In deriving the $2.5 million and $3.5 million figures for purposes of the analysis requested of Professor Milton White, Director of the Princeton-Pennsylvania Accelerator, an attempt was made to interject two varying degrees of stress into the analysis while at the same time attempting to adjust to the budget reduction at about the magnitude specified in the FY 1970 authorizing legislation. The figures are therefore arbitrary in the sense that they were not selected on the basis of assessments of laboratory requirements. From the above considerations, a reduced mode of operation at the PrincetonPennsylvania Accelerator was weighed as one possible avenue for accommodating to budget reductions. Admittedly it is unfortunate that fiscal stringencies have forced such drastic considerations. The Princeton-Pennsylvania Accelerator Laboratory is yet quite young, very productive and highly valuable to the high energy physics program. Furthermore, its value for nuclear physics and chemistry has been enhanced greatly by the flat top projects and the developing, unique capability for accelerating heavy ions. The reason for considering reduced operations is therefore based purely on budgetary limitations. This course of action would leave the facility available for returning to a higher level of operation on very short notice. We have not yet received the response to our communication to Professor White. It is hoped that this information will be helpful. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, E. J. BLOCH, Acting General Manager. DISPOSITION OF PPA FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT Chairman HOLIFIELD. We are going to terminate operations there by the end of fiscal 1971. What about all the equipment there? Does that equipment belong to AEC and will it be accessible to the AEC or does it belong to Princeton? Dr. MCDANIEL. At the Forrestal campus, we estimate there is about $39 million of facilities and equipment currently there. Within the contractual arrangements between Princeton and the Government are many provisions which must be negotiated between the university and the Government to determine the final ownership of all of the apparatus and equipment. Certainly the title to the machine, itself, is specifically discussed in the contract. As I recall the terms of the contract, in consideration of the contributions by Princeton to the original construction, and to the fact that it is on Princeton University land, the title to the accelerator would probably vest in the university. The contract requires that if we do terminate operations there that we leave the facility in an operating condition, although not necessarily, the contract continues, in a condition so as to operate at its maximum efficiency. This will keep our New York office and the Princeton University officials busy, I think, over a period of several months to sort out the exact ownership of all of the equipment. Certainly some is owned by the Government and we would transfer it to the other activities. Some would be owned by Princeton University and some may be owned by other universities who are currently using the Princeton-Pennsylvania accelerator. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES FOR PPA Chairman HOLIFIELD. If this equipment is left there, are they going to be able to finance the operation of this from funds other than AEC funds? Dr. MCDANIEL. Without being facetious, I would hope so. I would doubt, however, that they will be able to do it. Dr. White is here and Dr. White is trying his best to find some way to keep the machine going. Chairman HOLIFIELD. What has been the operating cost of that? Dr. McDANIEL. The operating cost for the accelerator, itself, and the contract we are talking about terminating has been of the order of $4 million. As you recall, about a year ago, we reduced the mode of operation and we are planning for fiscal year 1971 to about a $3.5 million annual operating level. However, as a result of our latest action of last January of closing the machine, we have only $2 million in this budget and that is earmarked for the termination costs including the mopping up of the floor after we pull out on June 30. Chairman HOLIFIELD. Does this include any power contract penalties? Dr. MCDANIEL. I don't have the detail on that. We have a power contract at Princeton University which provides power to this project and to the Plasma Physics Laboratory in the controlled thermonuclear research program. Undoubtedly the contract, itself, would not be canceled but would shift some of the charges over to the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. As far as Dr. White finding money to operate the machine on their account, I know that he is trying very hard. He had a meeting at Princeton with 40 or 50 young people last Saturday that we attended with him. Perhaps Dr. White would like to add to that. Chairman HOLIFIELD. Dr. White, would you care to contribute something to this? STATEMENT OF DR. MILTON WHITE, DIRECTOR, PRINCETONPENNSYLVANIA ACCELERATOR Dr. WHITE. Yes. I could make a longer remark but I won't. You are too busy for that. I can provide a statement for the record. We appreciate the fact that money is getting tighter. So I think the concern of most people at the Princeton-Pennsylvania accelerator, the young men who use the machine, is that perhaps one might spread the budgetary cuts across all laboratories rather than destroying a single laboratory which could never again be replaced. Though one appreciates the desire to go as fast as possible at the NAL, we believe that in so doing one is raising the peak of the pinnacle of the field while narrowing the base to the point where it may be unstable. It is important to keep the small university machine running. We are going to try to find money to keep the Princeton-Pennsylvania accelerator running. We are going to apply to foundations. The universities will be approached to make small contributions, probably only symbolic rather than big money because they don't have that kind of money. It is our belief we could run the accelerator at a viable level at a range of $1 to $2 million a year; it had been $42 to $5 million previously. We now think we can come down to a level of $1 or $2 million a year and still run a very good laboratory which could be used by many universities; a level which would keep the laboratory going until some time in the not too distant future when one might be able to improve the accelerator in various ways. For example, we would like to accelerate heavy ions in the future. As you are aware, we have an interest in heavy ion acceleration. In fact, this summer we will accelerate carbon nuclei to 14 billion electron volts. Our hope is to keep the