Superconducting Super Collider: Issues

C, Congressional Research Service 0 2 O The Library of Congress .b Washington, D.C. 20540 SUPERCONDUCTING SUPER COLLIDER: ISSUES I P 384s I n J a n u a r y 1987, P r e s i d e n t Reagan asked Congress t o a u t h o r i z e cons t r u c t i o n of a Superconducting Super C o l l i d e r , a p a r t i c l e a c c e l e r a t o r t o be used by p h y s i c i s t s t o s t u d y t h e s m a l l e s t p a r t i c l e s of m a t t e r . The p r o j e c t w i l l c o s t b i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s , though even i t s s u p p o r t e r s admit t h a t i t may n o t produce any immediate comnercial o r m i l i t a r y b e n e f i t s . The S u p e r c o n d u c t i n g Super C o l l i d e r would advance man's knowledge i n t h e f i e l d of h i g h e n e r g y p h y s i c s , i n c l u d i n g t h e t e s t i n g of t h e o r i e s r e g a r d i n g t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e u n i v e r s e and t h e composition of m a t t e r . T h i s I n f o Pack g i v e s background i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e p r o s and c o n s of b u i l d i n g t h e S u p e r c o n d u c t i n g Super C o l l i d e r . Members of Congress who want a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on t h i s t o p i c can c a l l CRS a t 287-5700. O t h e r CRS r e p o r t s can b e i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e Guide t o CRS P r o d u c t s ( f o r c o n g r e s s i o n a l u s e o n l y ) under " ~ e s e a r c hand Development" and i n Update under "Science and Technology." C o n s t i t u e n t s may f i n d a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m i t i o n on t h i s s u b j e c t , p r i m a r i l y i n p e r i o d i c a l s and newspapers, a t a l o c a l l i b r a r y t h r o u g h t h e u s e of i n d e x e s s u c h a s t h e R e a d e r s ' Guide t o P e r i o d i c a l L i t e r a t u r e , P u b l i c A f f a i r s I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e B u l l e t i n (PAIS), General S c i e n c e I n d e x , and t h e New York Times Index. W e hope t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s h e l p f u l . Congressional Reference Division Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 1986, pp.8,9,10,11 Perspective The case for the super collider The enormous recent progress in particle physics is directly related to the power of accelerators. The next stage requires a superconducting super collider, a project the author believes the US. government should support. by James W Cronin P HYSICISTS engaged in the study of the fundamental constituents of matter and their interactions have rtcrntly proposed the construction of a panicle accelerator which will cost about $4 billion. Panicle accelerators are the essential tools that enable physicists to discover the most elementary forms of matter and the nature of their interactions. The new instrument, called the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), will be required if funher progress is to be made in this most fundamental field of science. This proposal raises questions of national science policy because of the large expense of the project. Among such questions are the following: How would the instrument benefit the people of this nation? Is it even the business of the US. gcmrnment to support such a project? Among many large scientific projects why choose this particular one? What would be the impact on other scientific fields if such an instrument were built? Should it be built by an international collaboration? Haw can one be sure anything important will be learned with this instrument? The SSC proposal is the m u l t of the enormous growth in our understanding of the fundamental constituents of . matter. This study was resumed 40 years ago after World War I1 by many of the physicists who had participated in the Manhattan Project. At that time the fundamental constituents of matter were thought to be the neutron and the proton, which comprised the atomic nudeus, and the electrons which formed the outer shells of the atom. Other particles were observed in cosmic radiation, but the role they played was not understood until particle accelerators were used to produce them directly in the laboratory by collisions of the accelerated protons or electrons with statlonary targets. Today we know that the neutron and proton are complex structures comprised of apparently more fundamental constituents called quarks. Forry p a r s ago there appeared to be four basic forces: the strong force, which bound the neutrons and protons into atomic nuclei; the electromagnetic fow, which bound the electrons to the atomic nucleus to form the atoms; the weak force, which is responsible for radioactivity; and the gravitational force. We now know that the weak and elemmagnetic forces have a common source. We understand the nature of the James W. Cronin, University Pmfessor of P h y at the Univmity of Chicog4 received the Nobel Riu in physics in 1980. 