killer in termsof getting people to hitch their wagon tothe work. Also, the field needs to getover the idea that the only worthwhilelife is one in which one is married to


the field. You need to create an atmo-sphere in which people believe that it isa good experience to have and then tomove on.

• I think that large collaboration sizes andlength of time spent in grad school bothdeter pursuit in HEP for some students.I understand the appeal of working in asmaller collaboration in a different field.Also, the uncertainty of future fund-ing for projects (as they are often tiedto governmental whimsy) creates somesense of job insecurity for some students–of course, this is unavoidable in mostfields of physics.

• Problems which I have seen hurting thegrad students include: Isolation: Some-one gets stuck in a ’job’ which takesyears to finish, and does not experiencethe other aspects (and people) of thefield. Politics: In a huge collaboration,there is no connection between servicework and research opportunities. I’veseen topics divvied up according to theprestige of the advisors rather than theinterests and capabilities of the students.Prospects: There are only so many tenure-jobs possible in academia without vastlyincreasing the number of students tak-ing physics. There are only so many’permanent’ jobs at the national labs.The experiments require many more peo-ple than there are prospects of perma-nent jobs for. Despite the reported charmsof being able to slip from job to job,those of us with families see problemswith that lifestyle. No, most of thesehave not hurt me; I just mention whatI’ve seen that looks serious.

• Young people will leave the field if itpersists on emphasizing politics, and otherextraneous factors, rather than science.

• I think people like being in HEP becauseof the academic and somewhat anar-chistic atmosphere. They are willing to

get paid less in exchange for the increasedpleasure of their work. HEP is movingin a less anarchistic management style,and this is causing some of the betterpeople in the field to leave. They thinkthat if they are going to have to dealwith a rigid business environment any-way, why not go somewhere else and getpaid more?

• I think that the size of the experimentsis a disaster in that it reflects the over-whelming problems we try to take on –and do a poor job of solving. Much ofour physics results actually does not getpublished because people simply cannotreach the data – because they are work-ing in an unprofessional manner and aretoo arrogant to believe that they can betaught better by a non-physicist. Optionsare to have a better idea or accept thatthings cannot always be hacked together.The lack of professionalism results in avery discouraging and depressing atmo-sphere.

• Working in a big collaboration, whereyou don’t even know your collaborators.

• Personally I think when we have 2000people on an experiment, we have toomany people. To keep more people thefield has to have a clear vision of whereit is going and why. I think that is miss-ing right now.

• In large collaborations most young physi-cist work as part of a team doing a tinyfraction of the experiment, so: a) do nothave an overall knowledge of the experi-ment b) do not feel they work as a ”sci-entist” c) there will be a lack of lead-ership with broad knowledge of experi-mental HEP in the near future.

• The collaboration size in itself is not aproblem. The huge amount of time con-sumed by secondary tasks like comput-ing and organization is annoying.


• If collaborations become too big andthe individual has less impact, a com-pensation in form of early positions andbetter salary is needed.

• Long-term projects of large collabora-tions should be cut in smaller pieces togive students a chance to making a con-tribution.

• We need more flexible solutions in termsof positions. I would also like to see amuch more professional management ofthe people, for instance reward the onesdoing an outstanding job (and NOT bygiving them even more tasks to do!!!)but also sanction the ones not perform-ing correspondingly! So far, the lat-ter class of people do not directly feelthe consequences of inadequate perfor-mance, but rather their jobs are givento the ones working very well!

• Poor management comes in a very closesecond. A more professional environ-ment with fewer egos and less beauracracywould help to drive fewer young physi-cists into industry. The salaries willnever be competitive, so the environ-ment has to make up the shortfall.

• Giving adequate acknowledgement of indi-vidual excellence without mixing in pol-itics of institutions, etc.

• Although I do not expect to stay inphysics in a direct role, I do think itis important to retain most students.Money is an issue, and as for HEP, Iknow many people are concerned aboutthe enormous collaborations. A friendwas recently making fun of Physics NobelPrizes because there is a perception thatHEP Nobels, at least, really go to thebest manager, rather than the best sci-entist. Fair or not, this attitude canbe corrosive for highly talented studentswho do not have an interest in admin-istration.

• Question 28 is difficult. I have cho-sen management [at all levels] becauseit’s responsible for the other woes. WeMUST find a way of giving the youngscientists more responsibility at an earlyage - I was running my own group twoyears after my Ph.D.

• Young physicists leave (or are upset atleast about) for the unscientific way deci-sions are taken (”politicking”) , and bypoor management of scientific projects.Kicking and boxing is felt to be moreimportant to obtain a good permanentposition rather than scientific qualityand correctness.

13.6.3 Salary and Benefits:

• I think salary and the bureaucracy inher-ent in large collaborations are the driv-ing factors in physicist attrition. I don’tsee any way to resolve these issues.

• Salary is no doubt another factor. Asoftware professional earns much morethan a Physicist, and the nature of workhe has to deal with is nowhere as chal-lenging as Physics ... I can say this withconviction because I worked in softwarefor 2 years.

• Postdocs last too long and salaries aretoo low. If you have a family, it is almostirresponsible to stay in the field becauseof such low pay.

• I do not believe a young physicist cansupport a family on his/her own.

• Lack of financial security.

• Postdocs need a 50% increase in salaries,junior faculty need a 30% increase. Seniorfaculty need a 20% increase.

• Low pay in academia is a major minus.

• VERY long working hours, stress andlack of financial compensation.


• I think the salary situation is more impor-tant than most people give it credit for.I for instance do not know if I can stayin HEP any longer and at the same timehave children to support. I may have tosacrifice my interest in academia to beable to support my family.

• The salary issue is a big issue, as the jobis also very long hours, and few bene-fits. To encourage people to work inthe field, probably the most effectiveway would be to emphasize the valu-able experience, and the travel opportu-nities. To get and retain the appropri-ate technicians/ engineers, I think thatsome sort of career structure is the mostpressing need.

• A professor working in HEP is synony-mous to a poor person! Intellectuallyis so exciting but it is very difficult tomake ends meet. The young people seeit immediately and only if they are inde-pendently wealthy they don’t bring upthe money issue.

• With $100k starting salaries common-place in high-tech and other industries,who will wait for a department to decideon offering you a postdoc position whichneeds to be renewed every other year?Departments need to commit to longerterm contracts with reasonable benefitsand speed up their hiring process.

• Lucrative dot.com jobs caused talentedHEP physicists to leave the field.

• Money will always play a large role inthe retention of any field. If a persondoes not have the right personality, theywill have a tendency to go where themoney is. The best way to improveretention is through the recruitments ofgraduate students and targeting thoseat the beginning that would be morelikely to stay. Circumstances can always

change this but I don’t feel there is muchmore to be done.

• Salaries are no longer competitive, assaulton the institution of tenure continues,postdocs who are in their 30’s are earn-ing teenagers salaries.

• Let young people know about the goalsand tools of HEP physics. Then it’sa ”personal path” to HEP. To stay inthe field, permanent jobs and adequatesalaries are necessary. This is what con-cerns me the most.

• Also for question 28, lack of permanentjob opportunities may cause young physi-cists leave.

• I can stay in physics and work 12 hours/day 7 days/ week for a grad studentgrant. Then I can go into industry andmake piles of money for less time, orI can stay in physics as a postdoc andstill work 12h/d 7days/w and get lessthan half the money. I would love todo a postdoc, but I dont want to do it24/7 and given the lure of industry, itlooks like I will leave the field.

• I think you have to accept that the allureof cash will always draw away a largenumber of talented physicists. Futureissues - money and the diminishing pos-sibilities of independent work.

• I was attracted to HEP because the peo-ple were exciting and intellectually vig-orous, and the field seemed fundamen-tal. I think young people leave the fieldbecause they don’t see a clear careerpath line. The opportunities don’t lookgreat, and the salaries don’t justify aso-so job. Better to have a so-so job inthe software industry and make lots ofmoney. I can’t blame them.

• Most new PhDs in physics I know havemoved away from physics research as


a career, either to pursue jobs with ahigher starting salary or because theywere no longer interested in pure research.However, few of them have expressedregret about studying physics. As well,even if not all new PhDs stay in physics,there seem to be enough who want tostay to fill the positions available.

• Money. The skills we acquire wouldearn us serious money in, for example,the computing industry. Given the real-ity of working in HEP, i.e. sat in frontof a computer for vast portions of theday, well ...

• Wish I knew ? Increasing the salariesmust help.

• Lack of permanent job opportunities cou-pled with low salary is critical combina-tion. CEO change positions often, buthave sufficiently large salaries to makeit viable.

• The funding for life sciences basic researchwas doubled over ten years. We need todo the same.

• Salary questions. Very hard to get some-where in large collaborations. Difficultto get tenure and financial support.

• Many go to computing for money.

• When I was starting out, I had confi-dence that the field would be fundedin a steady, rational way. I think theSSC cancellation and the scientific igno-rance of Congress and the administra-tion trouble young people who balancea HEP/academic career with opportu-nities in the private sector.

• Salary seems to be the most cited rea-son for young physicists leaving the field.However, I am convinced that this wouldnot count so highly if those physicistshad not first become disillusioned withthe working environment. After all, they

must have known at the outset that thiscareer is poorly paid, but still made thedecision to join. I am in a minoritygroup, being both female and a matureentrant to the field. The issues whichhave led me seriously to consider leav-ing have been the working conditionsrather than the substantial salary I couldearn outside. The field is most defi-nitely male-dominated and aggressive innature. Everything is geared to point-less races and competition, both intra-and inter-collaboration. I despise theinternal politics and petty power games,and had expected so much better of anacademic environment. In academia,if nowhere else, we should reasonablyexpect a meritocratic system.

• While lack of a competitive salary mightbe the main reason for young people tomove, I do not think we can compete inthat area. Instead, we should aim at thesmaller group that leave due to lack oflonger term positions or general tired-ness of the big collaborations. Thoseissues can be solved maybe by havinglonger contracts and by giving regionsmore power in experiments. Many peo-ple grow tired of the micro-managementwhere all decisions have to go aroundthe top of the collaborations.

• You might like the physics, studyinglong years helps you to keep believingin what your are doing but one day youmight be bored eating noodles and livepoorly waiting for a post. The modernlife could give you a better way of liv-ing.

13.6.4 Attracting Students to HEP:

• HEP is an extremely hard sell to incom-ing science students. You tell them thatyou can expect to spend 6-8 years ingrad school, earn little money as a post-doc and then have absolutely no job


security. Why not just go straight toindustry? Retaining talent is a real prob-lem that I worry about.

• It’s very hard to attract the best peopleto a field that is contracting, and thathas no clear long-term path.

• I do not believe HEP really has a prob-lem with finding and keeping talentedpeople.

• Considering the number of new machinesand accessible problems, there may betoo many people in the field.

• Some more manifest excitement in thefield, particularly evidence for physicsbeyond the Standard Model (not count-ing the neutrino sector) would do themost to bring the best people in. Butwe can’t just order that up, we needsome help from Nature. Still, we canvisit classrooms, and speak at other venues,to try to convey our own excitementto members of the general public, andespecially to children, who generally havemore of that initial spark of curiosity.

• We should not try too hard to attractyoung physicists and in any case tellthem that it has become very difficultfor an individual to make a sizable con-tribution in our field.

• There’s no doubt that we are losing tal-ented people to industry. However, giventhat we still find enough people to fillout thousand-member collaborations, andthat faculty openings still generate aflood of applicants, I can’t argue thatthe field is under-manned. On the otherhand, it’s clear that fewer grad studentsare coming into the field than in thepast. I’m not so comfortable with theidea of aggressively recruiting more –that may lead some to make unfoundedpromises about the future growth/ finan-cial support of the field. Those that aretruly interested will find us.

• I think we are training too many peo-ple to be high energy physicists. Whichmeans we should reduce the number oflarge experiments we are conducting.

• One thing that seems obvious is the fieldis over crowded. So increasing the gen-eral funding in a way that increases thenumber of experiments and the salariesis very important. The HEP commu-nity has recently taken two steps in theopposite direction by shutting down SLDand LEP. There are now very few choicesavailable for graduating physicists.

• Attracting grad-students to HEP meansmaking travel less necessary. In an Amer-ican grad-school you typically spend ∼

2 years taking classes before you startresearch. During that time you buildfriendships and maybe find a significant-other. The latter is very important, b/cfrequently this is the person you’ll endup marrying. Students do consider thiswhen deciding to go into the field. I cer-tainly considered it, and I know othergrad students who decided against join-ing HEP for these reasons.

• This problem is a critical one for thecontinued viability of the field. If we arenot able to continue to attract talentedyoung people into this field, we will notbe able to sustain a strong program.From my viewpoint there are severalproblems needing attention. First, theneed for permanent jobs in the field.As the current faculty at universitiesapproaches retirement, it is importantthat some of these positions go towardhiring the next generation of researchers.Second, the uncertainty of our long rangeplanning process and its vulnerabilityto rapid course changes due to the whimof Congress. When young people seeprograms like the SSC shutdown andNASA funding shrinking, it indicates tothem the uncertainty of continued fund-


ing in these programs and they lookelsewhere for future employment. Wemust find a way of making science pol-icy in the U.S. that can be reviewed/approved by Congress but that has time-lines longer than a few years in order toallow large projects the ability of beingcompleted. Our European colleagueshave such a system and as a result theyhave been able to take the lead in build-ing several important HEP facilities overthe decades of the 80s and 90s.

• The field is interesting and that shouldbe emphasized. Working for 40 or soyears in most other fields of work is notnecessarily attractive, even if the paymight be better.

• Salary and benefits being an attractionto the field? You’re kidding, right?

• A bright vision and a happy spirit of(future) accomplishments will attract them(especially those who might also be attractedto biology, computers, etc.) Permanentjobs are needed to keep them, of course.Also substance behind the vision.

• You catch them by giving well struc-tured and ambitious lectures. You keepthem by helping them produce good resultsand creating a team-like work atmosphere.

• The mixture of freedom, large scale inter-national collaborations, and intellectualchallenges is what attracted me mostinto the field. I think we have to giveyoung people more of a perspective thatthey can have a career in physics afterall. This means more permanent jobshave to be funded, and overall moreflexibility is needed in employment ofpeople.

• Communicate the excitement; ensure solidand diverse post-graduate opportunities;be willing to cede control downward tonewer folk.

• It would appear that one is getting moreresults of broad application more read-ily in areas like genetics engineering andmolecular biology, also computer science.It is my personal belief that particlephysics theories are not all that attrac-tive in their present, very complicatedform. Simpler theories are needed. Easyto say, hard to do. But these are thelines along which I’m working, in cos-mology as well as particle physics.

• Particle physics appeals to people whoare driven more to discover new thingsand to have freedom and variety in theirwork than to make money. That is prob-ably as it should be.

• To be honest, I have very little con-cern. I am convinced that within 10years, new fundamental discoveries willbe made. If it were not to be the case inthe coming 15 years, I would certainlyleave the field of HEP! What makes aresearch field interesting, in addition ofits intellectual content, is also the degreeof exchange and of live inside the com-munity. On that respect, HEP is stillin pretty good shape!

• Many interesting options available toyoung physicists. To attract to/retainin HEP must address the work environ-ment: salary, permanent jobs, intellec-tual challenge, and personal quality oflife. Too much time spent away fromhome base can interfere with success atuniversity or other base and also withfamily life.

• We CANNOT build another cutting edgemachine unless we have VERY BRIGHTyoung HEP physicists working activelyon accelerator physics. We cannot there-fore sustain our field or achieve our goalsunless we change our attitudes. We mustnot continue to allow R&D work to bean automatic career dead end. Further-more, the best physicists are well rounded


people who understand their instrumen-tation AND are active in data analysis.

13.6.5 Availability of Permanent

Jobs:

• Right now for software developers, theindustry provides better opportunities.In the long run, the possibility of a per-manent position is the main issue.

• More permanent positions !

• The only way to encourage talented youngpeople to enter and stay in the field isto have more permanent job opportuni-ties. Period.

• In my experience (35 years) physicistsleave HEP when they cannot get a decentposition. A few leave for a better job(higher salary, startup, etc.) On theother hand, it would be a mistake tocreate a large number of permanent jobs... a budget downturn would stop allnew construction.

• 1) Lack of permanent jobs, plus strongdrain from industry (we are employable)2) We need to remember HEP trainingis applicable to a wide variety of careerpaths, NOT JUST ACADEMICS!!!

• The biggest problem young physicistshave with our field is the very uncertainnature of its future coupled with theobvious evidence of the lack of growthover the last decade. Uncertainty plusrecent stagnation are deadly for peoplemaking choices about the future.

• At least to me, as a young graduatestudent, by far the scariest thing aboutHEP is the apparent shortage of per-manent positions. This is fueled by thelack (at least on my part) of a con-crete idea about how hard it is to geta permanent position. Unfortunately,it seems like to do HEP you have to be

at a major university or a national lab- small universities just seem not to beinvolved or are not welcomed.

• I have seen a significant number of young,extremely talented physicists leave theHEP field because they could not obtaina tenure track position. I see this as aresponse to the narrowing of our field,and as a continuing repercussion of theclosing of the SSC. I believe this is adifficult problem that goes all the wayto Congressional support.

• There are not as many permanent jobsavailable as the number of graduatingresearchers. So most of them are even-tually forced out sooner or later. Onthe other hand considering the kind oftraining they get, they find things eas-ier elsewhere.

• I believe nowadays it looks almost impos-sible to be an HEP (young) physicistand have a family. This is due to thenot so much competitive salary but aboveall to the lack of permanent job oppor-tunities. Nobody can tell what she/he’sgoing to do in a couple of years afterher/his PhD ... and many people arenow taking two postdocs ... having atleast 5 years after graduation to spendaround ... without any guarantee of apermanent job. I feel it is very frus-trating and many people leave becauseof it. Outside HEP after having gaineda PhD we get great job opportunity,maybe not that permanent but so manyand so well paid that the situation doesn’tcompare with the academic career! Espe-cially pursuing the academic one, aftera couple of postdocs a physicist is prac-tically out of the market for other jobsbecause of her/his age! This is verybad, nowadays it looks like a faith/vocationalchoice ... choosing physics no matterwhat. That has to be changed or youngphysicist will keep leaving the field.


• The lack of permanent jobs is in myopinion as important as the lack of com-petitive salary.

• The number of permanent jobs have tobe increased. Often young people spendhardworking days as graduate studentsor postdocs and still have no promiseof a secure future. So, naturally theyleave the field. Salary also is an issue,though not so major I think.

• I’ve been told at every step of the way,from when I decided what my interestwas as an undergrad that I’d better notget my hopes up for actually working inthe field. I don’t know if its a matterof getting people to stay in the field somuch as getting people OPPORTUNI-TIES to stay in the field.

• Lack of permanent positions seems tobe the dominant reason for leaving thefield when it comes to young HEP physi-cists that have proven to be very goodphysicists. Salary reasons are broughtup more by ”average” candidates. Myguess is that more permanent jobs - atthe intermediate level between postdocand Professors - would benefit labs anduniversities greatly.

• Permanent job opportunities are extremelyimportant and there are many exam-ples of how people stay in the field fordecades without a stable position. HEPcommunity anyhow pays these people,but nevertheless they do not have a guar-anteed future. I think that young peo-ple have to be convinced that there areplaces for them and the rest depends ontheir work.

• Lack of permanent job opportunities INA PLACE WHERE I WOULD WANTTO LIVE. (In a city– not in a suburbor the middle of nowhere.)

• My biggest concern is that the outlookfor permanent employment in HEP in

the U.S. sucks. People will stay if therewill be permanent job opportunities.

• If I leave the field it’ll be because I couldnot get a job.

• I think that the greatest problem fac-ing young physicists, and this includesmyself, is the apparent lack of long termjob possibilities in HEP. I really enjoythe work, but for right now I don’t seemuch of a future for myself in HEP, andthis is largely due to the fact that fund-ing does not seem great enough to sup-port a large influx of new HEP scien-tists. I am very interested in job secu-rity and I don’t see that right now.

• The lack of permanent jobs should berelated to the need for good teachers insmall colleges and universities and needfor regional centers.

• Permanent jobs have to be given at anearlier age. It is unacceptable to letyoung people play ”Russian Roulette”till the age of 40. If at that age a researchcareer doesn’t work out, it is too latefor changing to industry. Also, accept-ing the usual combination of mediocresalaries and outrageous working hoursrequires a lot of idealism.

• The field does not have ANY organi-zational effort to make sure a balanced(wrt hardware, software, management,analysis skills) set of people get a fairshot at the limited set of permanentjobs. There is little perception of fair-ness or good sense in promotion results.

• Young physicists leave due to lack ofperceived future for the field.

• We need to come up with a long-termvision of the future of the field. With-out that, I think that young people willlook elsewhere for interesting problemsto work on.


• More job security and more opportu-nity to have major roles in large collab-orations.

• I’m actually an astronomer (wanted todo that since I was 5), but work on cos-mic rays led to work on more HEP-liketopics. So, I sorted of diffused into thefield. Lack of permanent jobs, and thecorollary that the temporary jobs paya lot less than similar jobs in indus-try (particularly the computer field) iswhat has sucked away many good peo-ple.

• Job opportunities and the future of thefield as a whole seems shaky at best.

• Too many good, young physicists arenot able to find positions in Academiaor at Physics Labs. If the job marketwere better, they would be attractedto graduate school and Post Doc posi-tions, but the opportunities appear tobe dwindling. It’s important to haveshorter-term physics projects that canmeet the time scale of a graduate stu-dents or postdoc. Having a few big exper-iments with long lead times is self-defeatingbecause it erodes the possibility of agraduate student or post-doc to makea noteworthy contribution (esp. beforethe analysis is finished).

• The permanent jobs need to occur afterone postdoc not three or four.

• More permanent positions, maybe evenfor people without a Ph.D.

• The job market is a joke especially inEurope!

• One simple important change to ensureyoung physicists have the possibility ofpermanent positions is to very stronglyencourage retirement of older physicists.Since this cannot be forced in the U.S.,it must be done by example (e.g., Hans

Bethe retired at 67). Those who are orwish to remain active should seek theemeritus status on a competitive basis.

• All jobs in theory are occupied by stringsguys; they act similar to Napoleon’s idea” there is only one way to achieve goal:promise more and more and do not full-fil them, but instead promise more”.

• NSF has effectively terminated university-group Research Scientist positions; thisis a disaster, both for the field and forthe individuals. We need more physi-cists than can be justified as teachingfaculty, and they should be university-connected, with long-term job security.In medicine, engineering, and social sci-ences, such positions are plentiful andsecure; in HEP in particular, with therequirements of long term presence atremote laboratories, such positions aremuch more relevant and important.

• We need fair access to job opportuni-ties, not just those with connections.

• Many young physicists see how hard itis to get a permanent position. Whenthis is balanced against lucrative pri-vate sector salaries the choice many makeis obvious.

• Lack of clear career paths to allow indi-vidual young scientists to contribute uniquelyto the field.

• Again, we need job opportunities to encour-age young people to do theory in sup-port of experiment.

13.6.6 Leaving the Field:

• The issue of most concern to me is howa young physicist and his/her familybuild a life beyond physics, includingwhen and how to leave the field, whetherat or after retirement or through an ear-lier career switch. I raise this issue because


I think that the greatest societal con-tribution of HEP is provided by highlyaccomplished HEP physicists who switchcareers to address major societal issues(even if only part time, as in the case ofSid Drell and his work on arms controlissues.)

• It must be stressed that EXPERIMEN-TAL HEP is a fantastic training groundfor lots of jobs. I have had studentsstart up programs in medical physicsreactor safety medical imaging businessconsulting ALL do well. Their train-ing in HEP has taught them to thinkfundamentally, deeply, work in a group,think about the latest technology ANDhave fun. Those who are lucky enoughto get rewarding jobs in the field haveother rewards.

• The question should be how we can encour-age young people to do work in HEPand then leave the field? HEP experi-ments need large numbers of grad stu-dents and postdocs to successfully buildand run an experiment, but there arenot enough permanent positions for themall. The field needs to specifically addressthis fact so that young physicists aren’tsimply used as cheap labor.

• We need to restructure / reface the PhysicsInstitution. There is STILL an over-whelming mentality that doing physicsis elite, and that applying the skills else-where is a betrayal. No one likes that.By accepting and training people in thefield and then LETTING THEM GO,we form an immediate base of ambas-sadors, sympathetic supporters, etc. inall professions!

• Don’t scorn those who leave after a PhD.Use them as a resource. If students real-ize that a PhD in HEP can lead to agood job, in HEP or not, then they willconsider it a viable option. The physics,

intellectual atmosphere, and challeng-ing problems that exist in this field cancaptivate students, but they must feelthat all the work will pay off with a job.

• The jobs in the field simply cannot sup-port all the young people who enter gradschool. Thus, we should not write off allyoung people who leave HEP as ”fail-ures”. Trying to keep more physiciststhan there are jobs makes conditionsworse for those who stay.

• Why are young physicists leaving? Alack of a coherent vision in the HEPcommunity, and a sense of abandonmentof public interest after the SSC.

• One frustrating thing about the field isall the whining that has been going onsince the cancellation of the SSC. Weneed to get over this and move on.

• I’m switching to medical physics indus-try after I graduate. I have lost interestin HEP and in being a post-doc.

• HEP in the U.S. took a shot in the headwhen the SSC was terminated in thefall of ’93. The future is very bleakbeyond the LHC. Post-LHC, there is (inmy opinion) no sensible physics justifi-cation (viewed in terms of cost to build)for a U.S.-based NLC or muon-collider.By the time such facilities would be builtand made operational here in the U.S.very little new information would be gained.Good young people will only stay ina field if it has a viable future. Thisrequires a viable/ sensible project on asensible time scale and adequate fund-ing.

• We should encourage talented young peo-ple to do graduate work in HEP thathas the potential for applications out-side the field, so they are ready to con-tinue in HEP or, given the realities ofthe field, find employment elsewhere.


There is no reason to feel that some-one who has done PhD quality work,and has been published in PRL or PhysLetters, and then gets a job in industryis a failure. That person is in fact agreat success.

• I would not wish to continue in highenergy physics beyond a doctoral degreebecause of the atrocious social atmo-sphere/ interaction I have found (as afemale) in both the universities and atthe national labs. I can’t imagine spend-ing my career in such cold and distant/preoccupiedplaces.

• I know that I got into the field becauseof my interest in studying nature. Asfor why I am still here, my thinkingvaries from time to time. At this pointit would seem a terrible waste to leavebefore I finish my degree. After that,I will reevaluate my position. Many ofthose influences you mentioned mightcause me to leave the field, or I mightstay. At times I have felt that I amexactly where I want to be doing exactlywhat I would choose. Other times, Iwonder why I am wasting my life in afield where two or three projects wouldseem to be a career. That ”feature ofthe field” may be the worst. I am onD0 now, and if I stay until it finishes Iwould be here until I am at least 35. IfI then join another collaboration fromthe beginning and stay until the end(something I would like to do, gettingin on the ground floor), then I wouldprobably be ready to retire when it fin-ished. This is NOT appealing.

• I did leave the field. I am working inHEP related computing field now. I leftbecause there was no direction to whatI was doing and because there was littleor no opportunity for me as a postdocin a large collaboration to forge my owndirection.

• I think the lack of a clear long-termvision for High Energy Phyics makesthe likelihood of future contributions basedon an ”interest in physics” discouragingto many talented young people. I thinkthat young people leaving HEP is notin itself a bad thing. It has happenedfor years, and in fact a Ph.D. in HEPis good training for many complex chal-lenges in life. But I think that more ofthe most talented young people in HEPare leaving than before.

• I think the NUMBER of young peopleretained in the field is probably OK. Mydisappointment is how often the bestpeople leave and the less good ones stay.

• If they are truly excited about the field,they will make every effort to stay. Thegraduate training system faces difficul-ties, however, in light of the long leadtimes of experiments, the size of collab-orations, the reduced number of exper-iments, and so on.

• I tend to think people leave physics becauseof a mismatch between their abilitiesand physics opportunities.

• Many of the brightest people I’ve knownentering HEP have left for different rea-sons. 1. Inability to obtain a perma-nent position. 2. Better salary in indus-try 3. Not happy with direction of field.The first two reasons above are relatedand constitute the largest category ofpeople I know leaving the field. Mostof my colleagues have worked in exper-imental HEP developing detectors andensuring that quality data is being takenwhen the detector is running. In thesecases, lack of recognition of their contri-bution to the experiment came becausethey could not demonstrate ”enough physics”done during their postdoc, tenure eval-uation period. Given a larger salaryand reduced hours at work in indus-try help attract the bright hardworking


folks away. Item 3 above is also corre-lated with item 2. The people I knowwho’ve left for this reason have done sobecause they feel that they had littleopportunity to do truely independentresearch. Specifically, with the adventof VERY LARGE collaborations and exper-iments, they often felt stifled by the com-mittees which often run the develop-ment of a detector or pursuing a par-ticular physics analysis. Again, a largersalary and fewer hours at work in indus-try help attract these people away.