machine going, somehow, at some minimal level. That level is around $1 to $2 million and then maybe the current financial problems will pass off in 2 or 3 or 4 years and one might then hope to have more adequate funding. Thank you. Chairman HOLIFIELD. Thank you for your contribution. (The written statement of Dr. White follows:) Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD, PRINCETON-PENNSYLVANIA ACCELERATOR, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, Vice Chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, DEAR MR. HOLIFIELD: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to add a written statement to my extemporaneous remarks made at the March 3 Hearings of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. At that time I expressed my dismay over the closing down of the Princeton-Pennsylvania Laboratory, just as its value to the scientific community is sharply increasing. First, I would like to express my appreciation of the efforts made over the years by the JCAE to support basic research in various scientific fields which relate either to the advancement of atomic energy, or which benefit by the techniques developed for atomic energy. In particular the JCAE and the Atomic Energy Commission are largely responsible for the vigorous state of high energy physics in America. Now, however, severe budget cuts threaten to dismantle much that has been built up at considerable expense. It is my belief, and that of many other scientists, that at some future date the discoveries made in elementary particle physics will prove to be essential to human progress, perhaps even to survival. How, or when is not predictable, but it seems clear to me that anything so fundamental as increasing our understanding of the basic structure of matter, space and time must, someday, result in a powerful interaction with human affairs. Admittedly no one can, at the present moment, identify the possible areas of practical application, but this is always true of the most basic research. Those of us who work in high energy physics are motivated almost solely by the intellectual challenge of gaining a deeper insight into the very essence of our existence. Admittedly it is an act of faith, borne out by innumerable historical examples, to believe that basic discoveries will eventually profoundly affect all sciences and technology and that therefore one is justified in asking for the large sums of money required for their pursuit. Where would we be today without the basic discoveries made 50 years ago about the nature of radiowaves light, neutrons, atoms and molecules? In fighting today's "war" we must not neglect the basic research required to win tomorrow's wars. In repeating to you familiar arguments for supporting basic elementary particle research, which appears at the moment to have little relevance to the ills and woes of contemporary society, I am really taking issue with those in the legislative and administrative branches of government who would drastically cut back the support of basic research ostensibly for budget balancing reasons. While it is clear that the rate of growth of funds for basic research must eventually level off to something like the growth in the GNP, it is not at all clear that the current decrease in real dollars is justified by the need to fight inflation. One gets the impression that basic science is being cut for other reasons than merely fighting inflation. Whatever those reasons may be I am deeply concerned about the long term damage that is being inflicted on our country. We are in real danger of losing our present position of scientific and technological eminence. If high energy physics is being cut merely to fight inflation I could understand a reasonable reduction in budget for the Princeton-Pennsylvania Accelerator (PPA); a reduction shared more or less equally by all AEC funded activities. What I find incomprehensible is the needless destruction of a relatively new laboratory just as it approaches full stature. The PPA Users have been growing steadily over the years so that now some fifteen universities make extensive use of our facilities. Our research output has grown rapidly in both quantity and quality with FY 71 promising to be our best year to date. Accelerator improvements now nearly complete will make this machine of great value for years to come. To abandon a capital investment of $40 million before the full research potential has been realized is difficult to justify on economic grounds and certainly impossible on scientific grounds. Of the fifteen experiments which are either now running or scheduled to be run by next fall, there are several which are at the leading edge of elementary particle physics-the rest are first-rate experiments and only slightly less significant. In spite of the threatened shutdown of the PPA in FY 71 we are still receiving requests to run highly significant experiments late next year. It is therefore clear that the scientific value of the PPA in elementary particle physics is actually rising with time. While it is customary to assert that an accelerator tends to age and eventually become obsolete, the critical question is at what rate and what are the criteria for deciding, eventually, to abandon an accelerator. One should be careful not to identify a laboratory solely with its principal facility in its original form. This Laboratory originally built a 3BeV proton synchrotron, but that de vice has been steadily improved with time and we are now on the threshold of making a qualitative change in its capabilities. I refer, first, to flat topping the magnetic field of the synchrotron and, second, to the acceleration of light and heavy ions to high energies. These latter improvements, added at very moderate cost, would substantially increase the longevity of this Laboratory. Flat topping, now essentially completed, will substantially increase the PPA's value to elementary particle studies and will add the capability to perform high energy nuclear structure experiments. The acceleration of light and heavy ions to high energies will open up new areas of research. Heavy ions accelerated to 6-8 MeV per nucleon will make feasible the search for superheavy transuranic elements around Z=11, or any other Z less than, say Z=192. I am sure you are fully aware of the massive effort being made in the USSR to find these predicted superheavy, and possibly stable, elements. No doubt you are also aware of the possible practical value to which such nuclei could be put. While the Superhilac will enter the field in a couple of years I feel that this area of research is too important to be left to only one American laboratory. The addition of such heavy ion capabilities to the PPA would cost