01986 strong force and suspect t h d t it has a common ongin \rich the wreak 2nd electromagnetic forces. We understmd the important role that the fundamental constituents m d their interactions hme played in the evolution of the universe following the "big bang." Fmally, at a deepl!. rheoretic~lle\el, very compelling ideas are being developed tvhich suggest a common origin to all four forces. It is in the context of these successes and the new questions they raise that the SSC proposal has been made. Most of our current understanding about the fundamental nature of matter has come from the use of particle accelerators of ever-increasing energy. In recent years accelerator builders have developed techniques in which two counter-rotating beams of charged panicles can be brought into collision with one another. Such collisions make much more effective use of energy than do collisions with stationary targets. As the energy of the panicle accelerators has increased, so has their expense. At prexnt in the United States there are four major highenergy accelerator centers (see table). The total capital investment in these facilities is in excess of S2 billiun, and This Image from the "streamer chamber" of the CERN cdllder In Geneva shorn streams of subparttcles burst~ngout from a collls~onbetween a proton and an anbproton A proton collis~onat the Proposed SSC would generate at least five t~mesas many parttcles as the CERN appartus The photograph was taken In a coll~wondetector durlng CERN's UA-5 expertrnenl. conducted by an tnternatloMl consortium of phrjtctsts from Bonn. Brussels. Cambridge (England). CERN,and Stockholm ( c a r n e ~ y ~ a mws Cmrn n d mR d I & w k d Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science Reproduced by the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service with Permission of copyright claimant. The SuperconductingSuper Collider (SSC) S S C anatomy (For wale drawing, see map at bottom right.) Operation of injection system Legend Injection system loading protons into clockwisebeam pipe of main ring Power supply and liquid helium refrigeation unit 0 r i Interactionpoint and associated recordingcollisiondetectors Proton source Interaction hall housing interactionpoint 1: I - Injection system loading protons into counterclockwise beam pipe of main ring Locations of superconducting magnets 15 to 20 buildingcampus Main laboratory, warehouses, shops / and offices 7 1 Main ring sustaining dual proton beams - IThe size and power of the underground SSC would ailow narrow beams of protons to collide at almost the speed of light, creating new subatomic particles observable only at very high vnergies that cannot be attained by existing accelerators. This diagram tracks the path of proton beams. Protons are produced by the ionization of hydrogen atoms. The injection system (upper right), composed of a linear accelerator and three progressively larger circular energy boosten, prepares the protons for the main-ringcollisions by accelerating them to higher and higherenergies.Some protons are loaded into the clockwise beam pipe (green), then others into the counterclockwise one (black). Inside the main ring (see central schematics). acceleratmg units speed the protons to 20 times their energy. The protons are guided in the highenergy booster and main ring by about 10,000 powerful superconducting magnets, refrigerated by liquid helium to 4.35" Kelvin (about 270" centigrade, -455' Fahrenheit). The magnets maintain the beams on their circular paths; special magnets near the interaction points force collisions between protons traveling in opposite directions. Detection apparatuses at each collision site will measure the energy released by the collisions and will trace the paths of particles produced by the collisions. By creating Isvelsof energy similar to those of the "big bang," scientists hopeto learn about the fundamental laws of nature that guided the creation of the universe. - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 24 km (15 miles) -I the annual operating budget is about 5600 million per year. A larger level of activity exists in Western Europe, as well as a comparable effort in the Soviet Union. And Japan has significantly increased its investment in high-enexgy physics. The SSC would consist of two concentric magnetic guide fields for protons.' The magnets would be placed in a 60mile circumference tunnel bored about 30 meters below the surface. The guide fields would intersect at a number of points to allow the counter-rotating beams of protons to collide with energies 20 times greater than now available. 