• This is fairly complicated. I have seenmany younger physicists leave over a20-year career. Some I thought werenot talented enough to make the profes-sor cut, saw it coming, and left. Otherscould have gotten jobs at national labsin computing, for example, and sincethey could make easily twice as much inindustry for much the same work, leftfor those reasons. I doubt I would gointo HEP now as a new student becausethe collaborations are too large, the timeto get results are too long, and the spe-cialization is too great. I joined a col-laboration of a dozen at the proposalwriting stage and got my PhD on theanalysis. I did every single part of theexperiment: beam-design, detector-building,trigger electronics, DAQ, MC, analy-sis, and wrote the final paper. I wentinto HEP because it was demanding,forefront physics which would exerciseall my talents and intellect. I couldbe thinking about the most importantproblems in nature while also figuringout how to design phototube bases andmodel electormagnetic showers. Howcan CDF/D0 compete with that? Whywould anyone want to be one of 1000people looking for the Higgs? The senseof continuity and ownership isn’t thereas it used to be. I would probably doexperimental astrophysics or even molec-

ular biology if I were in my twentiesagain.

• The distinct possibility that there willbe no (or a limited number) of new facil-ities or experiments to attract the bestminds to the field.

• I don’t know that we should encouragethem. with no machine in the U.S. inthe foreseeable future, we should leaveHEP to the Europeans. Plus, the salarystinks. I stay in the field due to inertia;)

• Salary scales vary widely between coun-tries. U.S. postdoc is pretty good com-pared to the UK’s $22,000, which is gradedby age, not experience! Lack of per-manent job opportunities - how manyHEP professorships are there out there?There are far more postdocs. What hap-pens when you don’t get a permanentjob and are in your mid-thirties? Lengthof time to complete an analysis is verylong. Huge collaboration size is alsoan issue. It takes all these people tomake the detector work but there arefar fewer analyses. Lack of profession-alism can definitely put people off andoverpower their interest in physics/ sci-ence/ nature. Quality of analyses/ results/peer review/ meeting presentations couldall do with improvement. Note that itis not necessarily the best people whostay in the field - a lot of them move onbecause they are good ...

• The worst thing about the field is thatthere isn’t enough room for people whojust want to do science for a living. Myperception is that I have to have a par-ticular career track in order to say in.Question: Is there some way I can makea stable living by doing science and notworrying about grant-writing and sur-viving university/ lab politics? I thinkthat a great deal of potential is lostbecause we have a very limited view


of what a scientific career should be.Alternative career models need to beconsidered. YPP is in a unique posi-tion to be a ”think tank” on this veryimportant issue.

• I think young people leave the field pri-marily due to a failure to obtain degreesand secured positions prior to age 30.However, it is not necessarily a bad thingthat there is some talent and dedica-tion required and some winnowing ofthe field even during the graduate/post-graduate periods.

• It’s not clear to me that the most tal-ented ones don’t stay. They can’t allstay, there isn’t room it would be expo-nential growth which is unsustainable.The negative attitudes and wining ofpeople making it unpleasant is the kindof thing that almost drove me away.

• I think the key to keep people in thefield is to keep building better machinesso that their are continual opportuni-ties to make new discoveries in move thefield forward; experimentation is our lifeblood.

• No fundamental discoveries being donein the U.S. and all basic research beingdone abroad e.g. CERN.

• 1) lack of permanant positions (in par-ticular in Europe) 2) Small salary thatcan be compensed only by academic free-dom or intellectual atmosphere. If ”pol-itics” is too important than it would bevery hard to recruit new physicists.

• Some of the best young HEP physicistsI have known left the field because theirwork was not appreciated and they werenot given appropriate credit for whatthey did, i.e., some senior person tookcredit and then did not further theircareer appropriately.

• Lack of intellectual challenge, that is tosay ”fun”.

• I have stayed because I don’t know whatelse to do. People are leaving becausethat have figured that out. Our hourssuck, our pay sucks, and what are therewards? No social life, no family, andno recognition for a job well done.

• Not enough interesting topics are thefeature of the field which I think mightmost influence young physicists to leavethe field

• I think many of the factors mentionedin item 28 contribute to people leavingHEP.

• Strong diversified scope of research with-out multidisciplinary boundaries; possi-bility to develop and pursue new exper-imental ideas

• Lack of interesting topics and long timesbetween experiments.

• Make sure that there is variety in ourfield. If every project becomes a mega-project our field will die. Relativelysmall, quirky, experiments must be partof the mix. We should see HEP as abroader endeavor; HEP should whole-heartedly embrace particle astrophysics- this is our future. My main concernis the mega-collaboration and the inad-vertent squeezing out of the tangentialthinker, the maverick, the young per-son who simply insists on thinking dif-ferently from the rest. I also worry thatthe ”rewards” system is too ad hoc andprone to the ”favorite son” syndrome.

• To answer, one must do relevant research,i.e., go ask a sensible cross section ofyoung people.

• The field in the U.S. will wither whenwe no longer have the highest energymachine in the world.

• Most SHOULD leave! They get a greateducation, only a few should stay any-way. Exp. Particle Physics is providing


a very broad and rare education in allfields.

• Although all factors listed in 28 are valid,I believe the overriding force is that agood fraction talented people avoid physicsbecause more primal reasons. Physicsis ”not cool.” Judging from Hollywood,we are assumed to be geeky, poor, lack-ing in social skills, badly dressed, etc.Computer science has a tremendous advan-tage in that it is perceived in terms offancy cars, mansions, and retiring at 35.I don’t think there is a fix. This mate-rialism will continue until a major shiftin society occurs.

• Many of the listed issue are equally impor-tant, especially salary, lack of perma-nent jobs. And lack of enthusiasm from”older” physicists.

• People leave because the infrequency ofseminal results coupled with the diffi-culty and time scale for experiments.

• The big problems are permanent posi-tions and – in the recent past – totallyunreasonable salaries in the computingindustry. There would be a lot morepermanent positions in universities if theold guys would retire at a reasonableage.

• Lack of first rate frontier facility.

• People leave for many reasons. Some gofor money, some get frustrated for notbeing able to find a job. Both are reflec-tion of the general public’s and fundingagencies attitude towards basic science.Outreach is important !

• Where the jobs are, people will apply.No matter what you do, only a self-destructive idiot or a rich fool wouldsacrifice five to ten years of his life withno prospects to stay in the field, andonly slightly better prospects to leave.

• The role played by the schools is veryimportant; more contacts should be donethere, with the pupils and with the physicsteachers. And in addition, that you donot get any professional help in plan-ning your career.

• In questions 25 and 26, interest isn’tstrong enough. Fascination is more accu-rate. This is what we must convey, with-out looking out-of-touch. In question28, there are many such features. Acombination of uncompetitive salariesand fierce competition for few places isprobably a contributing factor for many.And it’s not necessarily the competitionfor permanent positions. Many peoplewant this at some stage in their career,but for some younger researchers, a seriesof short-term places would be prefer-able, if only these places were easierto come by. Finally, a lot of peoplewho display a lot of talent in their earlyyears have sort of ended up doing thisby default and leave partly because theyare just getting bored - this is some-thing we probably can’t do much about.

• The answers to 25 and 26 are really thatit has been tremendous fun. I work ongreat problems with really smart peo-ple. For 27, it seems the field is notattracting the best people. This seemsa larger problem than retaining peoplewho are not sufficiently motivated or donot enjoy physics research. More andbetter undergraduate programs wouldhelp. For 28, it seems that some col-laborations are so large that it mightbe easy to lose the big picture and getdiscouraged.

• I strongly feel that the lack of perma-nent jobs and the relatively poor salarydo great damage to the field. It alsoappears to be forgotten how much hard-ware skills are required to continue tobuild the best possible detectors and


accelerators. This has been to my detri-ment in the field. I worked hard tomake a name for myself in building hard-ware. My work ethics and poor finan-cial compensation greatly contributedto the demise of my marriage. Later,when my marriage fell apart, so did mycareer. Afterwards, I had great diffi-culty in finding employment in the field.I sincerely doubt that I am the only per-son to which this has happened. It is asevere problem in the field and needs tobe addressed.

• By offering new and interesting oppor-tunities in the field and competitive salary,of course.

• A perception rightly or wrongly thatthe field is closing down.

• Question 28: I think young physicistsleave the field because of lack of oppor-tunities of all kinds. The future is cloudyat best. The collaborations are too bigand it is difficult to make a name foroneself. The best people are often notrewarded for the best work, rather every-thing is politics.

• Since I can remember, some left somestayed. Even the fraction has not changed... from my thesis experiment (1969-72,about 2/12 students remain in the field.Competition to stay is a must... but Ithink that money is a miserable moti-vator.

• Lack of posts - time scale of a singleexperiment - lack of ’fantasy’ permittedin large collaboration.

• This is obviously a very difficult ques-tion. I think alot of U.S. students don’tlike the idea of having to relocate to anational lab, and thus it is sometimesdifficult to attract U.S. students intoHEP. I think we have to convey theexcitement of the field and explain the

big picture. Give a sense of history ofparticle physics, and where there placeis. Explain that it is an opportunityto do fundamental research while alsolearning about hardware, software andphysics. Particle physics will not be foreveryone, but it prepares you for doingother things at well. We should pointto statistics of where HEP people goafter they finish their graduate work. Ibelieve the employability and jobs arevery good after graduate work in HEP.And, if they are dedicated, they canstay in the field and devote their life toresearch, or perhaps get a faculty posi-tion.

• I see little evidence that talented youngphysicists who are motivated to work onphysics are leaving the field. In point offact, there seems to be a lack of quali-fied talent.

• The fraction of physics PhD’s which stayin physics is roughly unchanged sincethe 50’s. I think, however, that the rea-son they leave may have shifted. Postdoc salaries have declined (w/rt infla-tion), and the typical post doc periodhas increased. This means they spendmore time at a lower salary. Given thecurrent and historical uncertainty in find-ing a tenure track position the trade offis less worth it now than previously.

• I left HEP because there is no roomto get involved in short timely experi-ments and a big ”hunting for the Higgs”experiments. The funding situations forcesone to a all-or-none participation.

• Most important point driving young peo-ple away: perception that the field hasNO FUTURE, and that the existing powerhierarchy is destroying HEP.

• The young talented people should haveability to participate actively in physicsresearch and have opportunity to use


their creativity in much better and moreorganized environment.

• Uncertainty in the future of the field isthe largest deterrent in my opinion.

• Lack of competitive salary, lack of per-manent positions and workload one isexpected to do go together. The combi-nation makes for very unattractive long-term perspectives. Allure of workingat HEP lab, the intellectual and, notto forget, the international and openatmosphere in HEP are the strong argu-ments in favor of staying in field.

• Many things influence young people toleave: 1. too much work, too little pay2. too large experiments 3. forced tolive in places not of their choosing 4.macho culture. Why was number 4 noton the list? It’s the number one reasonfor WOMEN to quit.

• Lack of opportunities for individual achieve-ment. Dearth of exciting challenges forindividuals.

• I think that the combination of acces-sible science and the structure of thecommunity make working in HEP sub-stantially less attractive than it was inthe 1970s.

• In my view the limited perspective weare able to offer to younger excellent sci-entists in particle physics is the biggestproblem of the future of the field.

• Need to assure them (and all of us) ofthe long term future of the field. Notethat one would expect a substantial frac-tion of the HEP students to go ontowork in other fields.

• We [I] have been encouraged to workon hardware because thats ”how I willget a job”, but the truth is that its thephysics that get people jobs. Collabo-ration spokespeople should do more to

encourage support for the people whomake detector work.

• Lack of competitive salary, scarcity ofprofessional positions (academic and atnat’l labs).

• Give them a decent working environ-ment. This means changing the culture... I believe this is particularly applica-ble to young women. I’ve stayed in thefield because I can work my life roundit due to my particular personal circum-stances ...

• We will have to give young people thecontext in which they can develop theirbest skills in an agreeable collegiate atmo-sphere, where excellence is remuneratedby recognition and a competitive salary/setof working conditions. We have to rec-ognize that money-oriented people willlikely leave he field, but even they willhave long-term interests in what theyleft behind; they are our outside sup-port in many ways- even if their interestis in designing and producing productsthat find application in our research andhave to be acquired from them.

• Don’t put up labs in the middle of nowhere,we Europeans cannot withstand coun-try life. Payment is always an issue.

• Both salary and the lack of permanentjob positions are forcing many talentedpeople to leave the postdocs are lower instandard, and the best graduates don’tstay on to do PhDs. Long durationsabroad can put off those with youngfamilies from continuing. No travel isnot an option for both career progres-sion and financially.

• The long hours are not the main prob-lem - that’s mostly the same anywhereif you want to have a career. The com-bination of lots of travel and the total


absence of economic security that post-docs enjoy however would not be accept-able in any other profession. It speaksfor the idealism of our community, butnot for our brains. At the moment onecan encourage young people to do grad-uate work in HEP also because they willeasily find a well paying job afterwardsin the industry when they want to settledown and have a family. But we can’treally offer them much inside HEP. Asa result some crucial expertise e.g. incomputing is becoming rare in HEP. Ibelieve that more permanent positionsfor researchers below the faculty levelshould be created.

• HEP is partly lost the flavor of a fun-damental science, to my opinion. It’streated ”as any other job” currently, whichis not true. The candidates should startbeing collected and educated at schoolsrather then universities/colleges. Andyes, too many talented young physicistsleave to IT-related companies due tomuch higher salaries. This of coursepartly kills HEP...

• Add question 28: the ratio (salary*safetyof adequate future)/(collaboration size)is too small, which is a hint towardshigher acceptance of our work by thepublic. The large collaborations resultin (too) hard work for the better peopleto drag the slow ones with.

• People would stay more if we focusedmore on the exciting prospects for find-ing and exploring new aspects of whythe world is the way it is, and the rolethey could play in that.

• There are several issues. Large collab-oration sizes and lengthy projects aretwo. Other problems now are the lackof consensus and direction for the field,mostly due to cost, I think. We reallyneed a long-range plan to keep the young

people interested and make it clear thatthere is a future for this field.

• Actually I think it is the combinationof all the reasons you list in question 28which compelled so many of my con-temporaries to leave. What concernsme the most is that more and more physi-cists have spouses that work and theywant a family. The old way of doingHEP is not compatible with this choiceand making this choice should not pre-clude a good physicist from doing HEP.

• The problem is really a combination of3 factors you mention: lack of perma-nent job opportunities, lack of a com-petitive salary and the length spent ingraduate school. I seen many of mypeers leave school because they were offered3 times as much as what their salarywould be 5 years from now. In a societylike the US, consumism oriented, it’sclear that you were not going to retainany student at all.

• Have in each HEP laboratory an ade-quate number of short-term fellowshippositions for young post-graduates andenhance the mobility between HEP lab-oratories and national research institu-tions (like INFN in Italy) and Univer-sities. Funding of initial research posi-tions must be partly transferred fromnational to international HEP laborato-ries to have better initial selection in afield where saturation has been reachedbut the risk is not enough young andtalented peoples replace a relatively oldpopulation.

• The 21st century is not supposed to bethe century of physics.

• The fact that getting funding for futureresearch is getting harder. Fundamen-tal research is not seen by a priority ofthe government or the public.


• Too much emphasize is placed on polit-ical connections rather than raw ability.We *must* help promising young peo-ple to be noticed. We *must* promotegood science.

• Streamline the process from graduatework to full- time positions in HEP, acceptmore BS/BA employees where higherdegrees are not required (software, hard-ware), offer more training.

• Question 25 - This ”allure” happenedbecause I grew up near FNAL and startedworking there as an undergrad. 26 -I sometimes think it was just luck. Ilike what I do (both day to day andthe overall goal) and the atmosphere(working with intelligent people and theacademic environment), but as to whyI’m a ”success” and others who seem tome to be much more talented are gone- luck. Question 28 - Or just a per-ceived lack of permanent job opportuni-ties. There has been a big exodus of tal-ented people - and it has fed upon itself.But I don’t think people leave becauseof just one thing. I’d put length of timein school, management (we were trainedto be physicists, not people managers!),large collaboration size, and travel (althoughyounger people don’t worry about thisas much until they have a family) highon my list.

• In the set of answers to p. 28 I think youdon’t have one, which may be the mostimportant - the lack of public interestto the field. For young people it is veryimportant to feel that they are doingsomething which is strongly needed forthe humanity. I choose the salary, becausesalary is also the indicator of how soci-ety rates your job.

• Change the ”weeding out”, ”only thebest” attitude towards people - there isno reliable measure of such a thing and

this attitude turns off students, post-docs and young faculty.

• I guess grad students (but even morepost-docs) are way overworked while beingunderpaid. There are not too many per-manent research positions and of courseeven less professorships. Consideringthe chances many young physicists findin industry, consulting etc. they takethe positions that allow them more reg-ular hours, better pay and career chances.The wonderful thing that HEP has tooffer though is the way in which individ-uals get to identify themselves with anexperiment or collaboration. It seemsmore meaningful and rewarding to workin HEP than in industry partly becauseHEP offers a non commercialized envi-ronment...

• Additional answer to question 28: Besidesthe difficulty in finding permanent posi-tions, the lack of clear direction for theHEP in the U.S. could be another fac-tor driving young people seeking jobs inother fields.

• Uncertain future. Long time to buildmachines. Large experiments.

• In my experience young people who leavethe field do so because they have justnot found they ”fit in”. This is for anumber of reasons. Anything from salary,to poor management, to lack of inter-est in the ”whole” field (hardware, datareduction, politics, funding, etc.)

• Loss of interest/Too much pressure forthe money. If students were allowed towork on important analysis and if thework progressed and moved on I thinkit would make a difference.

• Most have extremely good software abil-ity, or electronics training, but lack thetraining to build detectors, big or small.


• Need better HEP funding. Many peo-ple left the field when the SSC was closed.

• Lack of future projects to participatein. We have priced ourselves out of themarket unless we can convince societythere is benefit in multi-billion dollarHEP projects.

• In the recent past we’ve seen too manygood people leave the field, not just becauseof negative aspects listed here, but alsobecause of extremely attractive oppor-tunities elsewhere.

• We need to accept that people want to”have a life” but still be part of HEP.The field tends to consume and thendisillusion young people.

• For question 28 I feel that I could havealmost checked every box. A questionlike this is never black or white but manypeople seem to leave the field to pur-sue a more lucrative career (and onethat they often find less interesting).If there were more stability, security,performance related benefits and bet-ter structure I would imagine many wellqualified people who left the field maynot have originally done so.

• It’s hard to say what most contributesto young, talented physicists leaving thefield of HEP. The amount of travel requiredis a huge factor, in my experience. Forme personally, it is the biggest reason Iam disenchanted with the field. Largecollaboration sizes and the long, long,long time-line associated with the fore-seeable projects are also a huge factor.Lack of pay is another factor, thoughsubstantially less important, as far as Iam concerned. Time & distance are themajor problems with HEP today.

• The reason that I might leave the field isthat I have interests other than physics,but physics requires such dedication that

I don’t have time for other interests.A career in physics, though fascinat-ing, does not seem likely to change theworld. I personally would be more enthu-siastic about a career in physics (or sci-ence in general) if I felt that the scien-tific community took a greater interestin societal issues. Suppose I could be ascientist *and* a social worker - then Icould sleep at night. Seriously.

• Most HEP grads these days have extremelymarketable skills in a number of high-tech related fields. In my own personalexperience, everyone I know who hasrecently left the field has stepped intojobs with double or triple my post-docsalary (and I’m considered well paid fora post-doc!). Combine this with thepresent lack of prospects for permanentjobs in the field and it makes me wonderwhy ANYONE stays in particle physics.In the past, I think there used to beperks (social status, academic work envi-ronment etc.) associated with academia,but this is now largely gone, and in alarge collaboration environment, you mightas well be working for IBM and makingsix-figures instead.

• There must be a long term future offrontier research to keep young peoplein the field.

• Answer given to question 28 above refersto working in Accelerator Physics. Toomuch current research is oriented to spe-cific existing or proposed machines, andnot enough is devoted to basic research.

• Are we finding any new physics? Whatif we find a Higgs thing... are we donethen? Out of work?

• There are many very interesting and reward-ing fields for a talented physicist to workin today. Competition from other fieldshas tended to move people out of the


field. In good economic times we maysee a resurgence.

• We need to develop respect for a widevariety of talents and accomplishmentsfor the field to succeed. Too many ofthe essential tasks to not receive suffi-cient recognition to permit a self-respectingphysicists (or engineers) to expect hisfamily to subsist on current wages withcurrent recognition.

• Why young physicists leave: often it’sthe ones that are not number 1 in aca-demics or subjected to a ”bad” advi-sor that quickly disappear, though thelure of money in industry is probablythe straw that broke the camel’s back.Some people are not the best, but manyof them are excellent creative folk thatjust got unlucky in a lab or on sometests... and fizzle out over several years.Is there an easy implementable answer?No.

• Question 28: a combination of a) lack ofcompetitive salary b) lack of permanentjob opportunities c) weak or unstruc-tured management (worse in the caseof large collaborations).

• I guess it’s a mixture of lack of com-petitive salary, lack of permanent jobopportunities (depends on the subfield,of course) ...

• Oh boy - I could fill several pages on allthe bad things about HEP. The goodthing, which kept me going, was thequasi-spiritual point that this is some-thing that is unnecessary to our exis-tence, and is therefore something noble,untainted even. Despite the obvious,and considerable, spin offs to the rest ofsociety, this is something we should notbe afraid to point out again and again.The above point about lack of perma-nent job opportunities only vaguely toucheson the nub of the problem. In reality,

nobody has a permanent job anymore -it is the absence of choice to stay at oneplace for more than the usual 2/3 years,even though it is more than likely you’restill communicating and working withthe same people. Most depressing isthe fact that the people who succeed inHEP these days are no longer the mosttalented (ability is more or less a given)but rather the most stubborn, and evenpolitical (in the academic sense). Do wereally want these individuals to be run-ning Physics in the future ?

• HEP is a little remote from everydayproblems that challenge young people.We hide behind Cosmology (The BigBang), since that seems the most excit-ing aspect of our work. We have lostsight of the importance of understand-ing the structure and interactions amongfundamental particles. The theoreticalideas behind particle physics (Higgs mech-anism, super symmetry) are difficult tograsp. Permanent positions are scarce,and yet the really exciting work is oftendone by post docs.

• The problem is other way round: it isnot the question how to encourage youngpeople to stay, the question is what arethe chances to stay. In some sense, HEPcommunity is manipulating the youngpeople - most of them (us) are ratheridealistic and prepared to work muchharder than they are really paid for -but then, when they are 40, only a smallfraction could stay doing physics andthe rest should go... To be clear, I thinkthat it is not responsible to take muchmore graduate students or PostDocs thanthere will be available permanent jobopportunities in the future! (P.S. If youthink that is normal that people withPhD in physics mountain software orinstall local networks, then think howoften have you seen medical doctor insteadof veterinary taking care of cows.)


• Offer good perspectives in terms of salariesand job security; more permanent posi-tions instead of 2 year (or even less)contracts.

• Not enough new and unanticipated results.

• There are too many people seeking fac-ulty jobs for the system to support. Mean-while, there is a severe manpower short-age. At this stage, additional person-nel would do more for the money toadvance the field than additional hard-ware. More post-docs staying for longeris not the answer.

• I think we are not attracting as manyof the really talented young scientiststo the field as we used to. I think thisis because other fields (computers, biol-ogy, astro) are looking more attractivethese days. The best way to counter-act this is to get the field moving againwith some major discoveries.

• At times, there doesn’t seem to be muchrespect for young physicists in this field.I.e. at the BaBar conference at SLACat the end of June, a younger physi-cist giving a presentation would be cor-rected in a condescending manner bythe older physicists when the youngerperson would make an error or an appar-ent error. I have not experienced thisbehavior directed towards me, but I haveseen it happen enough to know that thiscould be a turnoff for some young physi-cists in this field.

• The mixture of the lack of permanentjob opportunities, lack of competitivesalary, and especially the fact that HEPdoesn’t attract the most brilliant peopleany more which is a down going circle.

• To let people stay we urgently need:better salaries (especially money com-pensation for overload MUST come) per-manent jobs must be NORMAL (people

still can change if they like) environ-ment must be much more professionalmanagement must be much more pro-fessional AND finally for all of you whostill didn’t get it: The man power sit-uation in the big experiments is a joke!The global situation in a lot of exper-iments leads necessarily to a completeburn out of the encouraged people afterapprox. 5 years. We have it in ourexperiment and it is simple the truth.And I know a minimum of 5 new exper-iments at which it will be the same.Another thing is that the leading HEPheads seems to have to have not at allunderstood that next or new generationexperiments not only force some ordersof magnitudes more computer power orother technical stuff but also orders ofmagnitudes of better organization andbetter structures. In my opinion weneed COMPLETE new forms of collab-oration organization. AND THERE MUSTBE A QUALITY RATING SYSTEMFOR THE MANAGEMENT with per-sonal success responsibility.

• I worry about the uncertain future ofthe field as a whole and about the neces-sity to do a nation-wide job search, com-mute, etc. If you offered me a job atFermilab (within the current range ofsalaries/benefits) and promised me thelab would exist and do interesting physicsforever, of course I’d take it. But thefunding for a particular lab, or for thewhole field, may dry up, and there’s noguarantee that accelerator-based HEPwill always be an interesting field in whichto work (i.e. both interesting day-to-day work and interesting scientific results).

• Large investment (all types:: time gov-money etc) and little physics gain.

• Each individual is merely a chain in anassembly line - little chance to see thewhole picture of physics.


• The most destructive factor would bethe closing of all major accelerator facil-ities in the U.S.

• Lack of competitive salary is only oneof a vast array of items that needs tobe addressed if HEP is to retain moreyoung people. Everything on your listis important. We have got to wake upand act.

• Intellectual excitement waning and lackof individual to be able to have a majorimpact upon the direction of research.

• I don’t think people leave the field forany one single reason. I think they leavethe field (if they do) because they canno longer function in the environment,which has decidedly not improved withthe increase in the size of the collabora-tions. I think the work environment hasbecome more competitive, more buro-cratic, yet with typically weak and oftenunstructured management, and in theend people get disillusioned and won-der why they should work for such alow salary. I always used to say thatphysics is 95

• Other fields now have just as challeng-ing problems as HEP. And, some of thesefields have a shorter turnaround timethan in ours. This makes these fieldsmore attractive to some of the youngerscientists.

• We should give younger people moreresponsibility. I am seeing more youngpeople giving plenaries at conferences;this is good!

• Another problem to keep some peoplein the field is the difficulty to combineprivate and professional life. An exam-ple is the rumor that tenure track posi-tions and divorce are highly correlated(and I unfortunately know examples ofit). I guess this is a problem in many

other professional areas, especially inthe U.S., but it’s clearly not positive.It is by the way saying that you didn’teven list this in your list.

• Lack of optimistic perspectives for jobs,projects, and the physics. ”Horganism”has infected high energy physics. Theillness was coined by Daniel Kleppner(MIT) after Horgans book entitled ”Theend of science”. It signifies the tiring ofold physicist at the end of their careers.Particle physics has lost its optimismand its ability to work in the full breadthof the field. The concentration of allresources on the Higgs, the neutrino massand CP violation alienates young physi-cists. These are all sensed as problemsfor the few big shots and little is left forthe young to their own research. Whyis particle spectroscopy or QCD relatedphysics considered finished?

• Question 26: the main reason I havestayed so far is really that the alter-natives that appeal to me (philosophy,voluntary work) would give me an evenmore uncertain job situation and no orlow salary. Still, I intend to leave physicsunless I get a more permanent job ina couple of years. I believe the post-doc round is killing people – it doesnot allow a proper life outside physics.As a consequence, it is not the ”best”,but the most obsessed physicists thatstay in the field. People with a more”rounded” outlook are discouraged. Itis also extremely difficult to have a fam-ily. It is necessary to reorganize the”career path” so that people do not haveto sacrifice their whole life every twoor three years. Allowing people to staylonger in one place would be the mostimportant thing.

• We retain perhaps 1/3, 1/4? likely aboutright; I’d drive a taxi to do this androughly expect that of others these are


the people society should support how-ever shabbily ; many don’t share that...leave because they don’t find a sinecureand need that; etc. etc. or all thoseother reasons that sometimes work out...some find something that they reallyneed to do or that needs them enoughinspires them... I’ve always assumed I’dfollow my greatest interest it has neverleft this stream of physics I can imaginea number of ideas I might have or mightfollow if I had a great idea or oppor-tunity... A great part of our societalworth is the people we spin off who finda greater outside role than follow thepath of our mentors to the grave... Thisis still my path... Intellectual transferreally happens through people transfer;Harold Varmus remarked we gotta keepphysics going if we are going to haveprogress in biology/medicine etc. Physicsperhaps particle/astrophysics is the PlaneGeometry of our scientific time

• Funding uncertainty leads many promis-ing young physicists to find alternativecareers. The U.S. does a very poor jobin attracting and keeping the brightestand best for this reason.