about $500,000, a sum far less than building up a completely new facility. From the strictly scientific viewpoint an even more exciting region of heavy ion research lies at much higher energies, i.e., 800-1200 MeV per nucleon, (e.g., the PPA could, in principle, produce uranium with total energy of 191 BeV). At these energies one will not be looking for superheavy stable nuclei, but rather looking for wholly new, nuclear and elementary particle phenomena. For example, it is likely that a high energy ion, e.g., 80 BeV krypton, impinging on, say, uranium, would produce a shock wave in nuclear matter. A study of the behavior of such regions of high nuclear energy density and unique collective behavior would produce significant data obtainable in no other way. The addition of this capability to the PPA has been requested of the AEC for the past two years and would cost about $2.0 million. For technical reasons the PPA is unique in its potential for accelerating heavy ions to very high energies. Granted the very tight budget which the President is projecting for FY 71 and FY 72, it may seem quite unrealistic of me to take the time to discuss these improvements to the PPA. My object is to demonstrate that the PPA is not now and need not become obsolete. It has many years of exciting research ahead of it. Highly significant improvements can be made for as little as $20,000, and entirely new areas of research can be opened up for about $2.5 million. The destruction of the PPA by the end of FY 71 is to foreclose the possibility of going on to new fields. In my view, it would be wiser for the AEC to "tread water" at the PPA for a couple of years by which time the entire national scene could change drastically. What does "treading water" imply? We have been operating at about the $4.5 million level, but this year we will spend about $4.2 million and in FY 71 we have $2.0 million with which to terminate the Laboratory. We fully expect, given the chance to turn in a highly creditable performance in FY 71 at the $2.0 million level. In fact, given the choice between life or death we can remain a viable laboratory for several years for as little as $1.0 million, though obviously we must defer all major improvements and must ask the User to perform many of the services which we now provide. Also experiments will take longer to install, run and dismantle. Clearly this is not the most efficient way to reap the full benefits of an existing $40 million investment, but it is infinitely better than destroying that investment. Funding at a low, but viable, level will lend strong encouragement to our search for additional sources of private funds from universities and foundations. While these private contributions will probably not be large they may allow a more effective level of operation while at the same time permitting significant technical improvements to be made. At this point I must discuss the National Accelerator Laboratory (NAL) because, inevitably, its growing need for operating funds, coming out of an essentially static budget for high energy physics, appears to sweep aside all rational arguments for keeping alive the smaller laboratories. While there is little doubt in my mind that new and very fundamental discoveries will be made as NAL pushes up the energy frontier, I am even more certain that rapid, long term progress and the success of NAL will depend upon a broad, strong foundation supporting NAL. All physicists, including those at NAL would, I feel sure, agree with the statement that effective use of NAL will depend intimately upon a strong university participation in high energy physics. Obviously everyone engaged in the experiments will be university trained in elementary particle physics. For this to be effective the faculties must be actively engaged in research, indeed, leading the research. There must be a constant flow of new scientists into the field, for this is a young man's field. Further, there must be many active centers of interest remote from NAL in order for new ideas to be generated and receive sufficient nurture before getting tried out at NAL. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this requirement for a healthy NAL program. There is less agreement on the best way of achieving this ecological balance between universities and large national laboratories. Probably there is no single way, but two factors do stand out. One is that there must be many strong university User Groups which originate experiments, train students, build equipment and take full part in the general life of their universities. These User Groups will not be able to function well if their only research outlet consists of going to two or three, very large, national laboratories. Therefore a second factor is the active role which the small, relatively inexpensive, university oriented accelerators play in encouraging the flow of young men, new ideas and enthusiasm into this field. Experimental high energy physics has become a very demanding discipline, and not to everyone's liking. The smaller accelerator laboratories play a unique and necessary role in providing a healthy climate for the development of next generation scientists so essential for continued progress in this field. I feel that this facet of the subject has been largely ignored by the more senior policy makers who wish to get to high energies as quickly as possible. It has also been ignored by the Bureau of the Budget which, apparently, believe that it understands the needs of high energy research and is urging the closing down of all accelerators except for two or three with the highest energy. This policy, if actually carried out, will surely lead to a gradual stultification at the top In emphasizing the educational role of small, university oriented, accelerators, I do not mean to neglect the scientific contributions which these machines will make possible. Indeed, it may turn out that the most significant work continues to come at low energies, and it is almost certain that the interpretation of data obtained at NAL will lean heavily on work done at lower energies. Support of high energy physics by the JCAE has been essential to this country's present state of eminence. The future of high energy physics is no less dependent on the JCAE and on its recognition that full development of the field must rest on a broad foundation running through universities and small accelerators. Your support in bringing these thoughts before the Congress and the Administration will be the crucial factor in insuring that this country retains its present strong position in high energy physics and other frontier subjects. Sincerely yours, MILTON G. WHITE, Professor of Physics, Director, Accelerator Project. |