'Charged p a r t i c l a such as protons arc deflected by magnetic fields. An arrangement o f electromagnets surrounding an evacuated pipe can produce a magnetic guide field which maintains the protons in a circulu orbit inside the pipe. Elecuical i m p u l x s add rnergy t o rhe p v d d e on erh orbit. As the energy of the protons increases, the strength o f the magnetic guide field must be increased t o keep the proton orbit w i t h i n the pipe. The world's major high-energy accelerators Detectors surrounding the collision point would study the result of the interactions. Coincident with the scientific need for the SSC has been the development and successful implementation of superconducting magnets for accelerator guide fields. These magnets can produce a guide field three times larger than a conventional iron electromagnet. This means that the cir. cumference of the SSC can be one-third the size of an accelerator built with iron magnets. In addition, the electrical current flows in the superconducting windings of the magnets without dissipation of power. Power does have to be supplied for refrigeration since the superconducting property occurs only at liquid helium temperatures (four degrees above absolute zero). This power is only a fraction of what would have been required without superconductivity. The combination of the scientific imperative for the SSC with the technical feasibility of its construction makes this project the prime goal of the high-energy physicists. Yet the huge cost of the project inevitably attracts national attention. WHY (GeV: Giga electron volt, an energy unit used to measure the mass of subatomic particles. With E=mc2, the mass of the proton is about one GeW SHOULDTHIS expensive scientific project go ahead? It is difficult to argue that there are any immediate benefits to be felt by the whole population. It should proceed for the simple reason that the exploration and understanding of nature have consistently advanced civilization and are one of its prime features. Discoveries made in the course of fundamental scientific investigations have in time led to new technologies which have profoundly affected life on this planet. One can point to the development of electricity as a power source,at the end of the nineteenth century, which was based on discoveries made in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The development of fast computers can be traced back to investigations of the fundamental properties of solid state materials which were suggested by the discovery of quantum phenomena in the early twentieth century.. I personally believe there are even deeper reasons to support the construction of the SSC. The intellectual achievements of humanity in its relatively brief time on earth are almost beyond belief. Furthermore, they are among the most positive aspects of human nature. The spirit of a nation and the pride of its people can only be enhanced when science, Including the exploration of our planet, solar system, galaxy, and universe is among its highest priorities. The United States is a strong nation, with the intellectual and economic resources to execute major scientific projects. Thew projects should emphasize the gain of basic knowledge without regard to immediate mum on investment. EXperience from the past amply documents the long-term benefits. Such idealistic goals are not without practical consequences. A higher priority for fundamental science will naturally improve the level of education. Young ~ e o p l with e normal curiosity will be encouraged to take science more seriously. The ~ o oofl people prepared to enter a technologically dominated society will be enlarged. Even in a nation that places a high priority on fundamen- Proposed superconducting supercollider (United States) 20,000GeV protons colliding with 20,000Gdl prohMs W) United States Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 900 GeV protons on a stationary target 900 GeV protons colliding w~th900 GeV antiprotons Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford, California 15 GeV electrons colliding with 15 GeV positrons M GeV electrons colliding wkh M GeV pos~trons(1987) Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 28 GeV protons on a stationary target Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 5 GeV electrons colliding with 5 GeV positrons Western Europe European Organization for Nuclear Research [CERN], Geneva Switzerland 450 GeV protons on stationary targets 330 GeV protons colliding with 330 GeV ant~protons 50 GeV electrons colhdlng wlth 50 GeV positrons German Electron Synchroton Laboratory, Hamburg, West Germany 5 GeV electrons coll~dingwlth 5 GeV positrons 23 GeV electrons collidmg w~th23 GeV positrons 30 GeV electrons colliding w~th800 GeV protons (1990) Soviet Union Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk 5 GeV electrons colliding with 5 GeV positrons Institute for High Energy Physics, Serpukhov 70 GeV protons on a stationary target 3,000GeV protons on a stationary tatget (1990) 3,000 GeV protons colliding with 3,KlO antiprotons 0995) Japan National Laboratory for High Energy Physics, Tsukuba-gun, Japan 35 GeV electrons colliding with 35 GeV positrons 0 May 1986 10 tal science, a project on the scale of the SSC cannot proctcd without scrutiny. Aside from economic factors, the proponents of the SSC