• Lack of excitement in the field may alsocontribute to people leaving the field.

• The field (at least in the U.S.) has takenon the aura of hanging on by its finger-nails in recent years. Even good, moti-vated people spend a long time with lit-tle or no job security, leaving them ripefor the picking.

• For question 28, I’d actually say that amixture of poor salary and lack of per-manent job opportunities is the prob-lem - very hard to say which is biggerissue.

• I don’t think there is enough communi-cation between Physics and Computer

Science at Universities. Many HEP ques-tions (how to store so much data, howto look through data, triggering, etc)are interesting computing problems, thatmight better be handled by someonetrained in CS, not physics. Certainly,these jobs should be open to physicistswith interest and experience, but thereshould be more of an attempt to inter-est CS undergrads, grads, and postdocsin the work we are doing. The samegoes for engineering and detector design,though I see that happening now muchmore already.

• The essential answer for 28) may be lackof chances/places where younger peoplemeet articles or other things related toHEP. If many young talents are will-ing to come to HEP, the market will beexpanded.

• Stability and existing long term futureof the field is extremely important toattract young talents to join this field.This field is in great risk to become adead branch of science such as nuclearphysics.

• Many physicist leave or don’t even joinHEP because they have the feeling thatalmost everything has been done andthat the new detectors are only builtto rule out theories that are made tojustify the detectors...

• A discovery / deviation from the Stan-dard Model / some completely not under-stood physics effect would certainly makethe field more attractive ! (at least toexperimentalists).

• Particle Physics is also an excellent schoolfor young physicists that aim at becom-ing familiar with a technique and then,if necessary, to move out of the field ofpure research to take a job in one of thehighly diversified fields that the train-ing in particle physics opens up.


• Lack of appreciation of their work. Physicsis more than the (self)glorification of afew.

• After LHC there is no long term future,except astro-particle physics.

• Allow them to produce something inany step of the young physicist occupa-tional career, especially support themin following their own ideas and dreams.

• One should encourage young people towork in HEP, I think then there willbe no need to hold them... they stay, Ihope!

• That’s a really good question.

• There is not enough opportunity for youngexp. physicists to dream up an experi-ment and do it.

• I guess the problem is a combinationof a competitive salary, permanent jobopportunities, and the possibility to havea responsible and interesting positionwithin a collaboration that still allowscreativity.

• Good projects will attract good people.

• 1) large collaboration, establishment andthe success of the standard model arenot appealing. The latter we have tolive with for now, the first two we shouldthink about.

• Comment to 28: Lack of possibility tobe creative and propose individual projectis a reason that young people leave thefield. However unavoidable at the presentstage of HEP.

• Young physicists will leave the field ifreasonable career paths at adequate com-pensation are not available to them.

• Academic freedom/tenure is the correctmotivator.

• Staying in the field 100% of the timeshould not be the HEP goal. Physicistare also trained to contribute to the sci-entific advances in all fields. No morethan 50% should stay in the researchfield, otherwise we have failed.

• There is no single answer to the ques-tion of why young people leave the fieldafter investing several years of training.Job opportunities is one. Sense thatpersonal intellectual contributions aredifficult to make is another. Lack ofrecognition is a third.

• I would add to my question 28 answeralso: - lack of competitive salary - lengthof time spent in graduate school - weakor unstructured management. The issuewhich concerns me the most about thefuture of the field is the lack of a majorU.S. lab on the horizon. This will stronglycurtail any new interest in HEP as acareer.

• The field has become too competitiveand ruthless. The competition is oftenbased not solely on the intellectual capa-bilities, but on other considerations, withthe latter being weighted higher and higher.Lack of social life for many of our col-leagues and a very long delay betweenthe idea and physics results in the exper-imental science is another driving fac-tor. Inflation of theory surely drivesmany young theorists away from thisfield. This all is going to change in thenext 10 years, with a plethora of newdiscoveries coming from the Tevatron,LHC, precision measurements, and thefuture machine we are going to build.If we have guts to put ourselves behindsuch a machine, which is clearly a linearcollider somewhere in the world.

• The interest in physics and the Aca-demic life style which, I think, is con-nected with creativity needed in the domainare both reasons for having stayed in


the field. The large collaborations sizemight be a factor too. It does not allowthe right amount of contact and expo-sure. As for the conjunction betweenthe length of time spent in grad schooland the lack of competitive salary, itmight influence young peoples to leavethe field, but I think that it touch themore materialistic part of the young peo-ples who are not as committed to sci-ence?

• We have a problem of not having enoughnew experimental results. Presumablythis will improve when the LHC turnson.

• HEP is dying - too few opportunitiesfor new discoveries. Large experimentscontrolled by few people at few largeNational Laboratories. No room for inno-vation and excitement of discovery toexcite young people. Young people comefrom universities - and universities seemto have no role in the future of HEP.

• Talented young people should have morechances to travel and work with dis-tinguished scientists. Also competitivesalary have to be provided.

• Unless financial support of the field increases,we should not encourage people withother interests to stay in the field. Enoughpeople will stay without added encour-agement to meet the diminished needsof the smaller-than-present effort thiscountry will support.

• Raise salaries, increase benefits, createmore jobs, reach out to the public, cre-ate role models.

• People who like physics, and HEP inparticular, will enter the field and stayregardless of the obstacles/incentives pro-vided.

• We don’t work for high pay. But weshould offer the chance of permanent

positions and stability for younger physi-cists.

• Danger that field might be nearing anend may encourage young physicists toleave.

• The inability of the HEP field to focuson single major issues or to rank withinthe several topics addressed by the field,has lead to a severe ’balkanization’ ofthe field. This in turn has lead to a lossof funding and secure positions for eventhe best young physicists.

• Several people I know have complainedabout elitism of peers, especially moresenior established physicists.

• It seems rather hit and miss depend-ing on who you end up with as advi-sor/supervisor or even surrogate super-visor. I’ve known several really brightstudents who have left the field aftertheir PhD’s because of disillusionmentwith their advisors/training given. Sim-ilarly I’ve known several bright post-docs unable to get permenant positionsand then they leave - normally to higherpaid jobs in industry. There needs tobe more of a career structure and morestandardization as to the level of sup-port given by graduate advisors - its atthat stage that it seems make or break.

• I think that question 28 has many cor-rect answers; it varies by person. I knowindividuals who are so fed up dealingwith the overwhelming hubris of physi-cists that they wish they’d never enteredthe fields. I know just as many for whomsalary or job security was an issue (eitherdue to personal finance or family issues,or because they could do the same researchin industry and make 4x the money).However, I also feel that behind all ofthis is a general malaise – that physicsjust isn’t going to places where we are


able to answer many of the questionsraised in the last 100 years.

• I don’t see huge numbers of the mosttalented physicists leaving the field aftergrad school – I’ve seen a few, but notan overwhelming number. Most of thephysicists who have left the field havetalents which are best utilized elsewhere.I see lack of recruitment of new studentsas a much more serious issue – this is abig problem and I don’t have any reallyeasy answers. Having lots of neat newresults (which we do right now) and areasonably attractive future (which wedon’t) are critical.

• When I joined the field you could feelthe passion that physicists brought towork every day. We are no longer thatkind of field. We need to get that back.the problems you mention are generallyreal and we need as a field to addressthem. We have much more flexibilitythan one imagines. Many of the badthings we’ve done to ourselves.

• Question 28 : I suppose it is really amixture of reasons – no competitive salaryfor relatively very hard work, no futurein the sense of getting a permanent posi-tion, no stability (moving! , theoristsdo not even know a year in advancewhere to ) and security . A commenton the length of the grad school - don’tthink this is really an issue. It takesonly three years in the UK to get aPhD, yet many people are still leavingthe field because of the above reasons

• The strongest advice I can give (andI’m backed up by Nobel laureate StevenChu) is to pick your advisor/group ratherthan a specific area. The most commonsource of disillusionment I’ve seen andexperienced is mismanagement, whichcan produce feelings ranging from ”I don’thave any time to myself” to ”I don’t get

any guidance” to ”I’m not learning any-thing by doing this” to ”I want to grad-uate someday, dammit” and a bunch ofothers besides. It’s even more impor-tant in large collaborations or collabo-rations spread thin. Advisors need torealize that their students are not onlyvital resources to the field, but actualpeople with their own goals and needs.If young physicists don’t find a chal-lenging and constructive work environ-ment in academia or government research,they will undoubtedly leave to look forit in industry or commerce.

• Lack of apparent progress on central ques-tions most influences young physiciststo leave the field. There is a percep-tion of little intellectual excitement inmainstream HEP. Of course, that per-ception is only partially accurate. Thefield needs to maintain diversity.

• I believe the good times for particle physicsare over. Society will not be willingto support particle physics at the levelswe have enjoyed in the Cold War era.Also, we seem to have run out of ideasto advance our knowledge with afford-able experiments that can be carriedout by small groups of people. Thesefacts turn away the most talented youngpeople, and I cannot blame them. If Iwere a young graduate student today, Iwould not choose particle physics as acareer myself, but rather a field whereI felt I could have a personal impact inthe foreseeable future.

• I think the work in this field is extremelyinteresting and challenging. I also appre-ciate the academic environment, the free-dom found within the field, the multi-national interaction, the intellectual atmo-sphere, the opportunities to do greatthings, and the ability to travel to inter-esting places. Finally, I love teachingstudents about science (and physics in


particular), and I am hopeful that I willeventually be able to do so at a uni-versity. However, I do believe that thelack of competitive salary and benefits(especially after one spends 6+ yearsas a graduate student on near-povertywages) will cause people to leave HEP.This combined with the lack of perma-nent positions available puts industryjobs in a rather good light. Working asa postdoc does not even remotely guar-antee job security. This without begin-ning to acquire much in the way of aretirement fund. It seems many in thisfield assume that the work itself over-comes any practical monetary issues. WhileI believe the work is fascinating (andhave chosen to stay and work towardthe possibility of a permanent positionin the field), I also think we need morerecognition of (and action on) practicalissues like salary, benefits, and retire-ment packages. Without this, we willalways have people leaving the field. Now,that said, I think that an education inHEP does prepare one a great deal fora job in industry as well as academics.Companies want to hire smart peoplewho have shown the ability to learn quicklyand who can solve problems (of what-ever sort that industry has). I don’tthink this message has been adequatelydelivered to undergraduates. I thinkmost undergrads believe a degree in physicsnecessarily leads to academic work. Thisis not the only career path available tosomeone in physics, and should not bethe only possibility (we should not limitthe options available to HEP grads), andwe need to spread the word. This wouldbring more students into the field, andonce they are here, they will see thebenefits of this kind of work. They willalso see the problems, but more stu-dents in the field means that more peo-ple are available to stay.

• Depersonalization. We can attract andkeep people if we can give them signif-icant roles which make them feel spe-cial/responsible/important. The largerand larger experiments make this diffi-cult unless care is taken to place andsupport good people.

• Why do people leave the field? Easy:they get a crappy salary (after studyingfor 8 years or so) and they get fired after2-3 years (i.e. NO job security).

• Two things: 1. You should title thefield Elementary Particle Physics andnot HEP. 2. HEP (at accelerators) hasnot been exciting enough to continue toattract as many people as it has in thepast. This could change. Also the sizeof collaborations and the remoteness ofthe experiments are a problem.

• Where are the jobs going to be in thefuture? The field looks like it is shrink-ing. This more than anything else drainstalented people away into more finan-cially stable/rewarding fields.

• There have to be jobs available beforethis is an issue. Ideally, the schemeof having to do multiple post-doc jobseach without tenure, of short durationshould be revised. This encourages peo-ple to carry out research which producesvisible results regardless of their gen-uine merit, rather than carrying out trueresearch which may not give a positiveresult to put on a CV. Salary issues varydramatically from country to country soare not such a strong issue.

• Although pretty much everyone in HEPcould make much more money in a wholelist of fields. That’s science. But manypeople who would have gone into HEPregardless of the money don’t becausethere are so few jobs. I think it’s as badas trying to make it into professional


sports. For the little money though Isee why so many people don’t even bother.

• I see not a bright future of High energyphysics I think next century will be onastrophyics and medical. I feel it is toolate to change the field Physicist are tooarrogant. they thing the politician andpublic are fool/stupid, I think it is oth-erwise.

• Hard to attract people when permanentjob prospects are so dismal. ”Perpetualpostdoc syndrome” is probably main thingscaring me away from pursuing HEP asa career (after grad school).

• Other areas of physics have very com-pelling interests and I believe the HEPmay have difficulty competing with themin several areas: technical & scientificmerit as well as funding and future employ-ment opportunities. (these areas can beas diverse as the development of quan-tum computing to protein crytsalogra-phy).

• I’m thrilled that you offered the answersI chose in questions 25 and 26. In fact,it is true that HEP satisfies a spiritualurge in me, and solves the same difficul-ties many academics experience in find-ing a place in the church/ mosque/ syn-agogue. It’s a strong reason why I gotinto the field and why I have remained.The spirit of Academic inquiry is another.It’s an environment and lifestyle I don’texpect to enjoy anywhere else. The prin-ciple ”do no harm” is one I feel is atleast satisfied in our discipline. Thatsaid, I am leaving the field in Septem-ber for industry. It has been a very diffi-cult decision, and one which I’d hopedI’d never have to make. The politicalprocess necessary to market oneself toget the next job, I find distasteful. It’salso a slow and daunting procedure, forwhich my family and myself no longerhave the patience. It seems true that

politicking and becoming visible gener-ally counts for more than does doinggood physics, necessarily. It has beenhard for me in some cases to see mypeers enjoy successful career trajecto-ries, and to see particular models emu-lated, when in fact my career so far,in which I believe I have shown I amevery bit or more the physicist of mytenure-track colleagues is not rewarded.I don’t believe I’m the only disgruntledperson in this situation. It might notbe unwise for the YPP to investigatethis sentiment among young physicists,as it could be more common than imag-ined. It’s also true the travel is a limi-tation for me and my family, though Idon’t claim it’s necessarily wise to tryto restrict travel in our field. It is nec-essarily a component of HEP. I don’tmean to grouse too vigorously. It maybe true that I have recently taken stockof just How badly I want to work forwhat I once thought I wanted.


on Building:

• Tick marks would be better in this sec-tion. It is not so easy to reduce theanswer to one point.

• You really need a rank order here, becausea number of things contribute. Secondwould be large collaborations.

• Question 28 it is too simplistic. I actu-ally think many of those things will beequally weighted. So I would answerall.

• Questions 25, 26 and 28 there are anumber of answers and its not easy toidentify the ’most’.

• This is a terrible piece of the survey.The answers are much richer than areallowed here.


• I am unhappy to answer question 28 theway I did, but it is my honest opinion.I definitely think that lack of perma-nent job opportunities and bad man-agement/ organization are large contributersas well.

• I am not happy with response to 28.Intellectual excitement, joy of discov-ery, even if it isn’t your own ... is whatwill keep people in ... lack of excite-ment, not salary, within reason, will drivethem out. We need to provide stimulat-ing activity while waiting for the newmachines, as outlined above.

• Would have been good to allow for mul-tiple selections in 25, 26, 28. Several ofthe replies are almost equally valid.

• Question 26: You’ve omitted some impor-tant options: Inertia and fear of change.Also, some of these questions do nothave a single answer.

• You should provide the option to selectmultiple choices in question 25. Forme additional very strong motivationswere: - hardware work - strong mentor.

• Again, single answers often don’t say itall. In some of the above, I would pickseveral of the reasons and add more ofmy own. I am not a young physicist,so I don’t know what most motivatesyoung people these days. But like theother issues, I think it is more than onething. For example, it could also bethat other areas of science may seemmore interesting. Many have said thatthe 20th century was the physics cen-tury, 21st will be that of biology. Theremay be some truth to that. If so, asmart young science-oriented person maywant to contribute to learning aboutthe human brain, or cure some disease,or whatever.

• Multiple answers to 25 & 26 might beuseful– e.g. love of hardware on top ofinterest in physics.

• I wish you had given the ability to choosemore than one option for 25 and 26. Forme, ”most” depends on the day of theweek....

• It would be interesting to compare whatpeople think the primary reason for leav-ing is for others vs. for themselves.

• Well, what answers did you expect?

• What’s ”adequate numbers of talentedphysicists in HEP” ??? How can anyonedefine that ??? About ”issues facingyoung physicists” - THERE ARE NOJOBS !

Comments on Physics 150

13.7 Physics

13.7.1 Most Compelling Physics:

• I think that one of the most importantproblems for the next 10-25 years willbe an understanding of quantum grav-ity (from either string theory or somenovel approach). In phenomenology itwould be interesting to see the signs ofunification and supersymmetry.

• String theory is the most interesting topicfor the future. Surprisingly, it’s not oneof the options for the ”most compellingphysics”.

• I think we’re on course to do the nec-essary Higgs/SUSY searches. I hope inthe next 10-20 years that the big machinesdon’t preclude doing interesting cosmo-logical observations.

• Once we’ve learned a bit more aboutmasses the next field must be astro physics.Prepare!

• The most important physics for the fieldis string theory.

• I want to pursue the energy frontier (whichin many ways includes Higgs/EW etc).Lets build the VLHC.

• Search for non-Standard Model physics.

• None of the fields you mentioned areinteresting alone. For example, study-ing any of them at a hadron colliderwithout studying QCD is a foolish questbecause every interaction starts betweenquarks and gluons. The interesting ques-tion is how does this all fit together.We need these divisions because with-out them no problem would be surmount-able, but to focus on one to the detri-ment of the others would seem utterlyfoolish. Who knows where the next break-through will lie? The only real ques-tion is: Does the Standard Model tell

the whole story, and if not what is thewhole story?

• Most important is new energy frontiercolliders to give us a big discovery win-dow for exotic processes.

• A better understanding of QCD and stronginteractions is fundamental for extractcrucial information from experiments andtherefore explain the mystery of EWsymmetry breaking. Moreover the nextgeneration of colliders may find new stronginteractions and we will need do be ableto deal with them. More funding to lat-tice QCD is a must.

• There are a number of questions as tothe completeness of the Standard Modelbeyond finding the Higgs. These ques-tions must be pursued at the highestenergy. There is almost certainly a newvista to be seen at the TeV scale andit cannot be exploited with LHC. Themomentum of progress is much moredifficult to sustain now, but it is impor-tant. These investigations will requirea new machine. The facility could bebuilt in the U.S. based on (currentlystagnating) accelerator research at theU.S. labs. However, the facility needonly be in the U.S., if the political windsare favorable, both for the constructionand for the operation.

• So questions 30 and 31 are very specula-tive. I think the most important physicsfor the field over the next 25 years willbe looking for quark/lepton-substructure.Over the next 10 years or so it will beEWSB, but hopefully by 2010 we’ll havea much better handle on it than we cur-rently do. Those are the things that I’mmost interested in precisely b/c I thinkthey are the most important. Or rather,I think that these are the most likelyplaces to look for new physics and pushback the frontiers of the field. Neutrinophysics is also a very good candidate


for this, but neutrino experiments arevery hard to do and frequently very nar-row. However, we need to be open tothe possibility of something completelyunexpected. It strikes me that we’re ata stage right now where we don’t knowwhat the right questions to ask. Andnot only that, but we may well not yethave asked these questions at all. Amajor new facility does need to be builtin the U.S. if only b/c without such abeast, the U.S. HEP program will likelywither away. We need to maintain ourmomentum.

• Physics beyond the SM. You mentionedexotic particles searches which is differ-ent.

• SUSY (if it exists!) since this would bea huge extension to the SM and for oncewill be something we experimentalistscan measure first without the theoristsspoiling the fun by telling us the answersfirst! If the Tevatron and LHC don’t seeSUSY then we will need a larger facility- but a proton based one ... e+e- willbe useful if we find SUSY.

• I find biophysics the most compelling inthe next 25 years

• Even with enough funding for the nextcollider the field will not really sustainitself in the long term unless there isa major breakthrough in the acceler-ator domain. Thus the most impor-tant physics for the field is acceleratorphysics.

• To questions 30 and 31: *new physics*(given that we find something new) ifno significant deviations are observedexperimentally, or if theoretically no progressis made beyond the Standard Model,everything becomes boring.

• Also known as fractal space-time the-ory, scale relativity physics was born

ten years ago but is still unrecognizedthough its several verified predictions(mostly in astronomy and astrophysicsat present). It has also a bunch of theo-retical predictions in HEP, among themHiggs mass, coupling constant values,etc...

• 1. An important near/midterm physicsopportunity is exploration of the MNSmatrix in the lepton sector. This requiresupgrades so large as in effect to be majornew facilities. 2. In the range of 10-25years I very much hope that the mostimportant physics is that beyond thepresent standard model – based on dis-coveries made during the next decade.If we’re still doing the physics of the1980’s over and over, we’re in big trou-ble.

• I am more interested in studying thefundamental symmetries (in addition toCP) in the various interactions (strong,weak, EM, etc). This will be my pri-mary research focus in the next few years.As for the field, much of the acceler-ator based effort is directed at 3 top-ics: 1. CP violation (Kaons, B sys-tem) 2. Neutrino Oscillations/mass 3.Higgs/Electro-weak symmetry breaking.These fields have adequate/over repre-sentation while I see that a true under-standing of QCD in the boundary regionbetween perturbative/ non - perturba-tive regime is still in its infancy. The-oretical work is now beginning to yieldpredictions (lattice, chiral perturbation)in many areas. Much of the experimen-tal work in these areas can be accom-plished at energies within reach of exist-ing accelerators.

• I’m afraid I still do not want to con-sider astrophysics as part of ”the field,”even though it has some of the mostcompelling questions to answer in thenext 10-25yrs. In fact, I would have


probably put down ”cosmological con-stant” for question 30 if I were tenuredand could choose what I wanted to workon. I think it is important to nurturediversity in the field. I am concernedabout putting all of our resources intothe ”next machine,” because it does meanthat we will not be able to fund inter-esting, small experiments. I think it isless important where the next machineis built (other than for my own personalwell-being). I would prefer not to spendmy professional life traveling, but I willdo it if the next machine is built abroad.

• With a limited time remaining I findfundamental searches most appealing i.e.neutron oscillations and dark matter searches.

• EWK symmetry breaking is clearly topof the list ... except that we may be see-ing the tip of an exciting iceburg withneutrino oscillations ... so to flag thisI put neutrino physics. In any case ifoscillations provide enough fuel to makesignificant progress on why there are 3flavors, baryogenesis, etc then this isof equal importance to understandingEWK symmetry breaking.

• Many fields may be interesting includ-ing but not limited to QCD, neutrinophysics, EW symmetry breaking. I sus-pect that all of the comments will beimportant over the next 25 years.

• In the near long-term (!) we need tosurvey, in depth, the 100 - 1000 GeVrange and answer the questions we cur-rently have. Then we need a machineto answer the questions we’ll be ask-ing after that. Where these machineswill physically be is going to becomeincreasingly irrelevant.

• I think that there are a number of ques-tions in astrophysics have attracted theinterest of physicists in the recent past.I expect this trend will continue as the

time scale and cost of new HEP facili-ties continues to grow.

• Choosing one topic for the field for thenext 10-25 years is not right approach.All the fields need to be supported butnot all at the same level at the sametime. No one subfield should be sup-ported at more than 50-60

• The field needs to continue to work atthe highest energies and to search forwhat happens at those highest energies.

• We’ve almost reached the point of con-firming one of just a couple plausiblescenarios to wrap up what we know atthese energy scales. I don’t think thatwill exhaust what HEP can do but wewill have to start getting more creative-and reward some amount of risk-taking.

• Although I find neutrino physics per-sonally interesting, we must explore thepossibility for new physics at higher center-of-mass energies.

• Getting beyond the standard model isprobably the most important area ofresearch for the next few decades. I amunclear as to the definition of major. Ifyou mean 100’s of millions then I thinkit is inevitable. If you mean billions ofdollars then I have reservations ... weshould not put all our eggs in one bas-ket.

• My personal goals for the next ten yearslie at the interface of QCD and flavorand CP violation in the quark sector.Ten years hence, there will be puzzles(from LHC data) in EWSB so aroundthen, my focus may switch.

• Compelling and important physics: exper-imental searches of new phenomena relatedto extra dimensions, searches for baryon/leptonnumber violation; CP, CPT violation,


flavor violation, neutrino factories, under-ground experiment, cosmological exper-iments, muon collider.

• Note that ”the physics I find most com-pelling” may not be the physics I wouldwant to work on.

• I’d like to think I am a physicist, not”nuclear” or ”particle” or ”electron” or”proton” or EW/Higgs physicist. Youoptions target 5 year time scale, not10-25. Understanding how the universeworks is what the fundamental scienceis all about. Sometimes this includessolid state or atomic physics ! Rightnow we are just trying to peek outsidethe Standards Model window. Whatcomes next is not entirely clear, andthat’s the beauty of it. Unfortunatelywe have to commit funds 10-15 yearsbefore a major facility can be built –but that only means that we have to beflexible and best equipped to be able toanswer questions that suddenly pop up.

• My choice of question 30) really dependson what will be found in the other fields.If supersymetry is found I would surlyjoin the researches there, but meanwhilewe should not forget other topics whichcan be, as in the QCD case, long timework. I do not know what will becomethe most important. It’s a surprise. Wehave to keep our eyes open in all fieldsnot to bias the researches.

• There are still many open questions onheavy quarks spectroscopy. With a neg-ligible amount of money (with respectthe huge experiments) a much betterunderstanding can be reached.

• Personally, as a theorist, unification top-ics have always engrossed me. At themoment, string theory is the hot topic.In terms of experiments, those I wouldbe most interested in are searches for

specific signatures of supersymmetry, uni-fication beyond the Standard Model orduality. As for the most important, Idon’t think it’s possible to say anythingis the most important. As scientists, wecan’t be satisfied while there are stillany unknowns, so it is important to keepattention on all areas.

• Clearly the area of EW symmetry break-ing is the most pressing area in the field.However many other questions are closelyrelated to this – so searching for newphysics like SUSY, doing precision mea-surement in the EW sector etc are allequally important. However they areessentially driven by the first question.

• The problem of EWK symmetry break-ing and the origin of mass is the mostpressing one in our field, and arguablyone of the most important in all of sci-ence. What’s exciting to me is thatwithin the next ten years we should knowa great deal about the answer, thanksto the Tevatron and the LHC. But theLHC can’t do it all, and for this reasonI believe that an e+e- linear collider isthe necessary and correct next step toadvance the science. It’s desirable thatsuch a facility be built in the US, butthe main thing is to build it, with what-ever technology, SOMEWHERE, start-ing SOON.

• It’s all important.

• All parts of physics are important, butthe most fundamental thing is work onthe unification of knowledge (not onlyunification of forces).

• I worked for 5 years in HEP (with quitegood success). But now I prefer to workin a subject which has more direct con-sequences for mankind. I am fascinatedabout the possibilities of FELs.


• Questions30 and 31: it is really diffi-cult choice in 10-25 year progress in cos-mology/ astrophysics/ cosmic rays/ cannot be achieved without the researchat the accelerator experiments, in myopinion. Let’s say that at Snowmassmeeting some experiment will report dis-covery of some supersymetric particle-sor establish masses of neutrinos or dis-cover new families or ... impact on otherfields is at once.

• The problems I work on involve severalof the topics you listed in 30), and Ihonestly don’t what will be the mostimportant physics for the field over thenest 10-25 years. However, I am trou-bled by the fact that despite the enor-mous efforts over the past half centuryI’ve been in the field, one can still notanswer the question, of the mass of theelectron, what fraction is due to its inter-action with the quantized electromag-netic field? Why do the masses of someof the elementary particles exhibit suchsimple regularities? The fact that inmolecular biology we learn that moleculesstore information, pass that on to othermolecules, which use the informationto construct other molecules, includingmolecules that repair the information-storing molecule is so fundamental thatwe have to wonder whether the elemen-tary particles also exhibit similar prop-erties, and how would we determine thisby suitable experiments?

• The Higgs field, SUSY, CP violation arefundamental properties in Physics. Weindeed are living in exciting times andthe future promises to be even moreexciting (especially if even one the abovementioned phenomena turn out to betrue).

• Questions 30-31: All of the above. Iam excited by a broad range of physics.I think the field has many avenues to

explore, and I will be happy to work onany of them. 33) It’s important that thenext major facility be in the US, but Iwouldn’t risk the long term health andsolidarity of the field, or our relationswith Congress, over this issue. If theLC is built in Europe, we will collab-orate on it, and will also build manyother smaller experiments in the US,from which we will extract rich physics.