should be able to convince scientific colleagues in other disciplines of the intellectual value ofthe project and thereby gain their support. Moreover, we must convince our elected representatives of the value of the project in these general terms. We arc probing the most fundamental building blocks of matter and the nature ofthe interactions among them. V% have already made enormous progress and are proposing to build this large new machine because we are confident that we will learn a great deal more. The technology to build the SSC exists and has been demonstrated to work effectively. The size of the project- $4 billion spent over sewn p r s of construction is not large on the scale of government expenditures. However, because of its lack of immediate economic benefit, it is inconceivable that it would be built without government support. It has been suggested that the SSC could be built by international collaboration with WSe m Europe, Japan, or the Soviet Union. Although these suggestions have some merit, in praaice long delays will be required before such a collaboration can be realized. At present, both Western Europe and the Soviet Union have commitments to build new acceleratorscomplementary to the SSC. An international agmment to scablish an intercontinental laboratory and bcgm construction of an SSC could only occur well after 1990. If an hmrcontinental collaboration w r e to be formed, the site of the machine could be chosen outside the United States. In such a situation it may be difficult for the US. government to agree to pay for its share (about SO percent) of the fadlity. Significant international contributions to the SSC, esped?ily in the intellectual resources of people, will occur if the Unired States decides to proceed with the project on its own. Consideration of international support is very important to scientific colleagues in other fields. While they can be convinced of the intellectual value of the SSC, they are mcerned that funding by the United States alone will bave an adverse impact on their own fields. In the past, as the support of panicle physics has grown or d e d significantly, there has been no evidence that other scientific fields have suffered, or profited. The principal criterion for support of any field of science has been its intellectual vitality. Many critics ask how one can be sure that this new instrument will lead to new fundamental knowledge. As with any new accelerator of higher energy, there are no guarantees. Nonetheless, the single most important parameter responsible for the enormous progress in particle physics has been the energy of the accelerator. The pace of discovery has been a consequence of the steady increase in the enugy of panicle collisions provided by the accelerator. While previous accelerators have provided answers to the scientific questions which they were specifically designed to address, the most important discoveries have been those that w r e completely unanticipated. If we wish ultimately to understand the properties of the fundamental building blocks of nature, the SSC will have to be built. 0 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scieatisa n States S ~ e n Millions d in Stiff Competition te for Proposed ~ u ~ e r b l l i d e r $4.4-billion, 52-mile circular accelerator would be most expensive federal science project ever By KIM McDONALD WASHINGTON Rodded by leaders of business and higher education, about two dozen states have declared their intention to enter the race to win the largest and most expensive f e d e d science project ever proposed-a $4.4-billion, 52-mile circular particle accelerator known as the Superconducting Supercollider. With promises of creating as many as 4.500 new jobs, atlracting new high-technology ventures, and bringing in billions of dollars in revenues, the supercollider is considered a major plum by many state kgislatures and governors, who are convinced they can win the political battle for it. The race oficially began lost week. when the Energy Department issued a formal invitation for bids. But in many respects the competition was already well under way. Half a dozen states have spent a year or more working. on their proposals, and many more have been lured into risking large sums of money just to stay in the ~nning. "A lot of states are going to end up with egg on their faces when this is over," said George Ormiston, associate director of Nevada's commission on economic development, who is developing his state's proposal. "Only one state is going to end up with the supercollider." 14 Decide Against Direct Bids According to a state-by-state survey by The Chronicle, at least a dozen states arc gearing up to spend millions of dollars for geological surveys, environmental reviews, political lobbying efforts, and other services that are considered necessary for a successful bid. As many as 13 states. concemed about the cost of entering the competition and the risk that Congress may never approve the supercollider because of its high price tag, remain on the sidelines, undecided over whether to throw their hats into the ring. Fourteen states have decided against bidding directly for the project. but many of them, the survey found. are discussin; agreements that would allow them to enter the race through regional coalitions or by knding their political or financial support to another state's proposal. I "This is a competition that is unrivaled in the history of our country," said Christopher Coburn, science-and-techndogy adviser to the Governor of Ohio. 'The S.S.C. is a prize that goes beyond money, new jobs, and economic revival. The state, that gets this will become the centerpiece of the commitment of the United States to improving its scientific and technical corn- ' petitiveness into the next century." I With 10,000 superconducting magnets accelerating matter to nearly the speed of light. the supercollider would be 20 times more powerful than the largest particle accelerator in existencc-the Tevatmn Collider at the Femi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, 111. Beams of protons would travel in opposite directions around the supercollider's 52-mile oval tunnel, then collide in gigantic explosions out of which massive particles are expected to emerge. carrying secrets of the universe. Hightnergy physicists say the supercollider will not only assure U.S. leadership in their frontier scientific field, but also produce technological spinoffs that will improve the country's economic competitiveness in world markets. To politicians, however, particularly those from economically depressed regions of the country, the main attractions arc the thousands ofjobsand billions of dollars that the supercollider will generate. A study done for California's s.s.c. What States May Spend to Win the Supercollider Q.w* $25.000 Uoom -0 fllinoia S4.5million (Cuuu Amount not w i t i d Loubir~ Amount not specifid (soo.000 Yichigln Mi.*g)ppi k much as Slmillion i k n ~ w.vrbr Slmiilion s1oo,OM)-utiQ.000 IJ.w Mexico tBs0.000 New York $1Sinillion North C . r o l i ~ S1.15million Ohio S2.5milhon Oklahoma Amount not qecifted owlon south Dakota $750.000 to Slm~lhon Mom than Slmill~on Tuus Mom ttun Stmillion Slmillion Ut.h W.#K1 Wrthinglon *)(RCL: CII- YRWY task force by the graduate management school at the University of California at Los Angeles estimated that the winning state would reap 177.000 permanent jobs and $&billion from 1988 to the year t000. Governors and lieutenant governors of the leading contenders in the supercollider competition view the project as so impor- The Chronicle of Hiqher Education, April 8, 1987, ~ ~ . 4 , 5 , 6 1987 The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inc Reproduced by the Library of Congress,, . @ Congressional Research Service with permission Of copyright claimant! tant that many of them will travel to Washington this week to plead for Congressional approval at a serics of hearings scheduled in the Senate and House of Representatives. 4 States Thought to Be in h a d California, Colorado. Illinois, and Texas, which have been developing their pro- posals for several years in anticipation that President Reagan would give the supercollider his blessing, are considered to be the early leaders in the competition. Other states that have officially announced plans to send proposals to the Department of Energy. which will manage the supercollider and make the final decision on its location, are Arizona. Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan. -Mississippi. Montana. Nevada. New Mexico. New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma. Oregon, South Dakota. Utah. and Washington. In announcing Mr. Reagan's decision in February to wmplete the supercollider by 1996. Energy Secretary John S. Herrington noted that the process for the selection ofthe site by 1989was "designed to be fair, equitable to all panies-absolutely open and above board. " States planning to submit bids, he said, would have to demonstrate that their p m posed site met the necessary geological, climate, seismic-safety, and other criteria that are necessary for the wastnrction and operation of the supercollider. The criteria were outlined in a 77-page invitation sent to prospective applicants last week by the Energy Department's Office of Energy Re. search. Bids that meet those qualifications would then be reviewed by a committee of the National Academies of Science and Engineering. The panel would recommend the best-qualified sites by December, and by January 1989, following an exhaustive environmental review of the Energy Department's prefemd site, the Energy Secretary would select and announce the winner. While Mr. Hemngton denied that his timetable would provide an advantage to states that arc well along in-their proposals, some representatives of regions that have only recently entered the competition are expected to ask lawmakers at the Congressional hearings this week to put off the deadline, now set for August 3, to allow