• Dark matter, dark energy. Matter seemsto be of minor importance. Supersym-metry must be established (or eliminated).

• The most important physics in the next10-25 years may well be something totallyunexpected. High energy frontier facil-ities have the best chance at this, butthis physics may come from elsewhereand we need to maintain diversity inexperiments and facilities.

• I am most interested in the develop-ment of mathematically coherent andeasily explainable pictures of nature. Whenphysicists give explanations that don’tmake sense, or only make sense in thecontext of a wealth of unquantifiableintuition and experience, the recipientof the explanation is not richer, theyare more confused. The view of physi-cists as know-it-alls will in the end beharmful to the field.

• Personally I would be most interestedin the discovery/study of charm mixing.Babar/Belle data will likely suffice.

• We have to be able to react to the mostrecent information obtained. Understand-ing Electroweak Symmetry Breaking isclearly the most urgent problem beforeus. What we see at the Tevatron nextweek may point the way - or we mayhave to interpret other new data in away that indicates our most promisingnext steps. Open-minded curiosity willhave to set the stage.


• In reference to question 31, I think themost important experiments are thosewhich will indicate beyond-the-standardmodel physics. This may require a higherenergy machine, better machines for pre-cision physics, or both.

• The most interesting physics fot the fieldprobably will be astrophysics as a whole,including dark matter, inflation, MWBR,neutrinos.

• Question 30: at the same level, I wouldalso select ”astroparticle physics” (whichis not offered - cosmic rays is not thesame). re 31: I consider it most impor-tant that activities are supported whichallow for progress in all these fields. Inmy view, it would be the end of HEP ifwe disregard fundamental questions toconcentrate on one or a few key points.

• EW symmetry breaking, neutrino physicsand dark matter are certainly most impor-tant to the field, in particular I believethat strong interaction phenomena (sim-ilar to QCD) play a major role in theEW symmetry breaking. Also, QCDplays a strong role in understanding resultsfrom the new accelerators. Hence I thinkthat while experiments should be focussedaround the above phenomena theoreti-cal research should be more diversifiedthan just ”beyond the standard model”phenomenology” or just ”superstrings”.Accelerator wise we need the Large HadronCollider for discovery of new particles, alinear electron-antielectron accelerator(or alternatively a circular muon col-lider) for high precision physics experi-ments and a neutrino factory long base-line experiment. In addition, astro-particlephysics detectors should attract moreattention too.

• Everyone seems to think the most impor-tant physics is Higgs. In my perverseway of thinking I’d love it if we had no

clue right now what will truly be impor-tant in the next few decades.

• Owing to the nature of the work I havebeen doing, I am getting more drawn tocomputational physics. All the physicsfields are important, but perhaps empha-sis on the fields that can be used togenerate publicity should be stronglyencouraged, as this would lead to greaterpublic awareness of HEP and greatersupport for funding. Given the way theNet/Grid is expanding, a new facilitycan be put virtually anywhere

• Even when MINOS and OPERA aredone, we won’t have a clear picture ofthe masses and other characteristics ofthe neutrinos. It’s important that weget to know as many things as we canof this mysterious particle that mighthold the key to more clues.

• I do not know what will be important15 years from now, and I wager thatno one else does either. Consider twoplausible alternatives: * LHC finds, andNLC confirms, MSSM. Dark matter isidentified. * Neither Higgs nor SUSY isseen below 1 TeV. Dark matter remainsmysterious. Our plans in 2016 will bevastly different in these two cases.

• Need a ”new machine” to go beyond theStandard Model. Hopefully clarify thenature of the ”ultimate theory”.

• There needs to be fascinating new physicsto stabilize the Higgs scale, possibly super-symmetry. The goal of HEP in the next20 years should be to completely quan-tify all the particles and interactions atthe TeV scale. The LHC alone cannotdo this, because an e+e- machine is anecessary complement for precise mea-surements. Since the LHC is already inEurope, it is desirable to have the e+e-machine in America. A nice reversal ofthe 1990’s :)


• For CP violation in neutrino physics (notthe only important part of the issue ofcourse) it is probably necessary on physicsgrounds that the experiment span con-tinents.

• It’s really impossible to say what will bethe ”most compelling” field of HEP 25years from now. It is true that a greatdeal of strong interaction physics, non-perturbative QCD, remains unexploredeven at current collider energies. Cos-mic ray experiments suggest that thereis indeed interesting physics and prob-ably surprises here that merit study.

• I think the most compelling physics willhave to do with hints towards the highenergy theory of which the StandardModel is a low energy effective theory,such as SUSY.

• Personally compelling physics: genuinelynew, discovery physics For the field: EWsymmetry breaking must be attackedearly in this time frame; the longer timescale is appropriate for the explorationof the energy frontier

• I am very interested in some specificphysics issues for the next 10 years, andthey will be addressed in large measurewith current or planned facilities. Butwhat comes next will depend on whatwe find in the next few years. Thatdoesn’t mean, however, that I wouldn’tplan the next accelerator based on ourbest current guesses about what we willneed next since we can’t afford to waitten years to find out what will pan out.We have to take some risks and makesome gambles just to keep experts busyand making steady progress.

• It is all interesting depending on whatwe find out as time goes along!

• I include SUSY searches as part of EWsymmetry breaking. I would not clas-sify these with less motivated random

”exotic” particles. If SUSY is discov-ered it will probably require a new machineto fully explore the spectrum and get atthe underlying theory. This need notnecessarily be in the U.S. if it is a trulyinternational machine and people canfully participate through regional cen-ters.

• I think that the most important andcompelling goals of the next 25 years isthe the precision testing of the standardmodel at high energies ( higgs search/discovery and developing in parallel thecapability to test and discriminate non-standard model processes. In parallelwe should be pursuing precision tests atlower energies (cp violation, rare decaysetc) attempting to reach all the stan-dard model limits for these processes.

• We need to look for the unexpected, notjust do the standard model testing andHiggs searches.

• By exotic particle searches, I am refer-ring to SUSY particles. I feel that themost important physics for HEP overthe next 10-25 years primarily concerns:Higgs physics, cosmological constant, andexotic particle / SUSY searches.

• Supersymmetric particles, dark matter,the Higgs field and extensions of thestandard model are clearly the focus ofthe future. At the same time, the chal-lenge to understand the structure of thevisible matter surrounding us (protonsand neutrons) from first (QCD) princi-ples is still very exciting (and not solved).

• All of these physics topics are impor-tant and compelling. But my bet isthat, since we think the standard modelis not the correct/complete theory ofEW symmetry breaking, the most impor-tant thing is to get evidence of what liesbeyond the standard model in this sec-tor. It could help point to the solutions


of some of the other problems listed,such as CP violation, dark matter etc.for the continued health of the field inter-nationally the U.S. should take on theresponsibility of hosting the next facil-ity. The commitment would, however,somehow have to be in the form of aninternational treaty that is not easilybroken by congress. It would be a dis-aster if an approved project with 50

• Astro/ particle is probably as impor-tant as Higgs, etc.

• Politically, we need a major discoveryat the energy frontier, to guide theo-rists, allow experimentalists to targetexperiments, and most importantly, togenerate sufficient public interest to jus-tify funding future experiments.

• If I knew what physics would be mostinteresting in the next 10-25 years I’ddrop out of physics.

• What will be most important? It’s acrap shoot where the next discovery willcome. I would bet AGAINST the QCDand heavy ion/quark gluon plasma fields.

• My answer to 30 and 31 is a combina-tion of QCD interactions, EW symme-try breaking, CP violation, and hadronicphysics. I think we need to use all ofthose to better define our understand-ing of QCD, to find out where it breaksdown and if there is a ”better” versionof it. Why is it apparently OK to renor-malize? etc.

• We need more testable alternatives tothe standard model, particularly in theHiggs sector. It is also possible thatstring/M/ brane theory may provide newideas.

• The most important physics for 10 -25 years from now is the discovery wehaven’t necessarily dreamed of yet. This

implies that we build the energy fron-tier machine – and only one qualifies– the VLHC. It should be built in theU.S. because the superior site if avail-able. To describe this as an exotic parti-cle search is not unreasonable but prob-ably too restrictive to be appropriate.

• By picking one, I have to not pick theothers. I don’t care what (I’m in accel-erators), but look for something. I thinkit’s wise to trade off with Europe every5 years with the largest and/or newestaccelerator.... Of course that means plan-ning for post-lhc now! At the same time,not collaborating (eg, the U.S. at cern)is childish. Am I asking for too muchmoney?

• 1) the four related ’super questions’ are(a) the origin of mass (b) the originof the generations (c)the origin of CP-violation and (d) the nature of the DarkMatter. 2) the priority is for a lineare+e- collider, preferably with an upperenergy limit without major engineeringupgrade of at least 1 TeV, and prefer-ably 1.5TeV. Should LMA be the cor-rect solar neutrino solution, the nexthighest priority is a neutrino factory.

• Question 32: which one, 30 or 31 ? W.r.t.30 the answer is yes: It is amazing tosee how little is spent (on the theoryside) on dedicated machines for latticeQCD – our lack of precise knowledge ofstrong interaction effects precludes, atthis time, any definite conclusion fromthe BNL g-2 experiment; the frequentlyquoted 2 sigma incompatibility with SMphysics is fake, theoretical uncertaintiesare grossly underestimated, it seems tome only lattice QCD can help.

• I regret, my choice is not unique, butthe form doesn’t allow to select morethan one topics. I would have like achoice of ”beyond the SM”, which encom-passes several topics in your list.


• The field lacks direction. UnfortunatelyI have no clue either where it should begoing.

• Neutrino physics is still quite an openfield. We understand so little about it.It requires many accelerator, cosmic rayand reactor experiments. The acceler-ator program should not be limited tolong baseline efforts, but should includemeasurements important for reducingbackgrounds in cosmic ray and long base-line experiments, as well as searches fornew physics with high flux, narrow bandbeams.

• It’s clear that the EW symmetry break-ing mechanism is the next frontier forprobing the standard model. Much ofthe program will be done at LHC, buta linear collider may also be needed tosort out the details, especially if theHiggs sector is more complex than thatof the minimal standard model. Thenew facility should be built whereverpossible, where ”possible” has both tech-nical and political components. If weinsist that it be in the U.S. or nowhere,the risk of not having a new machineincreases.

• QCD is the big theoretical challenge,and I don’t see it going away. But Iam an experimentalist, and I see severalexperimental challenges to be of equalimportance: certainly QCD and Higgsphysics; but also cleaning up CP vio-lation and the CKM matrix, neutrinophysics, and probably a few issues wehaven’t thought of yet.

• I don’t think anyone can say which physicsis the most important for the field, Iwould say that we should continue work-ing in a variety of new places for thebest chance of finding what’s behind thestandard model. It might be neutrinophysics, it might be the energy fron-tier, it might be precision ”low energy”

measurements. We need to keep forg-ing ahead in all of these areas. I cer-tainly don’t think all of the new facil-ities should be in the U.S. but one bigfacility should be here, as well as a ”baseprogram” of smaller but equally impor-tant experiments.

• I think all are compelling. Many peo-ple will argue that their subject is themost compelling. I am indifferent atthis time.

• Many of the topics are vital to the field,not a single one.

• The most important question for HighEnergy Physics is what is beyond theStandard Model. Whereas no one cansay for sure where this is likely to befound, understanding the Higgs sectorand looking for new particles at the high-est mass scales achievable are excellentplaces to look.

• Looking back the history, a lot of dis-coveries were not foreseen, personally,any effect to understand the nature areinteresting, and may end up with a breakthrough.

• Question 30 : I find it hard to chooseone. this is going to change over time,depending on the results of the ongo-ing experiments, so I guess I don’t wantto answer this question. Ditto 31. 33-while I’d like to say this is true (i.e., itisn’t important that it’s in the U.S.) Ifear that politically it *is* important.However, I feel this is an attitude thatneeds to change. I don’t think thatfewer (or less high-quality) people wouldgo into physics if the experiments were,say , in Europe or Asia.

• B factories and the next generation exper-iments are expected to solve most of thelong standing puzzles of CP violation.So now it’s high time the SM is put to


its ultimate acid test, i.e. the test ofthe Higgs phenomena.

• I think it is short sited to ask us to chosewhat ”the most” important physics is.We should have a diverse program andseriously question any program that isso expensive we can only have one focus.

• I’m interested in many things myself,so I just picked one for question 30.As to question 31, it depends on whatyou think the field is. If you think itincludes astrophysics and cosmology, Ithink that the next most important resultswill probably come from astrophysics.But in order to answer questions 32 and33 the way I think you mean them, Ichose the subject that requires a majornew e+e- facility, because I think thatis what is needed to keep accelerator-based particle physics a part of ”thefield”: if we don’t build one soon, theremay not be such a facility for a verylong time (never say never), and ”thefield” will comprise only astrophysics.I think it is not really that importantthat the new facility is in the US, but ifwe want to convince the funding agen-cies and congress that we are seriouswhen we say that a particular facility isjust what we need, then it would surelylook strange if we didn’t at least preferthe machine to be in the U.S.

• All are interesting and important; how-ever, too much effort may be directed ata fashionable problem to the detrimentof others which seem less urgent.

• If the Higgs is the only new particlefound in the next 10 years (no susi-particlesetc.) it might be a possible death sen-tence for HEP but certainly hard to sellnew even more expensive projects to tothe funding agencies.

• I am personally most interested in thestructure of nuclei. This field will be

strengthened by the advent of radioac-tive beam facilities. New data will bea challenge for theory on one side andexperiments dealing with low intensitybeams.

• The most important field is the test-ing of the SM. If we find new particles(like SUSY) the most important thingwould be the study of its properties oth-erwise it would be the precion test ofthe SM, e.g. Higgs parameters elec-troweak parameters and the unitaritytriangle.

• Important physics: experiments that impactthe whole range of astrophysics and cos-mology: solar physics, nucleosynthesis,supernovas, dark matter, dark energy(quintessence) and more Major new facil-ity: Two are needed (1) Major Under-ground Lab. The U.S. needs an equiv-alent (improvement) of Kamioka mineand Grand Sasso labs. (2) High fluxneutrino source in the 10-50MeV range(decay at rest) for studies related tosolar and supernova neutrinos.

• I include SUSY in EW symmetry break-ing when answering 30/31. Actuallyfurther unification, gravity etc. shouldalso be on the list (our theoretical col-leagues always link SUSY to that any-way). As for location, no, I think thequality of the facility is more importantthan location (except not dumb loca-tions like Waxahache, Texas...).

• For ”other” I think that physics beyondthe standard model is important. Atthe present time I would emphasize stringtheory (or, as it is sometimes called, thetheory formerly known as strings), butI would not like to restrict myself to oneparticular approach for the future.

• The fundamental nature of space-time,the vacuum, and quantum gravity mightbe of interest.


• Specify a single physics topic in not appro-priate. The goal of our research shouldbe always pursue new discoveries andalso to enhance our understanding thephysics laws that governing our universe.

• Variety of research is important.

• Compelling physics, that is the ques-tion. Personally I do not find any ofthe physics topics currently on the plateso compelling to justify the huge effortsrequired to explore them. But unfortu-nately I do not have the magic wand ofa solution to this question.

• More attention should be paid to recentdevelopments in alternative acceleratorschemes, in particular based on high-power lasers.

• I think, if one decides to spend moreefforts on cosmic ray physics, this shouldbe done at established labs (since theexpertise is available there already)

• Personally I find fundamental interac-tions and symmetries most interesting.For the field interdisciplinary work andopenness to new idea will be crucial.The field would be dead, if I could saynow what will be important in 25 years.If that an be done, we better stop rightnow and enjoy fishing or so.

• The most important point is that a num-ber of fundamental experiments be pur-sued. These range from searching forelectric dipole moments of the neutron,electron, muon and atoms, to study-ing the nature of EW symmetry break-ing. There has to be a balance of top-ics under study, since nature has oftengiven us surprises, rather than what wewere sure we would find.

• In my opinion there isn’t ”the field” butrather a wealth of things to do: Higgs/EW

symmetry breaking CP violation Neu-trino physics cosmological constant/darkmatter.

• Question 30: would also add dark mat-ter searches as example for fundamentalquestions attracting me. Question 31:for me no difference to 30): stop work-ing in a few years. Question 33: couldwell be outside U.S., if U.S. contributesstill.

• If I knew the answer to 31, I would loseinterest in the field.

• I think theories like supersymetry withno current evidence, while they shouldbe investigated, are taking up a dispro-portionate amount of research.

• 25 years: too long timescale.

• I think that all are choices are impor-tant for the field in the next 10-25 yearsand that the U.S. should lead the way.

• I believe we will learn the most by push-ing to higher energies.Push to higherenergies. The particle physics/cosmologyconnection is the aspect I find most excit-ing.

• It is essential for the field to start see-ing answers to the mass problem. Notjust observing the Higgs, but actuallygetting a glimpse of a deeper structurebeyond the Standard Model

• I am amazed that one of the most impor-tant physics direction of the next 10-25 years: physics that stabilizes EWSBscale at 1 TeV, has not even made intothis survey. Clearly, faculty should doa better job teaching young physicistswhat’s of crucial importance in this field!(This neither Higgs physics/EWSB orExotic particle searches; this is physicsBEYOND 1 TeV!)


• I think that it is important that we main-tain a diverse physics program, this includesphysics at lower energies for QCD, Bphysics and CP violation, and physicsat the energy frontier for EW symmetrybreaking, new particle searches, as wellas non accelerator based experimentsfor neutrino physics (for example). Idon’t really know which of these will bemost compelling for me ten years fromnow.

• It’s not possible to pick just one areaas being most important for the field.Instead I would pick three– CP viola-tion, electroweak/Higgs, and neutrinos.For CP violation a new facility is notneeded. For neutrinos, a new facilitywould be needed. For EW/Higgs, itsnot yet clear if a new facility is neededbeyond the LHC.

• About 31): there is a whole bunch ofphysics subjects which are importantfor the field. Answer to basical ques-tions : e.g. CP violations , neutrinophysics, cosmological constants/dark mat-ter. Once answered those questions willopen completely new fields for research,and other basical questions will rise andopen new domains of physics. Nailingdown the standard model and givingand answer about the Higgs is equallyimportant if found in the energies reachedby RunII or LHC, it can open the doorto new domains of research as well. How-ever if not reached at that energy levelit can drag physics (forever) in direc-tions where it should not go.

• Important physics may not be locatedin one specific field. It is important tobe competent in several topics.

• I would most like to see the continua-tion of particle physics as a whole. Thiswill allow for the discovery of new physicsover the next 10-25 years. The type isnot as important to me as it would be

to a physicist who has devoted the past20 years (or whatever) to a particularsubdivision of particle physics.

• All of the above plus extra/hidden dimen-sions. The next 10 years will help reveal/uncovernew phenomena that will help drive thephysics opportunities of the next machine.

• EW symmetry breaking, neutrino physics,astro-particle physics and cosmology areequally important topics. The discover-ies which will be made will decide whichone is most important.

• We know here is new physics, physicsbeyond the existing models, today, inthe lepton sector. You don’t have tobuild a new machine to find that newphysics. We need new facilities and per-haps new beams to address that physics.But at a small fraction of the cost for anew VLHC or NLC.

• While we are pushing hard to probedark corners of the Standard Model, noth-ing breaks the mold like a new particle.To accomplish this it seems reasonableto argue that accelerator physics hasto be pushed to smaller, more power-ful technologies. Instead of turning ablind ear to those who have novel or”impossible” ideas about new accelera-tor technologies, maybe its time to tossa little venture capital their way. All ofthis begs for a new facility, either in thelong or short term, at which such R&Dcan be nurtured.

• I selected CP violation but would saythat I was interested in flavor physics– especially why there are three gener-ations. The U.S. needs to have a largefacility – as the world’s richest countryit should be willing to invest in this kindof research, which generates fundamen-tal knowledge.

• Most compelling fields – black hole physics,quantum gravity, string theory. I am


intrigued that some issues in these fieldsmay even be addressable in near-futurehigh energy machines such as a linearcollider.

• There’s plenty of great stuff going on. Ipersonally find myself attracted to pre-cision (and thereby, as it happens, massproduction) astronomy such as SDSS,SNAP, LSST and a whole bunch of otherfour-letter acronyms. But astrophysicsin general is the way forward, and specif-ically, I feel the future will belong tothose who come up with increasinglyclever ways to let nature do the accel-erating. Cosmic ray detectors, neutrinotelescopes, and the like could provide agreat deal of information on new physics(esp. hadronic interactions) at absurdlyhigh energies.

• I find any physics that addresses thequestions - why is there mass - why arethere 3 families - why is there more mat-ter than anti-matter compelling. Theseare questions that are independent offield.

• I think that neutrino physics is becom-ing much more interesting and impor-tant, and I think it is not receiving therecognition it deserves. However, whenI say this science requires a new facil-ity, I do not mean on the same scale asthe linear collider (for example). Theadvancement of neutrino physics can hap-pen much cheaper, and potentially inparallel to other work in the field. Now,eventually, if one needs to build a fullneutrino factory or muon collider, it willbe expensive. I also weigh the last answeragainst what I see happening world-wide,meaning that this path would enable usto maintain useful action in the U.S.while participating in a facility elsewhere.

• In the short term, I think neutrino physicswill still teach us a great deal, and Ihave less faith in accelerator results than

non-accelerator ones. Longer term, cos-mology (dark matter, possibly dark energy,etc.) will be the important area.

• I thinks the biggest thing in Physics willbe moving beyond the standard modeland then trying to incorporate gravity.And since the U.S. lead the world inparticle physics research the entire lengthof the previous century, I feel we shouldtake our time and see what comes outof the LHC.

• The Higgs sector is likely to be our bestwindow to what’s ”out there” beyondthe SM, if anything. Some Higgs bosonis almost certain to be found at the LHCor the TeVatron, but may be poorlymeasured. SUSY particles may be thereand will be the best long-term bet forHEP if they are there. If the Higgscomes in too light or too heavy, thensomething is ”out there” and we shouldlook for it. The LHC can do much of thediscovery work, but precision measure-ment may require an e+e- linear col-lider. With good global participation,it does not matter where the laboratoryis. With poor funding ability in somecountries, the U.S. may be financiallythe most capable of hosting the project.(this may change as some countries’ economiesimprove and they become more willingto finance HEP, or less, who can tellwhat the politics will do?)

• Depends on what is found: if progresson EWSB is made ”soon” the solutionmay/will probably raise new importantquestions. Almost certainly continuingdevelopment of major facilities neededto answer these. Q.33: Politically prob-ably yes, to retain the strength of com-mitment of U.S. physicists and fundingagencies.


13.7.2 Does the Physics Require

a New Machine?:

• LHC is being built. That is what weneed to do it.

• LHC may find the Higgs, but how muchabout it will they be able to measure.Vacuum for U.S. based physics after FNALTevatron closes?

• The LHC will address most of the nextround questions.

• New experimental ways of probing theSymmetry breaking mechanism are requiredother than just building bigger and big-ger colliders. Ingenuity and new ideasare strongly necessary, especially due tothe shrinking budgets for coming years...

• It is precisely because nobody can answerthe question about which experimentsare going to provide the next big break-through that we need progress on manyfronts. We need a LC, but also a neu-trino factory. We also need the U.S. tobe strongly involved, and that probablymeans (for political reasons) that one ofthe new large facilities should be sitedin the States.

• The primary scientific justification forthe SSC was the elucidation of the mech-anism(s) responsible for EWK symme-try breaking - the origin of mass. TheLHC will (hopefully) address this, butmay not, because it may be too low inenergy. Post LHC, it makes no sense forthe U.S. to build an NLC or a muon col-lider, because by the time they becomeoperational, there will be little to addto whatever is known from LHC experi-ments, which will have been running forsome significant number of years. In myopinion, the only sensible thing now forthe USA to do is to build a p-p acceler-ator with energy >> LHC.

• If a new neutrino facility is built in thenext 10 years, it would be very wiseto have available beams from all stages(low to high energy).

• There should be a reasonable mix ofnon-accelerator and accelerator exper-iments. Neutrino mixing, Higgs, andsupersymmetry are the most importantphysics goals over the next few years.There will still be many unanswered physicsquestions after LHC and FNAL Run IIare finished. We will need new machinesto explore the energy frontier.

• We may learn quite a bit from the Teva-tron Run II and the LHC. This has tobe seriously understood in planning anew facility in the area of EW symme-try breaking, for example. The U.S.does need a new high energy facility,but we have ourselves to blame for thecurrent situation. We didn’t we ratio-nally plan for the SSC to be an inter-national facility at Fermilab and thenplan for a ∼ 2 TeV e+e- linear colliderto come on afterwards? Instead we actlike a bunch of little kids, fighting eachother, and the DoE has made seriousmistakes. The DoE should not be try-ing to manage the field. They are farfrom being wise leaders in high energyphysics.

• The present proposals for some of thenext machines are evolutions based onpresent technologies. The muon beams,TESLA and the low field VLHC areexceptions. The first offers the possi-bility of something completely new, thesecond uses a more efficient technology,and the third is the best way to get backto the energy frontier. Simply evolvingpresent technologies - apparently beyondtheir scope - by feeding them more andmore money is not a responsible way tospend the taxpayers’ money. We needto support new ideas and implement the


new concepts, or our machines will alwaysbe costing more and more without becom-ing more efficient.

• The opportunity of the underground lab-oratory (given its scope and cost) mustbe pursued independent of the colliderdecisions.

• I feel that the next machine needs tobe an electron collider to study the EWsector along with the LHC. I feel thata VLHC is necessary to study energiesbeyond LHC and carry the physics fur-ther. I feel that it makes the most senseto build the VLHC in the U.S., basedat FNAL, since much of the infrastruc-ture exists. The electron-electron labcan be built in Germany while the stud-ies and planning is being completed forthe VLHC.

• My suggestion of accelerator physics isborn of desperation as I don’t think wepresently have a fiscally viable new facil-ity on the horizon. The hope would bethat accelerator R&D might produce acheaper alternative.

• Current proposed new accelerators areunrealistically expensive. We need smarter,more versatile in physics potential, cheapermachines if we ever expect to get approvalfrom the government to build a > 1B$facility.

• It is clear that the LHC will not pro-vide all the answers we are seeking butshould help us toward the next step forboth experiment and theory. It is impor-tant to complement the science to bedone at the LHC with another type ofmachine that will provide further insightinto the foundations of the standard model.

• If ”major” means so expensive that allthe rest will be down sized, we betterput more effort in acceleration techniqueso that higher energies can be reached

with different kind of machines. In themeanwhile there is PLENTY of physicsat lower energy that can be exploitedwith less expensive new facilities or upgradesof existing ones.

• I think we should get moving on VLHCto cross a new energy frontier, or else goget real jobs in San Jose, leave behind afew hundred people to finish up ongoingwork on neutrino properties and EWSB,and hope our friends at CalTech see grav-ity waves.

• HEP has a long record to shut downfacilities much to early - LEP being thelast of the list.

• There are already major new facilitieseither planned or in operation both forQGP and cosmological constant (CMB).I do not know if any major new facilitieswill be needed beyond those already onthe table – probably not.

• For Question 31/32, I think that theLHC at CERN should find somethingnew. A new experiment, probably ane+/e- collider, will be required for pre-cise measurements of this new physicsin 10-15 years or so.

• If there is to be a future in accelera-tor based HEP then we must invest inaccelerator R&D to identify and developaffordable new technologies.

• Although I would like the next facilityto be a neutrino factory, I am resignedto the fact that the momentum in thecommunity is behind a linear colliderand I think there are good reasons forthis decision. Given that, I will supportthe best design and fastest timescaleto build a linear collider (TESLA) andpush for R&D for a neutrino factory.

• Should try to put more effort into R&D,both accelerator and detector related.


This will make it possible to make abetter case. Also it should be madevery clear to powers-that-be (politicians)that R&D is an integral (and essential)part of our activities, and that specialfunding should be provided for this effort.

13.7.3 Location of a Frontier Facil-

ity:

• Stop being cry-babies about the U.S.losing their leading role in HEP, andstart thinking what you (the U.S.) cando for world HEP.

• I would only support a new machine atFermilab. I do not want to go throughthe same procedure used for the SSC.Without these 2 constraints I do notsupport the construction of a new machinein the U.S.

• I don’t believe the U.S. can maintaina vigorous program without a frontierfacility.

• I’d like to see a U.S. national under-ground science lab built very soon.

• The U.S should have a major under-ground experimental facility for HEP.

• U.S. National Underground Laboratoryis necessary. Please, no Homestake. Whois going to work in South Dakota?

• It may not be important for physics thatthe facility be in the U.S., but it’s impor-tant for U.S. physics.

• It’s not important to HEP in generalthat it be in the U.S. The Europeanscan do the discoveries. but, it is impor-tant to U.S. HEP.

• Incremental upgrade of Fermilab will deliverthe neutrino factory and maintain a healthyHEP in the U.S. Going for the linearcollider (it looks like the TESLA option

is going to win out) will merely delaythe acquisition of a neutrino factory, sinceit looks as though TESLA will go toDESY (as it should). DESY did theR&D!

• A new facility in the U.S. is crucial tokeep young physicists from leaving thefield.

• A new facility in the U.S. does NOTmean it has to be a ”U.S. lab!”

• From a science point of view, it doesn’tmatter where the new machine is located.From a political point of view, however,thinking that it doesn’t matter is worsethan asking for too much money.

• Preferably the facilities should be dis-tributed equally throughout the world.But this should not be used as an argu-ment that the LC should be build in theU.S.

• It needs to be in space!

• Several new facilities are needed. It isimportant that one be in the U.S., butI don’t think it is important (from aphysics point of view) which one.

• To survive, we have to get past the com-petition to host machines in the sensethat Congress decides it isn’t worth sup-porting HEP unless the facility is local.The space station is not in any state ofthe USA.

• The U.S. needs no less than to have thehighest energy machine in the world. Asub-TeV lepton collider will not providethat.

• I have decided to do physics in Europebecause, after the SSC, I believed thatthe U.S. would not be able to pull ittogether. The NLS business is evidencethat I am right. But the U.S. must


have a program or the European pro-gram will flounder. This is clear fromthe time slippage of the LHC withoutan existing SSC: recall SSC was sched-uled to run in 1999 and lhc in 1998. Wenow see LHC in 2006? 7? 8?

• I would prefer a linear collider in theU.S., but feel that it is more importantthat we have one somewhere.

• I would only support a new machine atFermilab. I do not want to go throughthe same procedure used for the SSC.Without these 2 constraints I do notsupport the construction of a new machinein the U.S.

• I believe it is a major mistake for theU.S. not to have a major accelerator inplace during the reign of the LHC. TheHEP community here will be marginal-ized in important ways. We can partlyoffset this by as-strong-as-possible par-ticipation in LHC and other interna-tional objectives.

• U.S. people should get over the fact thatwe can’t have everything here. Othercountries, while not having the samemoney as us, when combined can dovery well as collaborations. It is alsogood that there is international pres-sure on individual governments to con-tinue support. The U.S. cannot guaran-tee that its government will always beHEP-friendly, but an international col-laboration always has some HEP-friendlymembers at any given time. Therefore,we should get used to the idea that thenext big project could be anywhere inthe world. Of course, being from theU.S., I would like it here. But there areother factors against the U.S. - It is sodamned hard for foreigners to get visasto stay here. It is scary for some toleave the U.S. because they don’t knowif they will be allowed back in. The lack

of respect by this country for scientistsfrom other nations is alarming.

• The location of the next machine shouldnot depend at all on national pride. Muchmore important is that it be located ina truly international lab, as CERN is (Iam not saying it has to be at CERN...).

• Just get some funding and build one*good* accelerator with some decent (atleast 2) detectors on it. Location doesn’tmatter, joining forces does.

• It is very important to have some majorfacility operating in each region. ForFermilab, the most promising sugges-tion I have seen is by Peter McIntyre,to increase the Tevatron beam energyto 3 TeV.

• HEP will die in a continent that doesnot have a machine (well, there will bea few small university groups).

• I don’t think the performance of themachine will depend on its location, giventhat the basic resources, such as con-stant electrical power, are guaranteed.There are some obvious problems at SLACwith the brownouts, and the phones notworking ! Seems like it would be easierto run SLAC in Mexico ...

• I think that a new e+e- collider builtsoon would benefit the field. I’d preferit be built in the U.S. so that I couldmore easily work there and for the inter-est in physics it would bring to the U.S.However, if the U.S. doesn’t want topay so much, we should still certainlysupport a linear collider wherever elseit may be built (e.g. Germany).

• There is a natural tension between beinga good internationalist and being a U.S.PHYSICIST. You read it in the variousGilman etc. reports which instruct usto be international in our planning but


to be sure that we maintain U.S. lead-ership. I believe these are not incom-patible. The TEVATRON has givenU.S. leadership for 20 or so years. Ibelieve it makes sense for the U.S. tocontinue this with VLHC. High energyin the domain of multi hundred TEVwill expose new phenomena rivalling any-thing in our history. That is the use-fulness of the astrophysicists and eventhey may be as children, throwing peb-bles into the surf of a vast ocean of igno-rance. In some sense the Higgs, super-symmetry are ”tired” discoveries. Butwhat the hell is dark energy?

• The facility should be the best for physicsin whatever site gives the best chance ofworldwide funding and participation.

• To clarify, it is even more importantthat the U.S. try for the next than itsucceed. Not trying is tantamount toabdicating a major league participation.

• The U.S. needs a frontier machine afterthe LHC starts up in 2007 (more likely2009!). It is not necessary for the nextmachine (probably a linear collider) tobe built in the U.S., but planning forthe machine after that is essential, andR&D must start immediately.

• A facility is better than no facility, nomatter where it’s built.

• Location in the U.S. would give a sig-nificant boost to the U.S. program; forthis, location is important. If, on theother hand, putting it in the U.S. meansit doesn’t get built, this would be atragedy.

• We need to have the Tesla LC designbuilt near Fermilab.

• It is preferred that new facility be in theU.S. A new facility abroad (i.e., no newmajor ones in U.S.) requires substantial

reorganization of U.S. field; not impos-sible, but there will be resistance.

• I am a U.S. citizen, and want my coun-try to be the leader.

• As a European I think it’s importantthat a new facility should be in Europe.

• Again, I am from Europe and I thinkthat it is important that a new facil-ity be in Europe (for Europeans) andin the U.S. (for Americans), etc. Ofcourse, this would not prevent strongexchanges between the various continents.

• Every country wants it to be in theircountry. We need a better argument ...

• The most important property of the newfacility is that it be economically viable.While it would be better for U.S. physicsif it were in the U.S., one should not ruleout a foreign site if it appears that thisis the only way to make the machinehappen.

• Priority is that a next facility a e-e col-lider in the O(1TeV) energy range isbuilt somewhere. Location is of secondimportance.

• We have to give up that science will dieif the U.S. doesn’t have a facility. Ofcourse, as weather research has learned,if you are willing to form collaborationsbroadly, your research will die. In theircase, computers did them in.

• The new facility should have interna-tional character and could be locatedanywhere in the world where there isreasonable infrastructure.

• The location of a new e+e- collider isnot as important to me as it used tobe.

• It appears to me that we should havea new e+e- collider somewhere. Surely


it is best for U.S. physicists if it is inthe U.S., but the location is a matterfor negotiation.

• The physics reach should be the pri-mary objective. The location should bedecided based on logistic and fundingpossibilities rather than national argu-ments.

• Being in Europe I naturally find it morecompelling to have the NLC in Europe.I also happen to believe that TESLAis the best concept around, therefore Ithink that TESLA at DESY would bethe best thing to happen with TESLAat Fermilab still being better than anyother NLC somewhere else.

• With the current political climate in theUSA I find it very hard to believe atruly new project has any chance of beingfunded.

• Good physics can be done anywhere inthe world, if the resources are available.Whether the U.S. government will pro-vide good funding for the field if thenext accelerator is built in Europe orJapan rather than in the U.S. is an openquestion. It may be possible if there isa consensus for a plan which includesa facility in the U.S. subsequently witha European/ Japanese commitment toparticipate.

• The only reason I suggest that we needa facility in the States is because of real-ity. The university system is not yetprepared to offer graduate students over-seas access. If it were just the sciencethat we needed, we could stick the newmachine ANYWHERE. But we also usethe field for training, and for that weneed people to have access to the project.

• It is most important to get the newmachine. If that means building it in

Germany, so be it. I would be will-ing to take part. Whether my presentemployer would be willing is a differ-ent question. A linear collider is anessential tool for pursuing the physics.It would be nice, but not necessary forthat machine to be in the U.S. For thehealth of the field IN the U.S. it wouldbe very good if it were built here. Oth-erwise there will be a decay of the infras-tructure to remain viable in the longrun. If the machine is build abroad, theU.S. must be an active participant. Wemust also learn from the SSC, for whichthe U.S. was not really serious about itbeing an international machine until itwas in trouble. I see many signs of thisrecurring.

• I think a new facility has to be built inthe U.S. It is unreasonable to imaginethat the support will be there to trainenough graduate students in facilities inEurope. Or for more than a few seniorpeople to spend a reasonable amount oftime there.

• Prior to WWII, most of forefront physicswas centered in Europe. America wasknown for its engineering might. AfterWWII, elementary particle physics wasrewarded with several facilities in theU.S. because of the critical role theyplayed in the development of the atomicbomb. They were recognized as a nationalresource that needed to be maintainedand developed. As we have moved awayfrom cold war, so to has America movedaway from supporting basic science infavor of applied physics with shorter termpay back. This has lead to a) a drain ofgraduate students and postdocs in thephysical sciences into professions thathave strong industrial support (i.e. dotcom programming and networking, chipdesign). More senior persons in the fieldare leaving U.S. facilities to work in Europe(i.e. formally LEP, now LHC) which


will capture the energy frontier sincethe death of the SSC.

• The U.S. will have a larger role if it isin the U.S.

• We don’t need everything here, but wedo need something here.

• It is important for the field to moveahead with the appropriate new facil-ity, anywhere. It is also important thatthe U.S. have forefront facility, and thisis the only reason to say in Q33 that thefacility should be in the U.S. The U.S.should play a major role, wherever it isbuilt.

• Any new lab doesn’t necessarily have tobe in the U.S. Why not build it some-where else (other than of course money)?

• Physics is worldwide the same. I don’tsee any point in insisting that futureexperiments have to be conducted inthe U.S.

• I believe we have to talk internationalnow and the U.S. has to truly join theeffort of anybody else, Japan, Europe,Asia, Australia etc. etc. to build the”next machines”!

• U.S. is currently far behind Japan andEurope as far as the facility to carry outnumerical calculations in lattice QCD isconcerned.

• New facility should be somewhere withsome existing infrastructure for the typeof accelerator chosen to minimize thecost.

• It is vital that the USA remain a majorplayer in HEP and that many of thebrightest students are attracted into thefield. That will only happen if there is alaboratory with the resources to under-take the most important research. In

the next couple of decades that meansa linear collider.

• It’s important that the U.S. HEP com-munity survives and thrives. If this meansthey need a facility in the U.S. thenmy answer to 33 is ”yes” - but as anoutsider I don’t know. Maybe interna-tional facilities based wherever are asgood/better (the UK works like this).

• The U.S. certainly needs to remain amajor player in the field, but it is alsoimportant that Europe and Asia main-tain strong programs. So, while I cer-tainly think the U.S. should be prepar-ing for a new facility, it need not nec-essarily be the NEXT facility. We couldbuild the next-to-next facility, for exam-ple.

• If the next lepton collider and LHC areboth in Europe, what major facilitieswould the U.S. have probing the energyfrontier?

• I am European, so I would actually pre-fer that large facility to be in Europe ;)

• It is obvious that any new, large machinewill necessarily be an international facil-ity, but the U.S. needs a new facility tokeep domestic science strong (perhapsmake it stronger) and to keep some ofthe younger people who are leaving thefield.

• The credibility gap engendered by theSSC debacle still exists. Large projectmanagement in the U.S. has not improvedmuch since. Even though I am U.S.-based, for me this risk weakens the casefor the next machine being the ”U.S.’sturn” enough that I answered ’no’ to33.

• I don’t believe that all the world’s HEPfacilities need be in the U.S.


• The Tevatron and LHC will hopefullycover much of the EW symmetry break-ing mechanism, but probably a linearcollider will be needed to do this accu-rately. Given that there may only beone such linear collider in the world, Idon’t see any particular reason why itshould be in the USA.

• The importance of placing a new detec-tor in the U.S., in my mind, is thatof continuing to attract people to thefields of physics in the future in Amer-ica. The young adults just entering col-lege for the first time are the ones whoneed to have a solid reason to expectwork in physics, and their youth andchildhood should include exposure toHEP as something they could do whenthey grow up - it is often seen too muchas an endeavor which only some veryfew can participate in.

• The location does not matter much. Groupsworking in large collaborations are alreadyused to being located far from the exper-iment itself (Tevatron and LHC for exam-ple). Even if the new facility is not inthe U.S., U.S. institutions can still havea very important participation in it (cfLHC).

• If a new accelerator is not built in theU.S. in the intermediate (10-25 yrs) future,the field here risks serious stagnation.The senior scientists will travel abroadto the experiments and important con-ferences and travel funds will be insuf-ficient for postdocs and students. Thefield will be very unattractive to manybright young people.

• Why do you want to know if it shouldbe in the U.S.? Maybe people feel itshould be elsewhere. Anyway, to beconvincing I think we should work onour physics motivation and than dealwith politics.

• Naturally, the next big machine shouldbe in USA after Europe got the LHC.

• I think a warm technology e+e- linearcollider should be built at Fermilab, witha gamma-gamma option vigorously pur-sued.

• It is not important for the quality ofthe SCIENCE that the next accelera-tor be in the U.S. However, if the nextaccelerator is elsewhere, the U.S. willcease to play a leading role. This maybe inevitable, but will be unfortunatefor the careers of high energy physicistsin the U.S.

• There are countries other than the USA.

• The major reason I think it’s importantto put the facility in the U.S. is per-sonal. I would rather do work at a labin the U.S., so that travel would stillbe a N-day thing rather than N-weekthing.

• A linear collider in Germany would costthe U.S. 1B$. If built in the U.S. itwould require 1/2 of the cost and, usingU.S. accounting, 6 B$. So we pay 3 B$.Saving of 2 B$ if done in Germany.

• I strongly believe that U.S. should main-tain leading role in high energy physics.If no new major HEP facility is built inU.S. soon, that will be hardly possible.

• Michael Witherell made a convincingcase for the LC, although I don’t thinkit necessarily should be at Fermilab, thoughI agree with him that it is important forAmerican science that it be in the U.S.

• It is important to take back the lead inenergy frontier machines and thereforeto build an e+e- machine that comple-ments and expands on LHC sensitivityto new physics. It is important thatthis machine be in the U.S., for obviousreasons.


• The U.S. should try to take the lead onthe next big step beyond the standardmodel, not the incremental approach ofthe next linear collider.

• It seems like TESLA is a great plan,and that DESY really has their act together.But, it also seems important for U.S.involvement (and funding - Congress seemsto like spending continously, rather thanprojects interleaved with times requir-ing no structural investment) that it besited in the U.S.

• The most important thing is the intel-lectual input into the subject. This requiresbright students and postdocs. They areattracted by research facilities that enablethem to learn fast in a dynamic andchallenging atmosphere, and contributeto the subject. The facilities need to beaccessible and not a continent away.

• To keep the field of HEP alive in theU.S. it is obvious to me (even as a Euro-pean working in Europe) that the aimshould be for a LC in the U.S. To reachthe end of the Tevatron without thenext big step in the U.S. planned wouldrisk to destroy HEP in the U.S.

• Build VLHC in the U.S. please !!!!!!!!!!!!

• Concensus seems to be that no country,including U.S., is going to go it alone forfuture big accelerators. Important thatwe plan for the possibility that it willbe a long time before the U.S. has thefrontier machine here.

• Unless the next machine is in U.S., theU.S. field will collapse (by 30-50%). Ifthis happens, HEP worldwide will sim-ilarly shrink, although more gradually(perhaps). This will threaten whatevernew machine is under construction, andthe SSC proved that big new accelera-tor projects can be canceled once sup-port for them diminishes beyond a cer-tain point. (Actually, this principle was

established earlier by the fate of ISABELLE,but not sufficiently understood by enoughpeople at that time.) Ergo, the nextmmajor machine MUST be built in theU.S. if there is going to be a next machine.This principle supercedes any other indeciding what machine to build and whereit is to be sited.

• If reduced financial support in the U.S.continues, the best option may be TESLAin Germany. There may not be Con-gressional support for any large acceler-ator project in the U.S. in the forseeablefuture.

• If a LC is not to be built in the U.S.soon, then it becomes important to sup-port TESLA in Germany.

• Looking back at the decisions concern-ing projects and its seeming financialguarantee made in the U.S. in the lastfew years, I would rather pick an optionanywhere outside the U.S.!

• I would choose an e+e- collider. I believewe should bid to host the machine inthe U.S. but be willing to enthusiasti-cally support it if it is sited elsewhere.

• Linear collider programme is an essen-tial next step to complement LEP. Itwould help world HEP if the colliderwere sited in the USA in order to bringforth the next generation of particle physi-cists. It would be a terrible loss to worldHEP if the USA did not host a majornew project in the next decade.

• I believe it is fundamental that the U.S.always host a frontier machine...eitherwe should have the frontier linear col-lider or hadron collider, but if both areoutside the U.S., U.S. particle physicswill die.

• The U.S. should aim to maintain at leasttwo accelerator labs. We have had BNL,


CESR, Fermilab and SLAC and thathas been healthy.

• Some large physics experiments in Aus-tralia or Spain would be nice. Thosewould be interesting countries to live in.

• As written earlier, the geographical loca-tion is a non-issue.

• Benefit NOT being in the U.S. due tofunding problems in the U.S. SSC is anexample why not to have the next facil-ity in the U.S.

• I spent decades working at CERN, so afacility doesn’t have to be in the U.S.to be useful. On the other hand theremust be some facility in the U.S. orthe field will simply die. With a careerchoice of ”this hole in the ground inSwitzerland” or ”that hole in the groundin Switzerland”, the field is dead.

• Question 33: regional centers is an excel-lent idea to keep more countries involved,so that it no longer becomes an issueof nationalism (which is too often howmajor programs are sold to the public!).Of course, I would like to see the nextbig initiative at U.S./FNAL, however itis more important that we make a deci-sion that will move the field forward.

• Higgs is important only for the moraleof the field. In some ways we’d be bet-ter not to find it, so we could start somenew theoretical work. The facility needsto be in the U.S., again, for morale rea-sons.

• The next discovery is equally as likelyto come in any area. If a large newfacility does not exist in the U.S. bythe end of the LHC, then the U.S. willbecome a third-world nation in funda-mental physics. The sacrifice of anymajor field of research hurts all science.

• Location of TESLA is unimportant. Build-ing a linear collider should be top pri-ority regardless of location.

• No machine in the U.S., have provennot to give reliable schedules.

• It’s just a wish - I don’t expect it tomaterialize. We will be damn lucky toever see another facility in the U.S.

• Let physics decide what is needed. Thenbuild what is needed (no matter where,the point is that the best machine is tobe built, again no matter where).

• In my view the location of the next machineis not as important as the question if itwill be build or not.

• The big worry is that if the U.S. doesnot host a major new accelerator overthe next 10 years, we will lose preciousknow-how and our technology base. Thatwill also contribute to the attrition alreadytaking place, especially with regards tothe young people leaving the field aftertheir PhD or a few years of postdoctoralwork. But, by far most important, isfor HEP to come out with a clear planfor the future that we all should sup-port. If that means that my preferredoption is not selected, that’s fine as longas there is a sense that the physics at anew facility is exciting and we will learna lot from it.

• The U.S. should strongly support simul-taneous world-class e+e- and hadron facil-ities – one of these two facilities shouldbe in the United States with strong inter-national participation, the other shouldnot be in the U.S. but it should havesubstantial involvement and investmentby the U.S. as a fully committed part-ner.

• I don’t see that the post-TESLA worldby definition has to be in the U.S. Itcould be anywhere !


• It is very important for the continuedhealth of our field over the next decadeor more to have some project in the U.S.which is in a position to take a lead-ing role in hep research. I am not surewhether this is an NLC type machineor something else. This will dependheavily on the proposed energy of themachine. To make this project reallyworthwhile will require a center-of-massenergy of ∼ 0.5-1 TeV, and at the presenttime I understand that this is higherthan what is being targeted for at thepresent time. Further, given the time-lines for other big projects like VLHCor Muon Colliders, we need somethingin the near term to keep our programs/facilities/ personnel in tact until suchtime as one of these big projects canbe designed and funded! What thatnear term program is is difficult to say.There are proposals to upgrade the energyof the Tevatron ring to allow for a com-petitive pbar-p program running in par-allel with the startup of the LHC. Thiswould make sense if it could be launchedsoon and have beams in a few years.With an upgrade of the magnets to 12T, the energy of the beams could betripled and the CM energy raised to6 TeV, which would give this machinea chance in competing with the higherenergy LHC pp machine. My feeling isthat we need such a shorter-term projectif we are to be able to make it throughto the next level of new machines likethe VLHC, etc.

• The field needs to spend a larger per-centage of its resources on R&D for accel-erators and other new technologies. Thisis even more important as the next-nextmachine will be even harder to build.This shift in resources will delay thenext new machine being completed bya few years but is important for keep-ing the field alive beyond the current

generation of physicists.


on Physics:

• Well, to question 30 and 31 I wouldhave added neutrino physics, one choiceis not enough.

• The list of topics to choose from is veryuninspiring. None of them are partic-ularly important or compelling. Thereshould be something along the lines ofseeking the unexpected. For example,we need more young physicists to fer-vently believe that the standard modelis poor and inadequate and have a physicsplan to research this particular topic.

• I think your lists are too restrictive! Whatwe desperately need right now is to mapout the structure. Is SUSY there? Whatis the dark matter and energy? Extradimensions? These general questionsare much more important than the widthof the Higgs or precision measurements!

• Most of the items on your list are impor-tant and compelling. I hope we canhave efforts in all those areas.

• All of the science topics given in thelist are important, so my answer is - allof the above. We will do U.S. parti-cle physics considerable harm if we tryto specify one aspect of the field at theexpense of others.

• Question 31 is misleading: Flavor physicsand Higgs Physics might be two distinctapproach of the same problem. GUTmight become a reality → must do both!

• Again, a bit U.S.-centred.

• Is this now a young physicists panel ora young U.S. physicists panel?


• ”REQUIRE a major new facility” – isan inappropriate phrasing ... ”impor-tant” to whom – me, the field, the U.S.?

• I find question 31 very ambiguous. Ido however think that a new facility istotally necessary, probably an e+e- col-lider.

• This is a naive and old-fashioned list. Icannot choose one of them, and I hopemost active people cannot. What are”exotic particles”?

• Question 32: new with respect to what?is LHC seen as new here? Then yes. Ifnot, then, maybe.

• Question 30: The list of options yougive tells me how bankrupt the think-ing in the field is. Would you thinkfinding a 2nd cosmological relic excit-ing? Question 31: The ”field” for isinvestigations into the fundamentals ofhow nature works... the ”what’s it allabout?” questions. For me the big oneis a looking out from our lab’s to seehow the processes we’ve uncovered ataccelerators are manifested in nature.

• Question 32 is poorly written. Does”selected” refer to question 31 or 30?

• I think this is poorly phrased: insteadthere are perhaps two time periods toconsider ... one at 5-15 years and anotherat 15-25 (30?). It seems to me there arelikely different physics goals and machinesinvolved in these two periods.

• I find questions 30 and 31 unuseful. Thereare a number of important subfields, andpicking out only one does not fit withtaking a broad view of our field.

• You are missing supersymmetry in thissection!

• You should have allowed a ranking ofthe importance of the physics fields with

weighting. There are three or four fieldsthat are important to the future of fun-damental (or particle physics) one ofthese is cosmology (broader definitionof cosmological constant), symmetry break-ing, accelerator physics. Others such ascosmic ray and neutrino physics whiletopical are unlikely to produce a majoradvance in understanding frontier physics.

• I found your options TOO LIMITEDfor a 10-25 year from now window ...These will be radically different in thatera. I am driven by personal ideas angleson how to approach some aspect presentlyinvolved in CP physics, QCD, Gravi-tation wave physics, think hard aboutEW sym Higgs notions; I want physicsand intellectual reach in a new facilitybeyond the Regge Poles of our time...

• This section is ill-conceived. Clearly,any thoughtful physicist would considerthe full scope of HEP challenging andinteresting.

• Why this last stupid question? I repeat:U.S. is not the only country in the world!!

• I am not sure that selecting one fromthe available options given in this sec-tion is particularly meaningful.

• Questions 30, 31 – don’t think thesequestions should ask for only one answer.Compelling and important have manymeaning, e.g. ”important” as ”neces-sary” is QCD, ”important” as ”essen-tial for the future understanding of HEPphysics” is Higgs physics/EW sym. (aswell as QCD). Most challenging? LessHEP-mainstream: neutrinos, cosmic raysand cosmological constant.

• This list had a large hole. It left outnucleon lifetime and other high-mass inter-action signatures.

Comments on Picking a Plan/Finding Consensus 175

13.8 Picking a Plan and

Finding Consensus

13.8.1 Selecting the Next Machine:

• You assume a ”next machine”, but isit really the right path? Maybe we arejust traveling on the paved road for lackof new ideas.

• We very much need to prioritize on whatis THE ”next machine” we want to buildand promote that with the backing ofthe whole community. We can turn thefocus on another facility after this isapproved to make progress step by step.Trying to ”push” everything at once with-out priorities is a signal to the fundingagencies not to fund any of them.

• Snowmass is a rubber-stamping exer-cise that is meant to support the deci-sion already made by lab directors tobuild NLC. This is done in the absenceof any other good ideas, particularly onhow to build accelerators. It ignores thefact that not everyone in the field can beon a BaBar sized experiment with LHCsize costs. I voted with my feet andmoved to Europe to do physics in thenext phase. There will be no physics todo (and no money left) in the U.S.

• I believe that, owing to the progres-sively shrinking HEP budget, the focusin the accelerator-based HEP should beon a limited number of projects world-wide, among which mu+mu- ought tobe given the priority. As an advice toyoung researchers, I am afraid that thejob openings in HEP won’t be that numer-ous during the few coming years.

• Support antiproton physics.

• I believe the only presently sellable machineis the proton driver. Since we haven’tdiscussed why our dream machine, theSSC, failed to be completed, how canwe assume we won’t fail again?

• I opt for the VLHC hadron collider atthe present time as that is the only ”nextmachine” that has a ”guaranteed” poten-tial for discoveries and reasonable timescale.

• I believe that e+e- linear collider shouldbe the next machine and to be built atFermilab site.

• Brite neutrino source.

• An e+ e- linear collider at cm energyof 500 GeV coming on in 2012 is obvi-ously not at the energy frontier sinceLHC will have already been running ata higher equivalent energy since 2006.It is only a ”clean-up” machine.

• Focus on ONE big machine for entireworld.

• The highest c.m. interaction energy observ-able in the laboratory is the main value,to be recognized worldwide and pursuedwith any limited budget.

• I am in the opinion that we should buildan e+e- complement to the LHC ... i.e.,a 1 TeV e+e- machine.

• Ultimately physics output is very impor-tant. So, theorists, phenomenologistsand experimentalists should jointly decidewhich experiment is most important andbuild a facility according to that.

• The ”next machine” should be a LinearCollider. The important next questionsare: where ? and which technology ?

• I like the idea of the first choice becauseI don’t know if the muon collider or theVLHC would be better and it would benice to have the e+e- here in the U.S.But since we need world money, we gotto go with world consensus on the loca-tion.


• I think we should support TESLA inGermany, with increased high-gradientaccelerator R&D support here. Not sureabout muon collider.

• If HEPAP makes a recommendation dif-ferent than you would prefer, will yousupport the HEPAP decision? At thispoint I think that consensus to back anyof the several very good options is moreimportant than which one is actuallychosen.

• A Neutrino Factory should be built when/if possible.

• A new linear lepton collider would bebeneficial to the U.S. However it almostseems too late for it to happen. If TESLAbecomes reality in Hamburg, the U.S.community should strongly push for amuon collider. In the meantime we needa decent underground lab, e.g. San Jac-into Peak. The future will see morenon-accelerator experiments and we don’twant to miss that flight either.

• TESLA in Germany soon, and the nextgeneration linear collider (CLIC-like) ormuon collider somewhere.

• I think there should be a facility in U.S.that will start to operate approximatelywhen LHC program comes to an end. Idon’t think the argument ”since LHC isa pp-machine we should build an e+e-machine” is right (i.e. VLHC is a goodoption too). As for TESLA in Germany– isn’t that a decided matter already?

• TESLA in Germany soon, but VLHCand neutrino factory are not mutuallyexclusive (neutrino factory is much cheaper,and goes to say BNL).

• In terms of cost and range of physics, Isee no benefit to another linear collider.I think that either the VLHC or a muoncollider in the U.S. are the best ideas,the VLHC being the most plausible.

• The location is not important to me.Do the physics anywhere.

• Wait for LHC and neutrino oscillationsexperiments results. Then decide onLC, VLHC, neutrino factories and mucolliders. Expand R&D on all of theabove, trying to reduce costs and main-tain diversity. Build a U.S. undergroundlab now.