them time to develop competitive proposals. Loss of Momentum Feared "I don't see how you can put together a proposal that early," said one official working on his state's supercollider bid. "You've got to have time to get the drilling permits to survey all the potential sites." Many proponents of the supercollider, however. worry that such a delay could destroy the momentum developing in Congress to approve the project. It may also allow Mr. Reagan's successor in the White House to reconsider the government's commitment to build the device. With some estimates placing the cost at Mbillion to $8-billion, a number of lawmakers have already expressed concern about whether the country can afford to begin a wnsttuction. Hoping to counter such opposition, p v ernors, university presidents, business leaden. Congrrssmco, and scientists arc expected to try to persuade subcommittocs of the House Science, Space. and Technology Committee and the Scnatc Energy and N a n d Resources Committee in this week's bmrhgs thot tbe m rcctkrptoria wtU worththecost. C. William Fischer, vice-president for budget and finance at the University of Colorado. said a gmup of Western state representatives meeting in Boulder several weeks ago had agreed to work together to demonstrate at the hearings that the supercollider was necessary to advance the country's scientificleadership and technological competitiveness. Advisar Meeting thir Week "We quick1y came to the conclusion that you can't have a foot race without a pritc," he said. A group of governors' science-and-technology advisers meeting in Washington this week to discuss the supercollider's site-selection process may also try to pcrwade Congress to approve the project. In the hope that one of them will become the beneficiary of the prize, representatives of the Western states will meet again at the University of Utah in the first week in May to discuss the possible formation of a coalition that would throw their collective political suppon to any member of their group that reaches the finds. "If it's located in the high-plains region." said Mr. Fischer, "the benefits would flow to more than one state." Although Mr. Hemngton said his selection process would not favor states that wage the most visible or expensive political campaigns, state and university officials acknowledge that politics will play a major role in the selection. Most of the leading contenders have obtained the support of powerful political figures and the services of Washington lobbyists who are being paid as much as 5300.000 a year to represent their clients, according to several sources. California. Colorado. Illinois, and Texas arc among the states that reportedly have already signed high-priced lobbyists. while Ohio is among those now negotiating contracts with Washington firms. Lobbyists see the high-stakes competition for the supercollider as a lucrative business and are drumming up as much work as they can. "We're being deluged with letters and phone calls." said Richard Tremblay, SAC. coordinator for Idaho's Department of Commerce. Powerful political figures arc also king asked to take charge of supercdlider commissions. task forces. and coalitions in each state. Californip's &ort is haded by Clair Burgener. an ex-Congressman .nd former state Republican chairm.while Arizona's is k i n g man8gcd by Sam Steigcr. a fonncr Congressman who is aspccial assistant to , the governor. l k first political battle among competitors could start this week. At issue is the Energy Department's decision to favor proposals that offer to reduce the f e d d government's cost in building the supercollider. While each state must be prepared to provide l6,OOO acm of land for the supercolliderat no cost. some pian to "sweeten" their proposals with offers of free electricity. water. labor, outright cash. and other inducements to gain an advantage over their competiton. "What we can offer is only limited by our creativity said Colleen Murphy. director of the Colorado s.s.c. Project. ' ." Colorado. like many other states. is putting together an "incentive task force" just for that purpose. Ms. Murphy said. and some of the incentives "could include endowed chairs. multipurpose building. and tuition breaks for families." Representatives of smaller states t and financially strapped regions. however. say consideration of those incentives would !K unfair. Some may ask Congress this week to change that part of the selection process. arguing that it would provide an insurmountable advantage to larger and more economically powerful regions. "A lot o f people are buzzing about this." said one state official who asked not to be named. "Why have the states fight amongst themselves to pick up the tab. if this is a national priority? The next time a military base is proposed. will the states have to come up with the money to buy an F-14?" Fears o f a B i d d i n g War Most proponents o f the supercollider, however, believe that some cost-sharing is needed to make the huge federal