• A muon collider would be comparableto TESLA, with the additional possi-bility of high intensity neutrino stud-ies. I think a machine like this would beuseful AFTER a new discovery machinelike VLHC.

• A new facility should be carefully designedto have potential to evolve, or flexibility-which I think limits the appeal of themuon collider. Heavy investment shouldbe justified by long term pay out aswell as academically rich opportunities.This ”richness” may be a mixture ofscience and non-science opportunities.The HST, for example, is good for stu-dents, physicists, and the general pub-lic, too!

• While I understand the point of choos-ing options a point needs to be made. AU.S. choice against a new e+e- colliderlocated in the U.S. may have dire conse-quence for all other efforts. Politicianslike the argument, ”If our internationalcolleagues did not think it was worthdoing why should we spend our moneyon a project they considered not worththe investment.” I could expend muchmore verbiage on this topic.

• I fully support an NLC/TESLA/CLICsomewhere, as well as LSC and VLHC.

• I believe the choice of the next machinecan not be made on a pure logical /mathematical basis. My opinion is basedon my physics, politics and ”reality”positions.


• I think it’s important to have (at least)one large facility in Europe and (at least)one in the US. I can’t decide betweena VLHC and a Muon Collider for theU.S., but it is important to build TESLAsoon.

• I favor moving ahead briskly with a e+e-LC; if that means ”cold” TESLA-liketechnology, then fine. It does not haveto be in the US, but it does have to havereasonable ”expandability” in energy. Iam not sure what ”reasonable” is andhope that Snowmass can better deter-mine this.

• I think the VLHC is the most impor-tant thing we can strive for. This is theenergy frontier and I find it very excit-ing. I would rather pursue this than theNLC if I had to choose only one, butreality is such that I think the NLC hasto be build first or we wont be able toform an international consensus. Anynew machines (NLC, VLHC) will haveto be built by an international collab-oration because of the cost (although Inote with some interest that the expan-sion to O’Hare airport will cost the U.S.taxpayer six billion dollars, and no-oneis batting an eye...if we could attack theVLHC with the same enthusiasm thatwe had for the moon shot, for example,we could do it ourselves). We need toget the public excited about this kind ofphysics, and for this I think the VLHCis a much easier sell that the NLC (every-one can understand the concept of search-ing for something where no-one has lookedbefore, its much harder to explain topeople why precision measurements oftheoretical quantities is exciting (some-thing I have been trying to do for years).Bottom line: I think the NLC will doimportant physics that needs to be done,but the VLHC will be much more excit-ing. I think it could revive the senseof excitement that drew me into HEP

and put us back on the map of ”excit-ing science” as far as the general publicis concerned.

• TESLA is leading LC technology todayand should be built ASAP. I’m not surethat VLHC makes sense at all, but muonmachines might open up new physics.

• My own current opinion is that if thecollective particle physics community decidesto build a new machine it should prob-ably be TESLA, since the NLC facessome really difficult problems that inthe short term are difficult to see thesolution to. Personally, I don’t reallycare where it gets built. However, for anext generation machine, to really probethe energy frontier, I think we should bethinking muon collider, for the future.

• We should propose an e+e- linear col-lider in the U.S. at Fermilab ... take aglobal view of HEP ... decide betweenthis machine and TESLA (perhaps anew concept comes out of this) .... con-struct 1 machine.

• Question 42: TESLA where-ever soon,upgraded to accelerate muons in a multi-TeV muon collider; followed by a facil-ity with a 200-400 TeV VLHC in anadjacent tunnel to a 100 TeV muon col-lider, and also with a 140 TeV mu-p col-lider. Eventually a 1 PeV linear muoncollider if this turns out to be feasible.

• Let’s get on with it.

• Question 41 is ”definitely no”. A muoncollider sounds really cool (low synchrotronradiation, clean collisions, high energies).I have no idea, however, how the muonscould be relativistic enough to be ”stored”.The value of a VLHC depends on whatdiscoveries are made at the LHC.

• A neutrino factory in the U.S. wouldalso help !!!!


• A large facility for the study of rare cos-mic ray physics or neutrino physics thatmay open a window on new physics athigh energies.

• Too old to have a word on that (66).

• From a physics point of view: Is theEuropeans want to build TESLA theU.S. should join the effort, but US shouldalso push a new machine at the energyfrontier. I would like to see a muon col-lider but I do not know how far awaythis is. VLHC could be an alternative.If the Europeans cannot bould TESLAwithout U.S. funding than forget aboutit and make sure plenty of money intoresearch for the next 10 years. It isclear that TESLA is much better thanNLC therefore I do not consider the lat-ter an option. ¿From the politics pointof view: Here location become impor-tant! Europe is becoming leader in par-ticle accelerators. A particle accelera-tor should be seen as a microscope andtherefore this technology is crucial forthe economical development of the U.S.It is also crucial for the image of U.S. Ifwe know for sure that Europeans can-not build TESLA than U.S should pusha new frontier machine in U.S. and for-get LC. If the Europeans can build itanyway than the U.S. should make aneffort to have it here. Particle acceler-ator and frontier physics are much moreimportant to the U.S. technological supe-riority (and therefore to economy) thanthe Missile Defense project is. I wouldlike to see this stated clearly to the politi-cians.

• There certainly should no be duplica-tive facilities. The planning and theconstruction should be done globally –but with a lead country etc. It is veryimportant that the requisite R&D bedone on the other options. The otheroptions appear to lack the credibility of

feasibility and cost that the linear col-liders have. We must look past the cur-rent problems and questions, progresscan be expected in the intervening decade(or more) before a new facility will becomeavailable. Our goal should be to explorethe new energy regime as carefully andcompletely as possible.

• I don’t think we should push for a facil-ity that we are unlikely to get fundingfor.

• We do need an electron collider b/c ofthe importance of a broad-based approach.And we need a VLHC to maintain theHEP program in the U.S. This is a diffi-cult question, b/c we don’t really knowwhat we’re looking for. On the otherhand, we can’t really afford to wait andwe don’t have the luxury of being asbroad as would be ideal. CAN we dothe TESLA/VLHC approach or is eventhat too expensive?

• Assuming there are a few billion dol-lars available to build the next machine,we must make sure that this machinewill be able to adequately address ques-tions relative to physics beyond the SM(whatever it is). Having little or noinformation on what is beyond the SM,it is hard to build a machine that weknow will be able to address the rele-vant physics. It may be necessary fordemographic or political reasons to goahead with the next machine withoutknowing what lies beyond the SM, butas I said, the physics case is not con-vincing.

• With TESLA now being built in Ger-many we have, with the LHC, I believeall we need for the immediate futurein terms of ’main stream’ HEP. A neu-trino factory sounds very interesting asdoes a muon collider and I would liketo know more about both and would beinterested in seeing them developed. A


VLHC is a definite longer term acceler-ator but we need to see the results fromthe LHC first and give the theorists achance to chew on them for a while tohave an idea of what to look for at evenhigher energies. I think what we reallyneed though is a better way of acceler-ating particles: accelerators (and hencecollaborations) are becoming too big.

• No collider physics anymore.

• My opinions are current options are moststrongly influenced by current level offunding. Now is not the time to con-sider new facilities. Now is the time toworking on improving current (or cur-rently being built) facilities and researchprograms.

• My choice for HEP would be: Energyupgrade for an existing hadron collider(VLHC) and continuous research for amuon storage ring/collider. NOT ane+e- collider since it cannot discoversomething that LHC cannot find.

• I think it is important to keep a facil-ity running in all major labs. The U.S.with Tevatron starting up just now andBaBar only on for a short time withpossible upgrades coming, do not needa new facility soon while DESY does.Building the next facility after the lin-ear collider in the U.S. is the best optionfor me.

• A muon collider should give much cleanerevents than the VLHC; however, I wouldalso support the VLHC. (Fermilab wouldbe a great place for either one.) I don’tsee a need for a post-TESLA linear col-lider.

• This will be the outcome of Snowmass... anyone want to take me up on a bet?

• Muon storage rings will provide meansto probe intriguing aspects of current

Physics and probably unveil new ones.Therefore, although a lot of technolog-ical obstacles are in the way, it seemsfundamental to build a muon storagering, with higher priority than an LHCupgrade, I would say.

• I think TESLA is the best choice forthe next e+e- machine. I would like tosee it built in the U.S. because that iswhere I live and work - a purely selfishconsideration.

• My comments are biased by workingon the VLHC design study for the lastfew months. But I have a much firmeropinion now that a superferric magnetVLHC is technically feasible. TESLAappears to be closer to being ready thanNLC. I believe there are still lots of tech-nical challenges facing a muon collider,maybe a neutrino factory is easier.

• I do not think the Germans will let TSLAgo easily to the U.S. Why should they?If the U.S. had developed TESLA, wouldwe let it go? Would we have built theTEVATRON in Hamburg, after makingthe magnets work?!

• The choices are strongly coupled to (geo)political situation. What country can/is willing to host what accelerator. Whatis the impact of a particular choice onthe other accelerators, i.e. does oneparticular choice then exclude other accel-erators?

• Given that Congress is preoccupied withother matters the likelihood of a newproject in the near future, started by2005 is small. Better to have a morecomplete picture of what to build andHOW before bugging the Congress forthe money.

• TESLA at Fermilab now, with a neu-trino factory at CERN.


• My answer to (42) is based on what Iwould like to have happen. Realisti-cally, however, I would say that a LC ismore likely to be accepted politically forconstruction within the U.S. The pro-posed 1st stage VLHC is too similar tothe SSC. I’m afraid that Congress hasenough of a memory to realize this andwould not support it.

• The neutrino factory/muon collider isnecessary for the field. Mapping out theMNS matrix is just as important as theCKM matrix. I also think linear collid-ers are not the right machine to buildfrom a physics standpoint. The case isweak and the payoff is possibly zero.When you don’t know what you willfind you should build a hadron colliderat the energy frontier – LC’s are thenthe best thing for followup. I have readmany of the documents for the LC’sand the physics case is wishful thinkingat best. Furthermore, e+e- machinesdon’t have much of a future because ofthe technical problems. If we knew howto build a muon collider now I wouldsupport starting that as my first option.It would be intellectually new and chal-lenging and MC’s are the beginning ofa road, not the end. What we shoulddo in the U.S. is go for a muon col-lider + VLHC and let the Europeansbuild TESLA. The problem is that weessentially ”skip a step” and I’m sureDOE + Witherell are concerned aboutwhether that will kill U.S. HEP. Ratio-nal people can disagree on how much toweight that vs. the second-class physicscase for TESLA. The NLC is a joke,the technical plans make zero sense –at least TESLA will work.

• TESLA or NLC soon; Major undergroundlab in the U.S. Involvement in astro-physical studies using satellites and ground-based facilities.

• It seems clear to me that the maturityof the physics goals and the technol-ogy strongly indicates a linear collideras the next step.

• A LC is probably necessary. However,even if built in Hamburg, it won’t comeon line till 2012 (50 fm-1). This is 5years after the LHC will be running. Isthe Higgs width going to be the cut-ting edge question then? It may beimportant, untangling SUSY stuff maybe interesting and necessary. However,I think that it would be a disaster com-mit the long range HEP program in theU.S. to the construction of an LC in thiscountry. The physics is limited and isthat of measurement rather than map-ping out the grand structure.

• TESLA in the U.S. soon.

• I would emphasize ”soon.” TESLA (notTELAS!) can be built now; CLIC is farin the future, and the NLC still requiresmore R&D.

• The above choice is really rather arbi-trary as far as physics goes. The impor-tant thing is that we have an LC some-where ASAP and that the U.S. remainmajor players in HEP. I have investedconsiderable effort in TESLA in Ger-many, hence the above answer, but wouldhappily have TESLA (or NLC, CLIC isa generation down the line) somewhereif the above two conditions are fulfilledin that case, but not with TESLA inGermany.

• We should pick anything that peoplewill fund. Of course, right now nobodyis funding anything.

• 400 GeV circular e+e- machine in theU.S., followed by a (probably European)> 1 TeV e+e- linear collider and a (prob-ably American) VLHC.


• Upgrade the Tevatron Collider to 3 + 3TeV (i.e., build the Tripler), then pro-ceed to build a site-filler ring at Fer-milab to accommodate the then best-available magnet technology. This ismore sensible than to propose a $9Bproject on a new site that will likelynot be funded and will most likely bestrongly opposed by the public. Thisfield of study needs to gain some com-mon sense and come to realize that thereis much to be gained below the energyfrontier.

• TESLA in Germany. FORGET the NLC!!!!Putting our ”eggs” in the NLC basket isthe least interesting thing (with currentproposed parameters) that we could pos-sibly do. Continued work on VLHCand the neutrino factory/ muon collider(with R&D in the U.S. for now). Becausethe timescales for ”turn-on” are some-what different, I believe that the HEPcommunity as a whole can maintain VLHCand Muon programs, but we need toallow for the possibility that both ofthose programs may not be U.S.-based.

• I work on CDF. I am also working onATLAS, only because the SSC was trashedout 8 years ago by the U.S. Congress(but we (HEP) deserved it, since theSSC was badly mis-managed by DoE,URA and at locally at Wachahatchie,Tx). There are many in the interna-tional HEP community interested in build-ing an NLC. Only one such machineshould be built. It would likely get builtfar sooner if it was built in Europe thanhere. Post-LHC, I seriously doubt therewill be any significant physics discov-ered at the NLC that wouldn’t alreadybe long known from LHC experiments.For similar reasons, building a muoncollider in the U.S. is stupid. By thetime it becomes operational for the firsttime, it will be extremely unlikely tocompete with physics results coming from

the LHC experiments. The only viablelong-term plan for honorable U.S.-basedphysics, I see is a p-p type machine withenergy >> than the LHC. Anything elseis/will be back seat to Europe.

• I am uncertain what the best move is.If I had to choose ... I guess I would gowith TESLA in Germany and a muoncollider/storage ring soon.

• With the present price tag, we cannotafford any of these machines.

• Regarding 42, one might want to cedethe muon storage ring and associatedR&D to another region.

• I think the start of R&D for the nextmajor (post-LHC) collider should be start-ing very, very soon. I do NOT thinkthat this collider should necessarily bein the U.S. The future of HEP is a lotmore important than in what countryit’s going to happen.

• The problem we face is the following:an e+e- machine at 500GeV or so hasso little reach and is so expensive thatit’s usefulness can be questioned. TheVLHC can’t be seriously designed untilthe LHC tells us where the next scale ofphysics is expected to be, and so can’tbe started until e.g. 2009, and finishedperhaps in 2020. By that time all younghigh energy physicists will have left formore exciting fields! Finally a muoncollider is a good idea (since its reachis high) but noone knows how to buildone. Thus we face a serious problemthat seems to have no easy solution.

• TESLA in Germany soon is the option Ichoose, independent of whether there isa VLHC or a Muon machine afterwards.That question is probably the subject ofanother survey ;-)


• Not very convinced of answer 42). Pick-ing a plan should be done with the max-imum consensus hopefully without anyother criteria than physics.

• TESLA in Germany, with small U.S.financial impact. Stop the SLAC-FNALcompetition and get on with (probably)an e+e- linear collider. Forget the muoncollider.

• I think the TESLA should be built. Weneed to work on the problems of theMuon colliders, neutrino factories. TheVHLC will never be built.

• TESLA in the U.S. soon (no other LCoption).

• I have actually participated in work oneach of these options. These are not theonly options. It’s important that weidentify the scientific imperatives thatface the field, and pursue each of these,not just a select few. I see no need fora linear collider. The muon collider ora VLHC may be relevant in the future.However, a great deal can be accom-plished with existing facilities, and withcosmic rays. We need more creativity,and less dependence on large, expensivefacilities.

• I have been around for many years. Thelab where I did my PhD thesis closedjust as I finished. I worked on an SSCexperiment for many years and am nowin an LHC experiment. Mostly I havedone e+e- physics, at three different labsin two different countries. My own expe-rience, plus discussions with others, hasmost affected my current opinions. I donot think that any 500 GeV e+e- will bea forefront machine. We already havethe LHC coming on in 2006. After thathas been running for a few years, wewill know more. I think we can plan fora 500 GeV e+e- machine, and that weshould choose the technology (TESLA

vs. X-band) as soon as possible. Wehave wasted a tremendous amount ofmoney on NLC R&D and we are stillnot ready - obviously bad managementor the wrong idea - stop throwing moremoney at it. Since the 500 GeV e+ e-linear collider is not a forefront machine,it will be very difficult to convince anygovernment to spend $6B. The only pos-sibility is a full international collabo-ration building the accelerator. Bestto make Fermilab an international lab.Even this is just ”bells and whistles” -but there is a constituency in Europe(not in the U.S.). We have to convincethem to come to the U.S. - not so easy.The NLC people are not the leaders inthe highest energy e+e- colliders - thereare North Americans who are/were lead-ers in the LEP2 searches - why are theynot active for the NLC? - must be a rea-son! We need to continue to do seriousR&D towards neutrino factory/muon col-lider and VLHC - this could lead toa future forefront machine in the U.S.The neutrino factory/muon collider offersa very rich program with physics at everystage - this should be seriously pursued!!

• The physics requires an e+e- soon. TESLAis a superior accelerator to NLC for upto 1 TeV. Getting the U.S. back on theenergy frontier requires a VLHC at Fer-milab. And CLIC will be CERN’s postLHC project. KEK starts now on aneutrino factory based on JHP with detec-tors in Asia, Europe and/or the U.S.

• TESLA soon in Germany with greatereffort in U.S. put towards Muon Col-lider and VLHC-and perhaps more intonovel acceleration techniques.

• I think that TESLA can ”clean up” thediscoveries made by the LHC, much thesame way that LEP did after the SPpSexperiments at CERN. To quickly explorethe next frontier, one needs to explore


at higher energies than the LHC. I stronglybelieve that if the United States wantsto have a prominent role in HEP, it musthave the VLHC built here and inviteinternational collaborations to form theexperiments. Whoever builds the facil-ity, will be perceived as the principalplayer and leader in the field, whetherwe (physicists) like it or not. I real-ize that this statement is more politi-cal than scientific, but ultimately, thatwill be the driving argument that willmove our congressional representativesto build the VLHC built in the U.S.

• Given the immense amounts of moneywe’ll have to ask for to build ANY machines,and the fact that any precision mea-surement machine (LC for instance) shouldbe tuned to exploring the physics that isdiscovered by LHC, it seems ludicrousto me to start building a machine thatmay not be able to measure the discov-eries! The proper course from a sciencestandpoint is to figure out where thenew physics is with a discovery machine(LHC) and only THEN to build a pre-cision machine (an LC). Simultaneouswith construction of that machine, weshould start ramping up for the NEXTdiscovery machine. And so on and soforth. It makes no sense to spend moneyon a machine when you don’t know any-thing about the physics it will be study-ing.

• I have looked at the LC very carefully.The case is not perfect, but still strong.It seems to me to be the best combo ofscientific value, technological readiness,and political feasibility. Given that itshould (and probably will) be done, Iwould like to U.S. to lead instead of fol-low.

• A new LC (TESLA,NLC or JLC) some-where in the world soon; continue researchfor VLHC. This option should have been

given, I think.

• TESLA soon, reserve judgment other-wise.

• VLHC at Fermilab should be built next.

• A joint Europe + Japan + U.S. effortto build the NLC in the U.S. would beideal, but I don’t think you can con-vince the Europeans to commit moneywhen the U.S. Congress could cancelthe project at any time.

• TESLA anywhere in the world ASAP.Continuous research in all other fields.No decision for a new machine after firstLC before first results from LHC.

• I learned about the NLC, TESLA, VLHC,and muon collider from many differentsources. However none of this infor-mation changed what my first 2 opin-ions were. Which are A) now is not agood time to build a big machine here inthe U.S., and B) that the ideal machinethat we should ultimately build (manyyears from now) is a neutrino factory/muoncollider.

• This is a tough call. I am not enthusi-astic about the funding prospects, so itis hard to be serious about the choices.We need to go after realistic targets,but in trying to choose based on theexpected physics results, keep in mindthat none of the Nobel Prizes that resultedfrom any of the existing facilities wereeven vaguely hinted at in the originalproposals to build those facilities! Thisis what I call the ”Columbus Effect” –i.e. tell me first what you will find andthen I will tell you whether or not youget the jewels... Columbus got the jew-els by promising Japan...

• One major machine of each type in theworld; more efficient international coop-eration; machine priority: 1. TESLA in


Germany 2. neutrino/muon factory inU.S. or in Europe or in Asia 3. VLHCin U.S. or in Europe 4. muon colliderin U.S. or in Europe.

• I believe we should be choosing betweenscenarios, NOT simply a specific machine.I believe the U.S. choice risks being sui-cidal in the absence of parallel discus-sions in Europe/Japan (i.e. despite thelip service to internationalism, this pro-cess is clearly national. while that isnaturally a Congressional perspective ourdeliberations need not be so restricted).

• Response to question 42 involves a guessabout funding.

• Three feasible projects, three regions:how complicated can this be?

• Definitely research now. TESLA in Ger-many makes sense since it fits their pro-gram well. I think that there are a lot ofopen questions on Muon collider/neutrinofactory but it has a very attractive fea-ture of offering physics at various points.Here I think that we should implementphysicists doing accelerator and parti-cle physics at the same time and withthat get rid of the 2 cultures. I dont seehow NLC fits into the U.S. program oftevatron/babar followed by LHC.

• This is very difficult because this is reallymore of a political decision than a scien-tific decision. The linear collider will go– if it goes at all – to the country mostwilling to put up the money. I thinkthat TESLA in Germany is much morelikely than an LC in either the U.S. orJapan. One of the reasons for this isthe fact that DESY has brought thesynchrotron radiation community intothe picture in a major way. We needpolitical allies which we do not have inthe U.S. – remember the opposition ofour condensed matter colleagues to theSSC. Do you think that their reaction

to a linear collider will be any different?If so, why?

• In the next 10 years the muon collidermay succeed in solving its many prob-lems but at this stage, we know howto build an VLHC. We need to workon cost reduction and on public accep-tance.

• A linear collider somewhere, and con-tinued R&D in both VLHC and neu-trino factory/muon collider.

• Bill Foster summed it up rather nicelytoday. Alas, he has a stake in VLHC !But facts are facts.

• If Europe is willing to fund TESLA theyshould. There is guaranteed interest-ing physics in the SM to observe. Ifthe U.S. is willing to fund any of theoptions, it should do that. If Japanwants JLC it should find the funding.All options are good, and the more welearn in the next decade, the more cost-effectively we can choose. We must haveenough other options to maintain thesize of the HEP community.

• TESLA in Germany soon and some otherhadronic machine later on somewhere(CERN?)

• I would improve several fields of the HEP,not only the very high energy. I findinteresting the asymmetric colliders.

• TESLA in Germany seems the most likelyway to get a 500 GeV facility soon (whichI find very important). A muon stor-age ring is very attractive, though verychallenging. It might be that VLHCis after all a technically more realisticscenario. More research I think shouldbe done before finalizing this step – butI am convinced we know enough to goahead with a TESLA like facility.


• Question 35: All of the above is essen-tial! I picked one answer more or lessrandomly. I know a bit more on neu-trino factory, since I joined that effortsince its inception, however, we still havequite a bit of work to do to optimize thecost vs physics. I was not charged to doextensive reviews of these project, and Iam not informed enough to make a deci-sion. However, let me point out that allCollab. have still extensive R&D to dobefore they can spend wisely a few bil-lion dollars...

• Unless the linear collider can be madeto be near 1.5 TeV so that it comple-ments the LHC, I would advocate goingdirectly to the VLHC. A super LEP inthe VLHC tunnel may be a better wayto do the physics of the NLC (e.g. aHiggs factory). In any case, a 240kmtunnel for $1B would give at least threeoptions for the future; low-field and high-field pp, and e+e-.

• My choice is TESLA SOMEWHERESOON. Where depends on the best like-lihood of adequate funding.

• Hold for the muon collider, focus onLHC and neitrino physics and RD formuon colliders.

• An LC would be useful to supplementthe LHC physics program, but the costof a LC is too great at this time to jus-tify building a new machine that is onlysupplemental – that is, until we knowmore about any new physics that mayappear at the Tevatron or LHC, we arenot justified in asking ordinary peopleto spend their money on a new machine.I also worry that its energy is too lowto cover all the new physics that maybe found at the LHC. Politics and soci-ology seem to be the major reasons forstarting now, not physics.

• I picked a new LC (TESLA or NLC;

CLIC is not a feasible option for 10-15years) in the U.S. because it would bemost personally attractive to me (not asmuch travel, etc.) But the most impor-tant thing is to build it SOMEWHERE.I’ve come to this conclusion through almostall of the routes mentioned in the ques-tion above... reading, talking, listen-ing, working, thinking. To the extentI think there is a consensus in our field,it’s not ”LC good, VLHC bad”. Rather,I think it’s ”LC now, VLHC later”. Ialso think that ”LC never” means ”VLHCnever”, ”neutrino factory never”, ”futureof our field never”. We simply cannotdefer addressing important questions foranother 10-15 years; people will leave,universities and labs will wither, publicsupport for us will erode. In order tomake the LC happen, the project willhave to be realized in a truly interna-tional way. Failure to do this was oneof the major mistakes of the SSC. Lookat the consequences... if the SSC hadworked out, we would *already* havefound the Higgs, maybe SUSY, extradimensions, etc. Instead, the best theVLHC people can do is offer us the SSCin 2020, the obvious difference being thatthe LHC will have been running for 14years already, which makes the valueadded by a 40 TeV machine much lessapparent. The real usefulness of theVLHC lies in the high-field 200 TeVextension, which may happen around2030. So in my opinion the VLHC isout of the question as a realistic near-term option. Machines happen whenthree factors come together: 1) A com-pelling physics case; 2) A critical massof worldwide interest, necessary to gar-ner financial support; and 3) accelera-tor technology capable of doing the job.Only the LC has all three of these inplace at this moment. WE can helpmake it happen. Let’s do it!!!


• My only reason for not picking the muoncollider as the next U.S. machine is thatthe research is a long way from com-plete. We can begin to build the VLHCwithin the next few years so as to haveit within 10-15 years. By the time thatit is up and running, we should be build-ing a muon collider. I believe that thereis every reason to believe that we willalways need discovery machines.

• TESLA seems to be attractive but I amfor a more conventional e+e- collider(keep it simple).

• That is the wrong way to look at it. Ibuy Wagner’s thesis that all potentialplayers should bid on whatever is onthe table. The chances (based mainlyon politics) that any work out is smallenough that we should maximize theOR of the probabilities at each oppor-tunity. (I think that there is only oneon the table at the moment. It mightnot have been my first choice all thingsbeing equal, but they are not.)

• - muon storage rings of interest and deserveR&D - muon colliders a dream .... -VLHC deserves real work as one day itwill be needed.

• I don’t know enough to make a reliablejudgment; however reflecting on Thurs-day night’s forum, I worry that if onedoesn’t build something, one could losethe interest of students. But it shouldbe something that leads to importantdiscovery, otherwise that will also be aturn-off. Very novel accelerator design,as well as other directions in which togo, could help a lot here.

• TESLA at Fermilab, with strong (> 50%)European influence: in this way, Euro-pean physics (phenomenology) has thechance to become more popular in theU.S., where fashion plays a major role.

• I think that we should proceed with theTESLA design. I think probably Ger-many is the best location to get to thephysics in a timely manner. However, Iam not clear on what the next facilityshould be for the U.S. I think that onesolid possibility would be to emphasizeseveral smaller projects (e.g. SuperBeamat either BNL or FNAL, SNAP, Under-ground Facilility– with nucleon decayexperiments, perhaps a double beta decayexpt.), along with extensive R&D, whichalong with the above projects, and aglobalized TESLA, should help to pre-serve the infrastructure of the labs.

• I think TESLA is the obvious choice,but I don’t have a strong opinion onwhere it should be based. Regardingthe technologies beyond TESLA, it ishard to tell, since most of them stillneed a few years R&D work.

• I would advocate a TESLA-style e+ e-collider at Fermilab, knowing that theodds of raising the money to do it arevery slim.

• We need to stage the muon neutrinofactory: a proton driver, muon coolingand finally muon storage ring. Severaltop of the line experiments will be per-formed at the end of each staging, likethe muon EDM at the end of the muoncooling stage. By the end of the muonstorage ring stage we will know whetherwe can build a muon collider or not.

• 35) Fifty years of experience in this andrelated fields. There is, at this meet-ing, an attempt to stampede the herdinto pressing for a 1.5 TeV linear col-lider. This might, if successful, wreckthis field.

• I think that Germany should host thenext electron collider but not based onthe TESLA model. Rather a more eas-ily expandable model should be used


to extend the possible lifetime of themachine. I feel that the VLHC shouldbe built in the U.S. using the existinginfrastructure at FNAL. I think thatthe problems with clean beam inherentin a Muon Collider need to be studiedmuch more and on a time scale beyondwhat is most easily feasible at this time.However, it would be a good candidateto replace the electron machine in thefuture.