contribution palatable to Congress. But those planning to submit proposals arc wonied that giving a lot of weight to sweetenen could lead to an all-out bidding war, with the prize going not to the most qualified, but to the highest ~pender. Whatever deals are cut this sum mer when the states submit their p m posals. the process is expected t o look more like a high-stakes poker game than a public auction. Many state officials have already anted up millions of dollan for their proposals and gathered pledges of support from state leaislatures and business deaders to raise their wagers should they reach the final round. Throughout the process, they are generally playing their cards close to their chests. Louisiana and a number o f other states bidding for the supercollider. for instance, refuse to disclose publicly any specifics of their proposals. contending that the information could be used by their competitors. "We would lose our competitive advantage." argued Kay Jackson. Louisiana's secretary of commerce. who is drafting her state's proposal. But while information about sweeteners remains closely guarded. state officials are generally more than willing toextol the virtues o f the sites they have selected. Illinois his picked an area near Batavia 30 th+ !he Fermilab accelerator could serve as the proton "injector'.'. to the supercollider. a move officials there estimated would save the federd government fS00.million i n construction costs. Not only is the site adjacent to a large concentration of accelerator scientists and particle physicists. but i t is h t . free of seismic hazards. close to a major international airport and a number of leading research institutions. and well supplied with electrical power. California. where the main drawback is earthquakes. has sckcted a scismically safe r u d area near Stockton that offers a moderate yearround climate and is close to physics research centers in the San Fnncisco Bay area and a large number of hightechnology companies i n Silicon Valky. "It has all of the things to make this thing go. all of the amenities." said Jesse D. Shaw. a University of California administntor. Idaho's Cbup Electricity Idaho. meanwhik. has picked a site near the Idaho National Engineering Labontory that would allow the state to take advantage of cheap electricity. federal land into which tunnels can be dug at l i t t k cost. and 10.000 techniciansand scientistswho now live there. "Ifwe can save half a billion do!lars or more on construction and $% million or more annually in operalion expenses. we'd have a good shot at it." said Mr. Trembhy. W s S.S.C. coordimta. W e Idaho. Wtstern states mally rrtpFd their plrasont climates dhrgcuasdkdmlhadu their main d v a n t r y s . Southern and Midwestern states extol their cheap land. lower living torts. and the large numbers of unemployed workers who arc eager to (rlrc pbs. Some states ore even pitching the message about the cultud, educational, and recreational benefits o f their region in slick pamphlets that resemble travel brochures. "This is a place where physicists will want to spend their summers." said Joel Cohen, d i m t o r of @icy and research for the CdocPdo Governor's office. S o d Made O h i o for the SSC "People have observed." said Mr. Coburn of Ohio. "that God made Ohio for the s.s.c." Although Southern. Western. and Midwestern states arc scouring their landscapes for potential supercollider sites. New England stves arc p n e d i y uninterested i n the competition. Massachusettsis investigatingseve d potential sites and Gov. John H. Sununu of New Hampshire has held meetings recently with rcprcscntatives of several New England states to try to persuade them to submit a regional proposal. But most New Englandofficials arc not intemted i n becoming involved in any regionaleffort. O h e r p m t proposals may come from N o a h Carolina. South Cyoliaa. Virginia. and West Virgiaia; Idaho. Oregon. md Washington; Ncbnska, North Dakota. .Id South Dakota; and New Yodt. New Jcnty. and Canada (for a site i n New York near the Canadian+order). While Energy Department ofhcials will allow more than one proposal from any state, some slates are having trouble deciding which of their numerous potential sites to hack. Montana is examining seven sites. and Texas. which will submit proposals for at least two. has nine localities vying for the state's political and ecommic support. "Our big objective now is to get on that state proposal." said Charks Bernhard. director of economic dcvelopment for the Odessa. Tex.. chamber of commerce. Mr. Bernhard noted that winning the supercollider was so important to the four cities in his economically depressed oil region that each had paid 92.000 to prepare a proposal for the Governor's considention. "'We can build a site here cheaper than anywhere else in the cumtry." k said. "You can buy Ow whde Qng 11,000 w m lure for wht you would pay for a city Mock ia DrrltPs. &UUK of the oil problems in the state. we also have a lot of