• 200 TeV is a very nice number. Mostyoung people enter HEP for its poten-tial of discovering something new aboutour understanding of nature. The VLHCis the machine to fulfill those aspira-tions. shooting for a discovery machine,over what is essentially a measurementmachine, is more akin to the dreamsthat got us into the field in the firstplace.

• The choices presented above are too restric-tive. If Germany can swing the fund-ing for TESLA, they should do it, oth-erwise we should wait for TeV II andLHC to tell us whether it is needed andwhat the energy should be. We shouldbuild VLHC after LHC results becomeavailable. We should continue muonR&D with goal of proposing neutrinofactory once the design is more solidand better optimized. Linear Colliderin U.S. would be a 20 to 30 year trapthat would doom us to precision mea-surements and delay our regaining theenergy frontier.

• TESLA in Germany soon, CLIC (e+e-multi-TeV) in U.S. or Europe.

• Three strikes, and we’re out. We missedon Isabel, SSC. I don’t know what theanswer is, but if we miss one more time,I’m afraid it’s the end of our field. Anymachine we build must have a good dis-covery/cost ratio. We can’t bet our futureon a single model (eg., mSUSY, ...). I’m

also worried about betting our futureon assuming Congress will give us 10+years of funding without changing itsmind.

• Ideally, we would already have been con-structing a LC as LEP is being torndown, to complement the physics we’llbe doing at the LHC. For as much polit-ical and social reasons, the next ”big”machine needs to be in the U.S.

• I consider first option as the best one forU.S., but I chose third as a most real-istic and not bad for U.S. too. Unfor-tunately, U.S. lost leadership in ”col-lider physics”, by loosing many talented”phenomenologists” in recent 5-10 years(by giving jobs to string guys). Thecurrent situation shows that USA is farbehind Germany in ” physics study” (Iparticipated last 10 years in LC com-munities in Germany/USA). I am surenext all major discoveries will be madein Germany in the next 10-20 years.U.S. became an ”astrophysics/ NASA”- nation (which is not bad at all). Taxpayers in U.S. will buy strings ”sciencefiction” only – and that is a tradegyof U.S. physics. Even leaders of U.S.physics community can not find courageto say that ”string theory” should beconsidered as mathematics and it is notrelated to physics. Only heroic Veltamnsays ” .. this stupid and senseless stringtheory ” (final talk on ”SPACE ANDTIME ...” conference in Ann Arbor).Fortunately, there is Europe! Go Ger-many, and build LC-TESLA. Go U.S.,and build stringy ”faculty positions”....

• Given that we double funding over tenyears (which we need to ask for, not forus, but for the kids in high school now),we should build LC and neutrino fac-tory, either in U.S., Europe, or Japan,with international participation.

• TESLA in Germany with major U.S.


participation and a very long term planfor another machine in the U.S. wouldbe the second option.

• I think the field needs at least an e+e-collider, and probably a larger hadronmachine several years down the road. Iwould like to see HEPAP make a strongstatement that we need to start on theseprojects immediately. Stagnation is death!

• Importance is that a e+ e- ala TESLA,at present the only technology ripe forearly start of construction is built witha time-overlap with the LHC. It will bethe LHC and e+ e- collider complemen-tary which in my view view will advanceHEP most in the near future.

• A lepton collider will be needed as Teva-tron II comes to an end, whatever theresults are. Given the funding climatesin Europe and the U.S. a linear collideris more likely to get built in Germany- particularly if it stops, in my opin-ion, wasting so much money on HERAwhich is not going to tell us anythingnew.

• Question 38 would be more amusing if”too much” were one of the options.In general, I’d say that I don’t knowenough about anything.

• On question 42: the best option is todevelop an international plan; TESLAin Germany and VLHC in U.S. is likelyto have international appeal. However,other options may arise and the U.S.should work with international labora-tories to choose the best option.

• Cancel the e+e- machine, support LHCas much as possible, go to muon collideras quick as possible

• TESLA is the closest to a machine Iwould consider worthwhile, however, thec.o.m. energy is too low. If TESLA had

a 1.5 TeV c.o.m. energy that was tun-able by a factor of 10 I would be allfor it. This would be an energy fron-tier machine with discovery potentialthat I could support. Otherwise, I thinkit defies common sense to build a pre-cision machine (e+e-) before we knowwhere the new physics is. Muon Col-lider and Neutrino factory are nowherenear technically ready to be consideredin the category of near term ( next 10yrs) machines, and I think it makes senseto wait for LHC results to indicate wherethe next frontier energy scale is beforebuilding a VLHC.

• It’s mostly driven by what time scalesare achievable. But we may have to faceonly having one working machine at atime, probably alternating continents.Meanwhile, I will look at astro/ under-ground/ cosmic for shorter timescales.

• IMHO, construction of VLHC and themuon machine in the U.S. are not mutu-ally exclusive.

• Having soon a linear collider in U.S.(SLAC) and Europe (DESY), runningpossibly during LHC. Focus in parallelon the development of a muon collider(with its associate neutrino and muonfactories) both in Europe (CERN) andU.S. (FERMILAB) and maybe also Japan.Think of a VLHC after LHC prelimi-nary results and also after precise elec-troweak results at linear colliders).

• All choices face daunting political chal-lenges. We need leaders who can unitethe field and present a coherent strategyto governments and funding agencies.

• TESLA in Germany offers a very goodopportunity to forge the first real inter-national collaboration. It also fits theavailable HEP budget in the near term.We really need to increase R&D in VLHC


and get on the stick with public out-reach.

• 1-1.5 TeV, high luminosity linear col-lider in the U.S. - superconducting ornot is not an issue. It’s the energy andluminosity that matter. I think the 500GeV case is a bit overstated.

• The muon collider option has receivedtoo little attention, while the neutrinofactory has received too much. At themoment, we don’t really know if a detec-tor can do pattern recognition at a muoncollider – I don’t think a neutrino fac-tory is worth building if the muon col-lider that is unfeasible! So can it workor not? I don’t buy into the idea thatthe field will die if we don’t choose anoption right now today. I think we willknow more in a relatively short timeand I don’t want to bet all my moneyuntil I see my last card. The LC optionswon’t go away, in my opinion, and theVLHC and MC options become moremature. What’s a few years to wait tomake sure we get the right machine forthe right price? Let’s see if that Higgsis really where the ”true believers” sayit is.

• CLIC in the U.S. makes no sense. thereshould also be more research into muoncolliders, both in Europe and the U.S.

• A linear collider very soon anywhere inthe world. After first LHC data decideupon the next step(s) i.e. LC upgrade/VLHC/muC

• There is a clear need to come to therealization that we have to choose ournext facility in this country. Our inter-national collaborative stance is well doc-umented by our LHC participation. TheElectron Linear Collider is technicallywell enough advanced to propose it tothe Government. It is complementaryto the LHC. Other projects should receive

further interest and should be fundedenough to keep them as future options.

• Question 41: guess I know enough tomake up my personal choice, but cer-tainly not enough to advocate a partic-ular future vision in the HEP commu-nity (which requires a lot of political,sociological and infrastructural thought).

• TESLA in Europe (looks like Germany)NLC in the U.S. as well possibly a bitlater VLHC at CERN after this.

• One might prepare for TESLA type machinein U.S., Germany or Japan. I wouldpostpone a definite decision until resultsfrom LHC are available.

• In my view, given the prospect of LHCat CERN, the combination of a nextlinear collider with a neutrino factorywould be the ideal combination for thenext 15 years. In order to realize theseprojects without major delays withinthe available resources, the combinationof TESLA at DESY and a muon stor-age ring (eventual muon collider) in theU.S. would seem to me to be an idealcombination. If realistic, the option ofa linear collider in the U.S. (with DESYas a regional center) and a muon stor-age ring at CERN should be seriouslyconsidered as an alternative. VLHC isan option which should be pursued ona longer timescale.

• Research on a VLHC should be contin-ued but a decision prior to first LHCresults would be premature. Hence, con-centration on an experiment complemen-tary to the LHC is adequate. One suchexciting alternative would be a muoncollider but it could probably not berealized on a time scale less than 10years. As for linear electron colliders:my personal preference is the TESLAconcept


• I think that also TESLA in Germanysoon, with to goal of an eventual muonstorage ring/muon collider in Europe isa valid option.

• TESLA includes more options than com-peting designs (FEL, fixed target, pho-ton beams) and is technologically farsexier. A muon collider (likely to belocated at Fermilab) would be an excit-ing option for the post LHC time. Thetendency of internationalization in ourfield should be continued, with TESLAbeing a ‘world laboratory’ and not aGerman or even European facility. BTW,the same should apply to any futurelarge scale facility in the U.S., whichincludes that the nature of National Labsin the U.S. and the control by the DOEalso should change (by about the timethe muon collider comes along).

• I think one of the main point to keepthe field alive and moving is not to lettoo much time pass between differentproject. So my opinion is that an LC(TESLA) should be built somewhere assoon as possible to complement LHC.Where it will be built is less important,even if I think Germany is a good place.

• TESLA soon, muon storage ring in Europe(Europe, because only Europe will guar-antee that the construction process willbe stopped like SSC)

• TESLA/NLC might well be the last machinethat the HEP community can build inthe foreseeable future, maybe we shouldknow some results from LHC before finallydeciding how to spend our money.

• International collaboration is a must!

• TESLA in Germany soon with futureneutrino study facilities anywhere.

• The linear colliders (TESLA, NLC) cur-rently under consideration are not dis-

covery machines. In terms of discov-ery reach, a 500 GeV e+e- collider isabout 1/3 of LHC. The case for a LC isbased on Higgs and other new phenom-ena (such as Supersymmetry). Unfor-tunately, neither has been seen. There-fore, it is important that we wait forTevatron/LHC results.

• The rest of the world (Asia and Europe)is converging on an e+e- collider. It’sabout time that the U.S. should startuniting behind the LC project and be atruly global player.

• Europe financial effort on LHC is alreadylarge. A new e+e- collider is the onlyrealistic and true complement to LHCfor the next 15 years.

• TESLA in Germany, a possible next nextgeneration collider based on the resultsof TESLA and LHC.

• The answer to question 42 requires alot of political maneuvering (ie, is notdetermined solely by science).

• I believe the U.S. economy can and shouldsupport two machines in the U.S. Weshould build an e+e- machine now anda post-LHC VLHC. We should continueresearch on other options, like a muoncollider, as well.

• It will be important to have an e+e-complement to the LHC, and I thinkit is important for the image of U.S.science that not all HEP take place inEurope for the next 20 years.

• But the best current option is TESLAin Germany, with VLHC in the U.S.

• I certainly agree that the e+e- colliderprogram is timely and very important(as a LEP physicist over the past 15years). But, to me, the high-energyfrontier is still the most exciting andintriguing.


• A linear collider soon, it doesn’t mat-ter where but considerations should bemade to the future funding scenario. Aconsensus from the worldwide commu-nity should be a top priority. Simi-larly for future generations of machines,VLHC, neutrino factories, muon collid-ers, etc.

• I am very discouraged by HEP. I wishthere was a better exit path. All thattalk about good training for other fieldswas bull!

• It’s not clear to me what the succes-sor to TESLA (NLC) will be (VLHC ormuon collider). This will be affected bytechnical possibilities. I don’t think wecan judge this conclusively at this time.I think it is *very* important that theU.S. HEP community can form a con-sensus on what they want. ComparingTESLA and NLC it seems clear (at themoment) that Wagner is doing a muchbetter job of planing, promoting, andpushing than anybody in the U.S.

• We have, and have had for a number ofyears, a major opportunity at Fermilab.We have not taken it seriously.

• Although I have some familiarity withall of the proposed machines, and withthe physics issues, I do not know any-where enough to form a sound judg-ment. Furthermore, I would guess thatvery few people in the field have a suffi-cient overview of the physics and detailedunderstanding of the options to makean educated decision. Asking peopleat Snowmass, or other respondents, toexpress an opinion is potentially dan-gerous; it reminds me of student coun-cil elections in high school. They werepopularity contests only peripherally relatedto any substance. Most of the peopleat Snowmass are experts in their ownbrands of physics, and highly partisan.Most of the working groups bring together

experts in one area of physics/ exper-imental technique/ technology. Rela-tively few people are spending most oftheir time educating themselves in areaswhere they are not experts. So mostof us are not developing the expertiseand knowledge to make the critical deci-sions. You should be very wary of theresults from this survey, especially thosewhich are opinions about what shouldbe done next.

• I think that there is too much focuson just increasing energy. I believe thefield needs to think about more creativeways to investigate phenomena. Thelimits of economics seems to imply thateventually we won’t just be able to builda bigger collider. Also it seems thatmany of the interesting theories such asstring theory will most likely be foreverout of our energy range for direct exper-imentation. We need to come up withnew ways to test these very high energytheories.

• Question 36: I assume the question isrelated to the state of knowledge NEEDEDnow. I do not know a lot about themuon collider, but it is quite sufficientto know that is is not a serious optionon the current time frame. VLHC is amessier case. It is certainly not a viableoption in the 10 year frame; it is sensi-ble in the 25 year frame.

• Building an e+e- machine in the U.S.should be of the highest priority, fol-lowed by neutrino physics and particleastrophysics. VLHC and muon colliderare at present fanciful, and should notdivert resources.

• TESLA soon, because the field is behindin having a new facility on the hori-zon. A muon storage ring/collider nextbecause it seems to hold the most promisefor a variety of physics topics. And


because a VLHC seems too much likethe SSC for political reasons!

• Tough choice - there are technical prob-lems everywhere, but the big hurdlesare going to be political and financial- not clear that the world is ready forthis, whether or not we are.

• The cost, effort and time frame are stilltoo large to justify another LHC $-classfacility. We need to be cleverer at atime of fiscal conservatism, and power,CO2 concerns.

• A future machine at the energy frontierwill not be ours unless we can restorefunding and growth to U.S. HEP com-mensurate with our ambitions.

• There is strong public support for TESLAin Germany. TESLA seems to be a soliddesign and well advanced.

• Start soon several upgrade programs;do strong research in accelerator physics;build soon a prototype NLC collider ableto produce several Giga-Z and wait forthe LHC (or CDF) to tell if there is anHiggs how we now believe it should be,how many of them, which mass(es), etcbefore building the ”major” next facil-ity.

• Non-accelerator experiments are moreinteresting to me at present.

• I think it is clear that a new LC soonwill help us a lot. It should definitelybe built at an existing site to make useof existing infrastructure etc. Whetherthe site should be in Europe or U.S.,I can’t judge really. For longer rangeplans I think we need more research andmore information before we can reallyevaluate ... (At least I do).

• It is important to strengthen the neu-trino research in the U.S.

• Neutrino source in the U.S. with under-ground lab for experiment.

• We really need to access the highestpossible energies.

• We need to assess the readiness of eachproposal, recognizing the work accom-plished and remaining R&D needed. Thecountries should commit before site selec-tion with an agreement on the proce-dure for selecting a site. The host coun-try should be asked to pay a larger por-tion of cost for the privilege.

• Muon collider is not yet ready for seri-ous consideration, though it may be 5years hence. Neutrino Factory as interimproject at Fermilab is worthwhile as afiller if possible.

• In my opinion, the linear collider is awrong path to persue.

• I don’t think that a linear e+e- collideris the right choice for the HEP future,because: - its physics is too much depend-ing on LHC outcome. Any reasonablegovernment would ask for waiting LHCresults; - it is almost a one experimentmachine, which is bad for sure.

• I don’t think the puzzle of electroweaksymmetry breaking is simple enough thatwe will completely unravel it either bypure thought, or by the LHC alone. Weneed the complementarity provided bya lepton collider, and the e+e- linearcollider is the only proposal which canbe carried out in the time interval weneed it, the next ten years. Thereforeit should be our field’s highest prior-ity. We should not, of course, forecloseresearch into other types of accelera-tors, since further developments in accel-erator science will be required to go beyondthe LHC/LC era. (CLIC is one suchoption; I don’t think research on it is atthe stage where it can be built ”soon”,


though it may make an excellent ”after-burner” or higher gradient version of aTESLA or NLC, exploiting the sametunnel.)

• My primary emphasis would be on NLCand muon storage ring for neutrino physics,with equal emphasis on each. Whichevertechnology is ready sooner should bethe choice for the next facility, but with-out diminishing effort on the other.

• Its stupid to consider VLHC before theLHC even turns on. The world onlyneeds one e+e- collider, and whetherit is in the U.S. or Germany SHOULDNOT MATTER. The TESLA design isnot ideal in my opinion, but we shoulddefinitely not have both NLC and TESLAunless the baseline NLC design energysignificantly exceeds the maximum TESLAenergy, and they definitely should notrun at the same time.

• Fermilab needs a big project soon after2006/7 but VLHC is not yet mature/welldefined enough, VLHC may also notbe interesting enough in the starting 40TeV range =¿ only e+e- remains, it isthat simple...

• I would support U.S. participation inJLC or TESLA as part as an overallplan that included a future facility inthe U.S. I am more comfortable with aNLC or JLC option. We didn’t need 2B factories, PEP-II and KEKB, and itwould be a disaster to repeat it with 2or 3 linear colliders.

• My answer to question Item 42 above isbased on 3 assumptions: 1.The GermanGovernment will proceed with TESLAin a timely matter. 2. Compared toraising funding a U.S. NLC, it will notbe too hard to persuade the U.S. Gov-ernment to provide some U.S. $ for TESLA.3. The overall good of fostering science,

no matter where and how it occurs, out-weighs the good of fostering U.S. sci-ence.

• I’m young yet, and feel that there aresome significant advances in accelera-tor physics on the horizon that couldlet us leapfrog to high energy acceler-ators without the enormous size whichcan put off not only the general pub-lic, but scientists who might work onsuch accelerators. That said, we needto maintain enough experiments at anygiven time to keep the population oftrained HEP Physicists up. I think avery good argument can be made forbuilding a new collider here, or beingsure the U.S. works in a major way withTESLA or CERN on these grounds alone.

• Do we need VLHC anywhere in the world?We should look at micro-, nano- scale tofind a bigger picture. Big doesn’t solveeverything.

• I would amplify on my response, but Isaid ”definitely no” to my any credibil-ity of my response.

• I would choose a proton-antiproton machineat intermediate energies to study all aspectsof low energy QCD and the origin ofmass.

• We have to minimize the cost and maxi-mize the utility for other (nonHEP) physi-cists. We should also make sure thebudget for the new machine does notkill smaller HEP research eg fixed tar-get and astro-particle experiments.

• 1) A linear e+e- collider [ 1TeV] some-where, some technology 2) A neutrinofactory 3) R&D on CLIC, muon col-liders, VLHC Time scales: LC neededoperating around 2010-2012 NF neededoperating on similar timescale, may belater multi TeV lepton collider unlikelybefore 2015-2020 VLHC? unlikely before


2020 [no real physics case sustainableuntil 2007-2010, except ’higher energy,possible surprises’].

• Muon collider is the highest priority.

• TESLA in Germany or elsewhere soon,otherwise R&D but no decisions to actu-ally build another machine until firstdata from TESLA (and possibly LHC)allow to target the scale (and, hopefully,the most promising channels) where newphysics shows up more precisely.

• All the mega-projects should only bepursued, IF there is enough money leftfor small machines to do precision mea-surements and keep the community active.Students need data, the field needs data.A muon collider is a wonderful dream,unfortunately the time is not ripe. I donot believe it can be done right now.Simply blowing up current ideas andtechnology should never be done afterLHC. Actually LHC is in my opinionthe wrong way.

• There is a strong (though not airtight!)case for a linear collider already, andTESLA is the most advanced design.So, if we need to begin the campaignfor a new machine now, TESLA is thebest option. My personal ”best choice”would be TESLA soon (either in U.S. orGermany) with continued research intoVLHC and perhaps muon colliders.

• I do not see that VLHC and a muoncollider both being built in the U.S. areincompatible – the muon collider mightbe built in such a way as to ”slip underthe radar” of the major-project mental-ity. It is important that both be built,and at least one be built in the U.S. Per-haps the best method (in a consciousness-raising mindset) is to temporarily allowthe leading U.S. facilities to slip off thefrontier, and then panic the Congress

ala Sputnik: ”We’re falling behind! TheU.S. needs to reassert leadership!”

• I think that we should encourage Ger-many to build TESLA, and reserve judg-ment on what to do in the U.S. for a fewmore years. It’s hard to believe that ifthe ”US doesn’t make a bid to buildTESLA, it won’t get built”. On theother hand, there seem to be more folksinterested in building TESLA abroadthan here. One thing I don’t under-stand, though, is how many non-FNALfolks want to build or do physics at aVLHC.

• I like the idea of a VLHC in the U.S.,because we have the real estate for sucha machine, while other countries maynot. However, I am ambivalent aboutthe idea of ”staging” such a machine,because I am not sure one can makea case for 40 TeV. (Incidentally, if theU.S. administration has any memory,they will think that this is just the SSCagain, and it will not fly. That is anotherreason to just go straight to 100 or 200or whatever.)

• Answer to 42 could have been just aseasily TESLA in Germany with muoncollider in U.S.

• Regarding question 42), I think the VLHCis more likely to work and produce goodphysics. The location of an e+e- col-lider preceding a higher energy hadronor muon collider is not crucial.

• The important thing is to build a Lin-ear Collider somewhere in the world. Agood VLHC should be developed. (40TeV, L=1034 parameters of SSC is nota good option for VLHC).

• 10 years ago, while I was a student,I was surprised to hear that U.S. wasstarting SSC, and Europe was planingLHC. In my mind I could accept that


only if we expected one project wouldfail, otherwise, we should aim at oneproject, putting all effort together. Yearslater, this became true, U.S. joined LHCproject, and dropped SSC, after a lotof lost in human sources and money. Inthe future, I hope all physicists in theworld can join their force together, anddon’t limit them self by their citizenshipof a certain country.

• 42: A TESLA-like machine somewhere,not necessarily in Germany or in theU.S. Your options all tied TESLA toGermany or weren’t specific enough aboutthe choice of technology.

• TESLA-in-Germany is not so much apreference as an acceptance of the likelycoupled with the need to then plan forthe next facility.

• The most important ingredient needed,to formulate a policy for the future, isan understanding, among the lab direc-tors and the HEP community, that short-term compromises and sacrifices are needed,to assure a long-term future.

• Any of the options 2,3 or 4 or combi-nations of them would work. Nothingwrong in pursuing the TESLA in Ger-many and think of next collider facili-ties in the U.S. We can also make thejudgment later when time is more appro-priate and we know more about how toachieve those goals (muon collider etc.)

• It is completely clear (an objective truth!)that what we need is a new e+e- collidera la NLC. We can no longer afford to doa lot of ”consensus building”, yet, wemust have a consensus on that. I wouldgo so far as to say that the consensusis more important than what particu-lar facility, and a consensus that doesn’thave too many nay-sayers causing trou-ble down the road. But as I said, it isclear what the facility should be.

• A TESLA like facility (e+e- linear col-lider) somewhere in the world soon. Thecommunity must then decide, based onLHC data and data from current accel-erator upgrade programs, what the longerterm goals of the field should be.

• I can’t say which item has most affectedmy opinion. I know little about thespecifics of the proposals – when myexperiment ends I leave the field (seeabove) so I haven’t made an effort tokeep up-to-date. But in terms of physicsreach I support a TESLA like proposalwith e-e e-gamma, gamma-gamma andsynchrotron radiation.

• TESLA in GERMANY soon. A muonor VLHC collider anywhere in the worldafter LHC has been in operation for afew years.

• In your wording... VLHC starting nowThis is what we do well and know howto do... at whatever level TESLA orJLC/NLC as possible ...Can’t be ourwhole field And the proponents gottago to work ON THE MACHINE notthe detectors ( a las SSC ) till 0 - 2years any idiots can built detectors themachines are everything.

• An e+e- collider is essential as a part-ner to LHC. It is clear that such a col-lider is on the near horizon. VLHCandmuon colliders are much further in thefuture. Considerable technology devel-opment is needed for these to be suc-cessful, and their physics programs needbetter definition.

• I do neutrinos but most people don’t.I think we should go with the physicsmost people find interesting, even if itslows me down a bit.

• VLHC, let the e+e- options duke it outbetween themselves.


• I think it would be nice to work onsomething besides TESLA or VLHC.Sure, somebody has to do it, but don’texpect me to stand up and cheer foreither, since they will come at the costof other options.

• Why list CLIC as an option for ”soon”?CLIC is a post-LHC option, surely? Inany case, I’d advocate a new e+e- machineon a short timescale as the priority (whichis then a choice between TESLA andNLC). I’m absolutely neutral on loca-tion. I would prefer to reserve judgmenton what should come after that.

• Do everything. Lobby to get the moneywe need to do it. Consolidating is severelyhurting the field in my opinion.

• I do not buy the complementarity salespitch as the history is there for all toread. Plus the enormous cost of an e+e-collider is not justified on physics grounds.I opt for a very large tunnel populatedwith an e+e- collider initially and theVLHC following 10 years of LHC oper-ations. This scenario satisfies a multi-tude of physics and physics communitygoals.

• First, make shorter e+e- LCs at two ormore places. After the qualification ofthem by experiments, extend one of thisto the higher energies.

• TESLA in Hamburg does not allow theinvestment in the infra structure (tun-nel) to be in 20 years for an upgradeat higher frequency. As far as we knowtoday! The consistency of the soil northof Hamburg might not even be goodenough for TESLA parameters. We neea ”Lehman” review for TESLA.

• I support to start focus the future effortin the U.S. on VLHC design. If Ger-man government approves TESLA, theU.S. HEP community should support

in exchange for their support for theVLHC in U.S.

• After having stopped SSC and joiningLHC the U.S. are well advised to gofor the next big machine and not waitfor the overnext, which might take verylong to come.

• TESLA in Germany soon, a muon col-lider wherever it is favorable to build it(why the hell should it be in the U.S.?).

• A muon collider would be extremely niceto have, but I don’t think it will becomeoperational before I retire..

• TESLA in Germany. Makes no sense tobuild such a machine with little involve-ment of the inventors and spiritual lead-ers. Further there should be somewherea big proton machine developed. Forgetthe U.S. nationalism. Build it where itcan be build best. Maybe CERN. Thendecide what you need at a time: lowenergy muon machine, Muon collider,neutrino factory, spallation source, ...

• Leave out TESLA, go directly for a muoncollider. Also: any new accelerator shouldbe a BIG step. It should be an interna-tional collaboration. U.S. versus Europetype of thinking has to be abandoned.

• TESLA in Germany, but in any case aep and eA linear accelerator (ELFE @DESY).

• As I mentioned in the previous section,the LHC will need to be backed up even-tually, but we should wait to have someresults before designing a new e+/e- machinesuch that it can be optimized to thenew interesting physics/energy. Meanwhile, other searches should be conductedsuch as on the dark matter...

• JLC in Japan and possibly muon col-lider/VLHC in U.S.


• I believe that we do not know enoughnow to build anything except TESLA,which the Germans have brought quitefar. I believe that it is too soon to try toget an international mega-project in theU.S. To tie the future of the linear col-lider to the U.S. political process at thistime is foolish. It will delay things byyears! The SSC is still strongly in theminds of Congress, and with the tax cutit will take several years to set thingsback in balance. We should support theGermans on this one, and do the multi-year ground work for a future **inter-national** project in the U.S. later.

• TESLA in my eyes is a very good machinebut can not cover all available physics,so pp physics too is a topic to be cov-ered. In my opinion e+e- and pp com-plement each other well enough to sup-port both.

• Start building a staged neutrino factoryNOW. Proton driver/super beam tech-nology is as ready as anything else.

• We should take the fastest and mosttechnologically advanced track to get usthe physics regardless of machine loca-tion. Because of this, I think TESLAis the best option for a linear collider.They are technologically and politicallyfarther along than the NLC collabora-tion. There is no reason not to con-tribute to their effort.

• Obviously the U.S. would like a newfacility (post Tevatron). CERN will bebusy with the LHC, and I think TELSAis the best candidate for a linear col-lider. So a VLHC seems to be the bestoption. Unfortunately I do not knowmuch about neutrino factories or muoncolliders.

• A linear collider should be built as soonas possible (the location does not mat-ter), but only at the condition that an

upgrade to a multi TeV machine (2.5TeV or so) is feasible both technicallyand financially. Although a 500 GeVlinear collider is certainly useful for EW(and possible SM Higgs) precision mea-surement, the energy required to studypossible new physics will only be knownafter several years of running at LHC.Neither TESLA or NLC can guaranteesuch an upgrade right now thus R&Dshould continue.

• 1) The next machine should allow a vari-ety of experiments. E.g. should notmake neutrino physics impossible. Eventhough the main direction is/should beEW symmetry breaking. 2) The deci-sion should be based on scientific argu-ments. 3) The new machine has onlyto start up after LHC is done. To haveagain experiments stopped in favor of anew machine is a disaster (LEP/LHC)and only hard to explain to the public.At the moment the community is any-way moving from hot spot to hot spot.The near startup of a new machine leavesthe old experiments deserted withoutfully exploiting there capabilities. Thedecision should be based on results gath-ered by Tevatron or even LHC. Thenthe necessary energy range is known(?).The project should be expandable. Untila final decision is taken R&D shouldcontinue for all possibilities. A start uptime of 2020 is not too bad. I wouldthink that the U.S. would deserve thenext machine. But the labs can learnfrom CERN how to build an interna-tional organizational structure.

• Working at intermediate energy physicsaccelerators I think TESLA as a multi-physics machine is highly desirable nowbut I cannot judge which other machineshould be installed in the U.S. as a post-LHC machine.

• I do not know enough technically to


choose between TESLA and and x-bande+e- machine, but I know enough tounderstand that we need to build ane+e- collider and we need to start imme-diately. VLHC, neutrino factory andmuon collider should all be studied, butthose that imply that any of these optionsare viable in the next 10-15 years aremisleading us. An e+e- machine doesnot preclude any of those machines.

• A neutrino factory might be an afford-able domestic project in the relativelyshort term.

• A 500 GeV NLC will have less energythan LHC and is probably not justifi-able. Muon collider - we do not knowhow to build. VLHC needs a new methodas SSC has shown us not to be work-able.

• A thorough physics program of the LHC+ long baseline neutrino experimentsnow. An e+e- machine soon (US), fol-lowed by CLIC + muon collider at CERNlater.

• Bring back the SSC.

• I am for an e+e- collider somewherein the world. The Germans/Europeanscannot afford TESLA by themselves, andI seriously doubt that American fund-ing agencies will commit enough of acontribution for yet another machine noton American soil. On the flip side, ifa non-TESLA option is built in NorthAmerica, I doubt whether the Europeanswill then commit enough funds. It seemsone of the few ”workable” (politically)options is to build a TESLA type designLC at Fermilab. However, I remain con-cerned about the present top design energyof TESLA of 800 GeV. We need moreheadroom in energy expandability (i.e.,to 1.0-1.5 TeV) to ensure the physics.

• I do think that we need a LC soon, butI don’t know where it should be located.

There are compelling arguments for sev-eral locations. I also think that we shouldplan for a VLHC in the post LHC eranow. And continued R&D into muoncolliders. I also think that a neutrinofactory should be considered. Finally,let’s not neglect the low energy machinesfor beauty and charm physics.

• TESLA is a well worked/shaped projectand fills a gap between accelerators andphysics projects. It was conceived inGermany , it might as well be built thereand the efforts and man power shouldbe turned in the U.S. to VLHC withsome participation (if possible) to TESLA.The physics prospects does not justifyanother LC. The experience needed inaccelerators to make the gap for VLHCmight be gained from TESLA and theother existing projects. As far as physicsand detector developments, U.S. shouldparticipate to all the ongoing projectsthose in America and abroad.

• Also need to pursue a near-term pro-gram of diverse physics at the nationallabs and universities.

• Rebuild the university programs and lookfor new ideas while we wait for resultsform Fermilab and CERN. Pursue R&Don the muon collider, VLHC and othernew technologies.

• In order to balance the field it wouldprobably be the best to build TESLA atFermilab. Building it in Germany, how-ever, could be realized on a shorter timescale (which I think is very important)and chances for getting major fundingfrom the German government seem tobe better at the moment than from theU.S. government.

• This option: - politically more feasible;- it gives optimal distribution of basicfacilities around the world.


• TESLA in U.S. or Germany, as soonas possible. Continued R&D in VLHCand neutrino factory/ muon collider.

• As noted above, I am not as concernedas to the type of facility. I do believethat research needs to continue with orwithout a facility to continue pushingthe frontiers with the latest technology.Personally, I have worked with hadroncolliders so I would like to see more workin that area. In the larger picture, con-tinuation in some form is the most impor-tant piece of the puzzle.

• An unspecified LC (i.e. TESLA, NLC,etc) in an unspecified location (i.e. Ger-many, U.S., Japan, etc), with contin-ued studies on other facilities withoutspecifying what they are or where theyshould be situated. The available choices(except ”other”) couple the near termand the long term in ways that do notalways make sense. They also couplephysics driven choices (e.g. LC) andpolitically driven choices (such as loca-tion) in ways that are not universallyaccepted. I suggest that they be splitapart if there are future surveys.

• A second choice would be TESLA inGermany with a vigorous program ofsmaller efforts (e.g. neutrino) in theU.S.

• Furthermore, I favor the warm technol-ogy, as I think it’s the most promisingand I think reach in energy is the mostimportant thing in the end.

• A combination of many of these itemsrather than simply one alone.

• There should be a viable physics pro-gram in all regions of the (particle physics)world. There should also be a viablephysics program in B physics, neutrinophysics and astro-particle physics. Adecision on a next LC must keep thesetwo points in mind.

• This is a somewhat curious question –yes, I’d like an accelerator in the U.S.,but it’s ultimately a political decision,and not ours. If Congress decides we*won’t* build one, I would put all myweight behind TESLA. I will send inmore comments separately, thanks.

• I think TESLA should be given the greenlight/funding to go ahead in GermanyASAP. The U.S. should stop its R&Dbudget on this and look towards thenext generation. Maybe best to wait tillafter the LHC turns on to see whetherthe way forward is VLHC or muon col-lider. But whatever, we must ensurethat the lessons from SSC are learn’t.

• Because I am distracted by my dutiesto the BaBar collaboration and by myresponsibilities within my group struc-ture, it is difficult for me to form anyopinion about any one technology orsite due to the simple lack of time toconduct the research. As a physicist, Iwould be a fool to claim I could formany opinion about any of the proposedprojects.

• I want to see the most productive globalphysics program evolve. This to memeans that there isn’t any duplicationof the largest accelerators. Most impor-tant, though, is for us to take advantageof all possible funding streams. If theGerman government is really willing toput up $2B towards TESLA, the debateshould be over and the U.S. should takethem up on the offer and participatewhile taking the bulk of the U.S. pro-gram money and spending it on otherefforts. If we push ahead for a U.S.LC so hard that the German projectfails, then we will have kissed off a hugeinflux of new money which will then notgo into particle physics – and the worldprogram will be poorer.

• If you count responses, I have to say


mine should count as 1/2. I am con-flicted. Whatever we do, it will take15 years and I strongly want a strongdomestic accelerator based HEP pro-gram while we are constructing it.

• I do not care where the collider is, Iwould like it to be built and physics bedone there. It should be a linear colliderfirst, then ( without a doubt!) a VLHC-type machine.

• See above and my answers in part VI.I’m basically an astronomer; I haven’teven taken a course on Standard Modelparticle physics. So I don’t feel qual-ified to say which accelerators are andare not good for the rest of the field; mycomments in part VI above are basedonly on the suspicion that engineeringdifficulties will eventually prevent accel-erators from getting to energies wheresome fantastically interesting things arehappening (esp. quantum gravity). Iencourage particle physicists to explainto me, as a non-expert, the advantagesof their particular brand of collider andwhy I should fund it with my tax dol-lars.

• Although it was not an option, I don’tcare where the LC is built and wouldlike to see continued research in VLHCand muons.

• I am very skeptical that the taxpay-ers will be willing to come up with theamounts needed to build any of the pro-posed machines, especially if the scien-tific community is not unanimous in itssupport.

• It has become clear to me that TESLAis far more advanced in technology, out-reach, budget, and politics than eitherthe NLC or CLIC. It also seems quitelikely that TESLA will be built by Ger-many. And I don’t think it makes muchsense to try and build TESLA in the

U.S. What German in his/her right mindwould want such hard-won technologi-cal advances/innovations to become areality in another country?! While Idon’t advocate that we pilfer their tech-nology, and I don’t think we should buildNLC (it’s not remotely ready yet..norhas site preparation been done in earnest),I do think we should participate in TESLAif the Germans build it. If they decideagainst the project, then perhaps weshould try to build it here..having giventhem the chance first. I also think build-ing two linear colliders in the world wouldbe a mistake. So, assuming that Ger-many will build TESLA and we willparticipate, we still need forefront activ-ity in HEP in the U.S. This is why Ichose the path to a muon storage ring.This path offers much diversity and theability to step toward the final goal inspecific, physics-rich, well-defined, not-exorbitantly-priced stages. A proton driveras the first stage would provide a greatdeal to the neutrino physics community(as well as the hadron collider folks ifbuilt at FNAL). It could also provide alead-in to the VLHC if that path wereeventually determined to be the best forthe field.

• So much depends on the unknown fund-ing and political climate, that the choiceis not simple, and may have little to dowith what I consider the most desirablemachine, the NLC.

• No new facility.

• I came to Snowmass ready to support alinear collider with the TESLA designin Germany with continued research inVLHC and muon collider. After attend-ing the consensus building presentationsI find that I can NOT support a lin-ear collider because the physics is notthere. The linear collider has the samediscovery potential as the LHC and it


comes 5-8 years later. The statementwas made that the LHC will discoverthings and the linear collider will beneeded to understand them. I can notbelieve that we will sit around for 8years with discoveries that we can notunderstand. It would probably take muchless money and time to fund theorists tofigure it out! I find giga Z physics ratherboring. If there is nothing new in thereach of the LC then it will have been aterrible waste of money - at the expenseof many small experiments. This is nota risk I want to take. I think smallexperiments which cover a wide rangeof topics are the best way to keep ahealthy field and to keep young peopleinterested.

• Linear collider in JAPAN. The U.S. istoo politically unstable to entrust withsuch a large project. (Remember theSSC!)

• 42) GSI-proposal of an European heavy-ion-facility.

• A new e+e- machine somewhere ASAP.With continued research for the nextstep.

• TESLA in Germany is also a good idea(but without a new project in the U.S.,the U.S. laboratory and university pro-grams will shrink. – TESLA in the U.S.may cause the German program to shrink,but perhaps less so due to the close prox-imity of the LHC).

13.8.2 Decide to Wait:

• Wait for first results at the LHC (Higgs+ SUSY), THEN decide if we need aVLHC (only if s/th unexpected comesfrom LHC). Muon ring (don’t underes-timate R&D + costs!) and TESLA istoo much for a 30 year period, but weneed TESLA ASAP (for Higgs + SUSY

precision). Cut that ”in the U.S.” crap- who cares, R&D is spread over theworld already, so jobs are not the issue.”If we fund, we want it here” is ridicu-lous, too: Physics is decentralized, andso should its labs be. It’s participationthat counts. Nobody can buy physics.

• There could be unsuspected surprises inthe next decades that change future pri-orities.

• Given the time lag between experimentsand to keep many aspects of HEP viable,it is clear that one would like to beginconstruction of a new facility in the nextfew years. However, I personally do notknow which type of new facility wouldoffer the best chance for discovery orilluminating an existing problem in HEP.In the time between now and the firstdata coming from the LHC, it is notclear to me that the parameters of anew facility can be adequately deter-mined to best optimize the physics out-put of the facility. I have listened toarguments from proponents of each facil-ity and have trouble comparing the physicsreach of each facility on the same foot-ing. What is clear to me now is thatwithout consensus of the whole field andattending support/ mandate from thepublic, an aborted attempt to constructa new facility will likely mean acceler-ator based HEP will suffer an unrecov-erable contraction worldwide.

• Wait a while after hearing results fromCDF and B-factory and even LHC ifnecessary. It’s good time to decide after2005, I believe.

• With the LHC starting in a few years,it is a bit early to be lobbying about ityet. Thinking about it, yes.

• Will the findings from LHC affect thechoice?


• Seeing what Run II and LHC tell us isimportant before commiting to the nextbig machine.

• After LHC, the field may take a direc-tion that we cannot guess at this time.An even higher energy of say 10 timesmore may not be very productive.

• LC physics is not compelling for such abig machine unless relevant discoveriesare made in Run II or at the LHC.

• I think the field needs to focus on deter-mining if there are one or more Higgsbosons. This may be done (or started)in the FNAL Run II program but cer-tainly will be carried out at LHC. I thinkit is a bit premature to think about the”next” accelerator although the adventof LHC brings the question to the fore-front in the U.S. If anything, the ques-tion underscores the tragedy of the SSC!

• I believe that we need the results fromat least Run 2 at Fermilab before wecan make an intelligent choice for ournext option.

• I think before we seriously start talkingabout a neutrino factory or VLHC, itwould be good to finish and get somephysics results from the neutrino oscil-lation experiments that are now in thestage of construction and from LHC-a,b. TESLA is good, but we need a newfacility in the USA. So for me this is justa choice of NLC versus muon collider. Ido not know enough about muon collid-ers to estimate the potential of such amachine. But NLC would be undoubt-edly very useful.

• I would not proceed on any expensivenew accelerator without doing the fol-lowing .. 1) TESLA/NLC should waittill we know exactly where the Higgsis. 2) The logistics of establishing trulyinternational collaborations should be

worked out at the governmental level.By this I mean that an organizationshould be established which will be fundedthrough international treaties and thatwould have the ability to manage theconstruction of new facilities wheneverand wherever they are required.

• The LHC results are very important todecide for the future.

• Don’t think that waiting a few yearsand then joining/building major facil-ity is possible – what will young par-ticle physicists do if we are going towait 5 years to spend 2 years decid-ing to spend 8-10 years building col-lider? ”Wait 5 years” is tantamountto eliminating HEP as a major compo-nent of U.S. science program. Wouldrather decide honestly that we are goingto wind down than pretend that we aregoing to wait.

• Perhaps we should wait for the physicalresults of approved, but not yet startedprojects to see which way to go.

• Catch-22: If you don’t start now, youwon’t be done ”in time” but right nowyou don’t know enough to know whatwould be best.

• 1. The environment for internationalcooperation needed for projects of themagnitude of an e+e- collider or a VLHCdoes not seem to be in place. Therefore,impractical to embark on such projectsnow – since it appears that no singlecountry can fund these devices. 2. Thephysics case for precision studies of elec-troweak symmetry breaking is not yetstrong enough to start construction. Asan experimentalist, I think there shouldbe more tangible evidence for new physicsbefore one contemplates high-precisionmeasurements. For example, astrophys-ical detection of WIMP’s whose charac-ter is supersymmetric would be a tremen-


dous boost for the case for an e+e- col-lider. HEP should be doing much moreto support astroparticle searches thatwould have a critical bearing on ourfuture accelerator program. 3. In themean time, nature seems to be provid-ing us with very strong encouragementto study neutrino physics in much greaterdetail – with particle accelerators. Whilethe total cost for a complete program isfairly high, we are fortunate that neu-trino physics can be approached by incre-mental investments. Therefore, I rec-ommend giving higher priority to facil-ities to study the neutrino sector thisdecade.

• If I were the person who makes the finaldecision, I would spend many monthslearning the issues before deciding. Thisis a serious question that can’t be answeredby a gut feeling.

• Despite all the excitement, it is muchtoo early to worry about what I’ll donext. The best options will/ may getignored - the politics of the field willprobably override other considerations,so it’s more efficient to do my currentresearch and await a decision.

• While the desire to build a new machineis in keeping with a long and enormouslysuccessful program of exploration, thecosts, both human and financial, haverisen to a new scale. I am not personallyconvinced that going ahead without abetter idea of the physics to be probedis appropriate. The concern for a U.S.facility, as opposed to a truly interna-tional one, I have little patience for.Yes, it is personally difficult to work inEurope (for example), but I think thisis a small sacrifice to make if we wantour fellow citizens to come up with bil-lions of dollars in research support.

• I’d like to say reserve judgment but Ialso think the next machine should be

built in the U.S. to ensure that thereis a strong HEP community in the U.S.Without the next machine in the U.S.I believe that the slow demise of HEP(at least in the U.S.) is inevitable.

• I think that research into all of the aboveoptions can continue however until theresults of Tevatron Run 2, LHC and theB factories are well understood it seemsa little early to make a final decision. Ialso just make the point that all of theabove options only offer a ’final’ deci-sion as being built in the U.S. There areother countries in the world and thereis no real reason why a new experimenthas to be built in the states.

• Recent RF breakdown problems encoun-tered at the NLCTA and at CLIC cloudthe choice between normal and super-conducting collider options. More workis clearly needed. TESLA currently appearsquite viable, but upgrading much beyond1 TeV is not at all viable, so it appearsto be a short-term solution with no goodupgrade. The muon collider remainsat least 30 years in the future. Withthe big tax cut and a science-hostilepresident, the funding climate for a bigmachine is lousy. We should use theremaining 3.5 years to do basic acceler-ator technology development and makea vigorous pitch to the next administra-tion. If the Germans forge ahead withTESLA in the interim, fine. The needfor a serious machine reaching beyond1 TeV will remain. Make no judgmentthis year– the options are not completelyunderstood.

• Unfortunately, politics will play a majorrole so we also have to consider what ispossible and what is safe for the field. Ifwe spend a lot of money on somethingwhich proves to be uninteresting, thenwe are in real trouble. I do not think itwould be wise to push for an early LC


in the U.S. I said VLHC but we shouldreconsider in a few years.

• HEP faces the problem that the lengthof time to create a new facility is muchlonger than the characteristic time forthe extension of knowledge. Hence, oneis reduced to guessing and gut biases;the standard of knowing what physicsyou explicitly hope to learn driving designchoices cannot accommodate the presentrate with which HEP physicists want tobuild new machines.

• The answer - fair amount, but need toknow more reflects my opinion of thestate of understanding of the commu-nity - we don’t know enough to make afirm positive decision for these options.

• HEP-community comes into the samewaters which led to the extinction ofdinosaurs 67 My ago: too big and toolittle flexibility. We should wait for afew years with our next decision; TESLAis coming too early (for a number of rea-sons). Nevertheless, it has to be decidednow (or soon) in order to keep the fieldgoing. The projects are getting too bigfor the community.

• It is too soon to tell. Need much morecareful studies about physics objectives.

• I have a popular level exposure to theissues pertaining to future accelerators.I would like to reserve my judgment forfuture.

• It is very difficult to make decisions fora future period of 20-25 years. For mephysics problems have to be attackedfrom many sides. I am for broad sci-ence. With limited national budgets bigscience projects e.g. accelerators mustbe supported by the international com-munity.

• It is the duty of the community to makefull usage of LHC/ Tevatron physics before

building the next machine. The day weknow the Higgs mass we can design theproper apparatus, before the risk of amachine slightly too small is too big.See PETRA.

• The field should decide and converge ona machine to support now, not reservejudgment for several years.

• There is a lot of things which has notbeen understood yet about the matterand I don’t know if after the LHC anotherbig project will be a key is this under-standing. That’s a lot of money so weneed a discovery to push a little bit higher... otherwise nothing will come fromthat.

• We choose the next machine to find theanswer, but we don’t yet know the ques-tion and we can’t afford to ask the wrongone. I think we need to wait at leastfor preliminary results from Fermilab’sRun II before deciding on the next machineto pursue. It would be nice to haveLHC results as well, but the lead timeneeded for building a machine mightnot permit this luxury.

• Either VLHC or muon collider depend-ing on results from LHC.

• Based on physics motivations let Teva-tron and LHC run for a while and thendecide. In the mean time R&D for accel-erators and detection methods shouldcontinue.

• I would choose very differently depend-ing on what is found at the LHC andthe Tevatron. The problem is how toensure that we have enough trained physi-cists around for the next step, and thisprobably means building some facilityeven if it is not the ”right one”.

• Let the LHC find what it is supposedto find, take info from non-accelerator


experiments and take a decision com-bining all HEP knowledge and not justpart of it.

• We need more accelerator research.

• Reserving judgment would kill our field.People and expertise would get lost!

• I would pick either to wait until theLHC has been running for a few years orstart now to design a very high energypp machine.

• This is the don’t make a choice solu-tion. It is the one of those to pick butI think it is unfundable. I believe thatwe’ll see major facilities in Japan andEurope and we’ll miss out following thistrack. That would be a shame. Weneed to focus. NLC has obvious issues(i.e. what if there’s no SM ∼120GeVHiggs?) that we’d know the answer tobefore we run but not before we makea fast-track funding pitch. I think thisis a poor idea. Wait for 5 years anddo R&D. Then build it when there isa mandate. Support TESLA if it getsfunded in the meantime. VLHC is toofar to commit before the LHC resultsare digested. Neutrinos are the onlysure, staged program with a physics man-date. Too bad there is a smaller userbase.

• Support advanced accelerator R&D. Sim-ply building bigger machines from extanttechnologies is not practical much beyondthe 0.5 TeV scale. Plan for the futureby developing plasma, laser, high fre-quency RF, superconducting RF accel-eration technologies, and in the processof pursuing these technologies you willattract eager young minds.

• Mark Twain once said something like”it is hard to predict, especially the future”.Because we do not know what will hap-pen (or not happen!) at the LHC, nor

at Run 2, the next machine is a big risk.For this reason, diversity is importantfor this machine, sort of like hedgingyour bets or diversifying your stocks.On the other hand, it has to always bethe best guess at physics at the moment,and in the absence of any brilliance (suchas for SPEAR or SuperK, for examples),it is usually the highest energy and/orluminosity. important question.

• The worldwide HEP community maybe able to persuade the world’s taxpay-ers to fund one new large facility. Weshould therefore avoid a rush to judg-ment about what such a facility shouldbe. We do not know what is aroundthe ”energy corner”. It would be a bet-ter use of public money to spend it ontruly advanced R&D towards a futurefacility, and defer a decision about whatto build until about 2005. By then weshould have a better idea about whichway Nature’s wind is blowing.

• If the ”next machine” cannot be doneproperly, it should be postponed andinstead one should build a several tau/charm,b and Z factories for precision measure-ments. If everything goes into 1 or 2super-collaborations, science dies. Wecan see the start of that at CERN.

• I am not convinced that there must be a”next machine”. ”Big science” may notbe the best use of resources, especiallyif the scientific payoff is very uncertain(as seems to be the case currently).


on Picking a Plan:

• See my comments to the HEPAP sub-panel: follow the link on:http://hep.uchicago.edu/~rosner/

• This is not a high energy physics survey,this is a high energy experiment survey.


On that issue I would rather not expressmy opinion in print. How would theexperimentalists like it if I made a sur-vey asking, Q: what do you think aboutthe importance of orbifolds and orien-tifolds in future N theory research? a)... b)

• I thing that your survey is not very wellprepared: First you are concentratingto much on the U.S. and then your answerstructure is not very well suited for yourquestions most the time. You are mainlyasking for yes or no / black or white,but sometimes this is not possible andmore options of the supplied answersare important.

• See text of part VI. You did not seem tohave other in mind but building a newmachine in the U.S. when you createdthis survey.

• This form seems to be U.S.-biased.

• Why something has to be in the U.S.?I find these questions very nationalistic,should decisions in science not being factbased.

• Sorry, this is a bad survey. It doesn’tallow for any of the richness of the rele-vant discussion ... (Which is not to saythat I discourage you from attemptingto address the issues ...)

• You’re talking to the wrong guy for thissection.

• You don’t seriously believe that the selec-tions you present begin to cover the real-istic, or even probable range of options.I find it difficult to believe that a pre-cision machine such as a LC is goingto warrant the projected cost withoutdecimating the field. I assert that thissection is so biased that no reasonableconclusions can be drawn from it.

• The choices for question 42 are too lim-ited. I would prefer: a new e+e- collider(TESLA, NLC) in the World soon, withcontinued research in VLHC and muonstorage ring/ collider technologies. Atleast one of these new facilities shouldbe in the U.S.

• Why only mention the U.S. and Ger-many?

• An option for QCD physics not men-tioned above: ep (TESLA on HERA).

• Expand options to include fixed-targetexperiments.

• Question 35 is strange – it is physicsissues that has most affected my views,but that is not a choice. This is theonly scientifically justifiable choice, andas well the only one that could work inthe real world of funding and politics –i.e. the answer to 42.

• I find these options somewhat odd, asa physicist, I am only interested in thephysics. Personally I do not care where!If the U.S. have enough money, wellthen let them build anything they want:-) a muon storage ring would be niceanywhere!

• I wish I had time to read about andconsider these weighty issues.

• Nice job with this survey. How can Iget more involved?

• Well I don’t know enough about thesesubjects at the moment and my excuseis that I have to finish my PhD in a yearafter only starting 2 years ago.

• Shouldn’t the response to question 42be disregarded if the person’s responseto question 41 was ”unsure”, ”probablyno” or ”definitely no”?


• Question 42: Again, the coupling of mul-tiple issues in the selections available isinappropriate, coupling issues that areonly linked by assumptions made by thosewho wrote this survey. Further com-ments: a) TESLA (not TELAS) andNLC are comparable in time scale andcost, but differ in other ways. CLIC ismuch farther off in time, and should nothave been coupled with either NLC orTESLA. b) Opinion regarding impor-tance of siting the facility in the U.S.addressed in previous comments.

• Ridiculous choices! I don’t care wherethe next linear collider is being built!This focus of the U.S. physics commu-nity on itself sucks and is counterpro-ductive for the worldwide advance ofHigh energy physics. Looking at theavailable techniques only TESLA appearsto be far enough advanced for a con-struction start soon. In addition, pairedwith a FEL it is by far the more con-vincing concept. I think given the tech-nical challenges and the costs of evenmore future colliders, we have to waitand see how the presently built machines,LHC and a linear collider perform beforewe can ask any people to burn another5 to 10 billions of dollars on anotherproject.

• As before, I cannot pick from these U.S.-centric options. I would like a high-energy e+e- collider somewhere, soon.At present, TESLA looks like the mostfeasible design. In Germany would beconvenient for me, but somewhere else(eg. U.S.) would be great too. Beyondthat, a neutrino factory leading muoncollider would be attractive. (I don’tcare where.)

• The choices you offer in (42) are muchtoo biased towards the U.S. Please con-sider that HEP is an international field!

• Everything too biased towards the U.S.,humph!

• O.k., perhaps because I am German ...- but please, why must everything be inthe U.S.???

• I continue not understanding your ques-tion always about U.S.: many other coun-tries exist, many other countries studyparticle physics as well as U.S. Have youever heard about Europe, for example?

• This part of the survey is quite biasedtowards a linear collider. Please learna bit more about the field and do somesitting and thinking yourself before pre-senting a survey like this.

• There is no compelling physics justifica-tion for any of the other options listedwith the exception of studying dark energy/cosmologicalconstant.

• Snowmass and this questionnaire are con-centrating due to circumstances on amajor flagship project. The intellec-tual health and progress in our particu-lar field depends more on diversity andintellectual ferment than on monolithicprojects. A comprehensive science pol-icy for particle physics must encouragediversity in research projects as well asaddress the energy frontier.

• Your list is incomplete, and most of theitems are not under one’s control. TESLAhas made the case, and we will haveto wait a year to see whether Germanycould build it or whether the U.S. can”buy” it. The next machine after lin-ear collider should be dictated by thephysics we learn in the next 10-15 yearsat the Tevatron, LHC, and hopefullyLC. Picking the after-LC machine nowis gambling - you might end up rightbetween two cactuses in the energy desert.We do not need a macho ”get me to thehighest energy possible” machine. We


need a machine at the energy where theexciting physics is destined to happen,namely the 1 TeV precision machine, aswe already building a TeV-class hadronmachine.

• It is very biased to couple NLC andVLHC in one item in the previous ques-tion. I am a lot more convinced aboutNLC than I am about VLHC.

• Question 42: Your options are too nar-row. A more likely scenario is that wepush for a LC to be built somewhere inthe world with U.S. participation. Weobviously favor having it done in theU.S., but are willing to support it inEurope or Japan if that is the way thatit works out. VLHC is also very impor-tant to keep alive and research for sucha machine is crucial. The neutrino fac-tory is important and should be sup-ported, but at a lesser level than VLHC.The muon collider needs a lot of moreresearch and science justification.

• Not sure I like/understand the wordingof question 42.

• I think this survey is a little biased.I hope this is only because the resultsmay be used to lobby U.S. funding agen-cies. Perhaps inappropriate to say it,but ”global” does not have to mean ”inthe USA”.

• 1) The list of question 42 is too shortand too restricted 2) HEP will only havea future if national interests are not com-pletely defining the solutions 3) A neu-trino factory in Europe would be fineby several reasons.

• Question 35: No space for ‘all of theabove’? Question 36 : Your survey isdesigned to make someone who has stud-ied these options systematically and seri-ously seem immodest. I would be sur-prised if most people who have studied

all of these options tell you so. Ques-tion 36 : Had I designed the survey,TELSA/NLC would get one line andhigher energy e+e- another. This morecorrectly reflects the current choice, boththe technological and the political ques-tion.

the young physicists panel (ypp) - arxiv · abstract the young physicists panel (ypp) summarizes...

Documents