whineshop technicians and oil drilkrs tha! are sitting idle here. That's another very strong factor we have p i n g for us here. and it will make the opcnting costs less expensive." Texas is so hungry for the supercollider that the Legislature is considering a bill that would authorize $500-million in bonds to use as a sweetener in luring the Energy Depamment into selecting one o f its shes. "'re aren't very many bigfederal projects that are going on these days." said Dillard S. Hammen. energy adviser to Gov. William P. Clements. Jr. The willingness of the state to throw into its proposals whatever incentives it takes to win the supercollider, he said, is unmatched anywhere else. "Texas." Mr. Hammett said confidently. "is going to win." Some other states are also talking pretty tough. "We'll probably make as many concessions as any other state and probably a lot more." said Mr. Steip r of Arizona. "We are vay. very srious about this." . New York Times February 3 , 1987, pp.C1,C4 Atom-Smashing Now and in the Future: A New Era Begins In 1990's: 52-mile colossus should take lead into next century. By WILLIAM J. BROAD A new era of spending and experimentation in particle physics is on the horizon with the scan of beam collisions at Fermilab's four-mite Tevatron accelerator near Chicago and the announcement last week of Presidential approval for a monumental 52-mile atom smasher costing $4 billion to $6 billion. By hurling subatomic particles to greater energies than ever before and smashing them together, the 'new machines will address fundamental questions abwt matter and amgy, s p a a and time, the beginning and end of the universe. For a while it looked as though the Tevatron might come to symbolize the end of the line instead of the beginning of a new e r a As the cost and size of atom smashers soared in the 1980's. some experts came to believe that the quest for new particles had grown too expensive to pursue any further. .But gloom has tumed b glee for many physicists with the announcement of the Presidential p a h e a d for the Superconducting Super Collider. or S.S.C. If Ccmgress goeialong, the &lossus. planned for the 1990's. is to boost Droton beams to energies 20 ~ m e high& s than ever before achieved on earth. opening an era d discovery that particle physicists hope will stretch well into the next century. "We're at a critical juncture," Dr. David Schramm, a physicist at the University of Chicago who backs the project. said in an interview. "The Tevatron and the current generation of accelerators can only go so far. We're at a great threshold in physics and need the S.S.C. to cross it" Physicists say the new frontier may hold answers to some of the deepest questions ever posed by scientists. The finding of elusive particles, for instance, may show whether the four basicforces of nature (strong, weak. electromagetic and gravitational) can be united in a Grand Unified Theory a set of equations that, a s one physicist put it, fit neatly on a T-shirt Einstein sought such a theory in his final years, and researchers today say they see hints of one on the horizon. - Q Indeed. theoretical physicists, drawing on recent findings, have invented dozens of new ways to explain the wotkings of the cosmos, their theories bearing such odd names a s Technicolor. SUpersymmetry and Comwsiteness. ihe;e's just bne problem. ~ o b n knows e which is correct a plight physicists say might be solved by the super collider's discoveries. ''Then again, we may be in for a great surprise." said Dr. Leon M. Lederman, head of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory who is a strong advocate of the super collider. "A totally new conception of reality may emerge." Skeptics say the great surprise may be that the machine finds little, and certainly not enough to warrant Its great expense Since their invention a half century ago, atom smashers have undergone 8 revolution in size and power. Today they are usually vast tunnels in which beams of particles are locked in drcular paths by powerful magnets. whirled in opposite directions to ever higher energies, and are collided head on in a burst of energy. The S.S.C. is to be the biggest machine of -all. As energies of collision have increased over the years, so have the number of particles discovered amid the debris To date, physicists have found nearly 100 kinds of subatomic particles. Many of these, especially quarks and l e p h s , are "building blocks" that combine to make up the larger and more familiar particles such a s protons, neutrons and whole atoms. But atom smashers have also revealed a shadowy class of particles that transmit forces at the heart of the atom. The greatest such discovery occurred in the early 1980's at CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics, near Geneva. Theorists had predicted that a t extremely high energies, two of the four basic forces in nature, the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism, wouldunite into one entity known a s the "electroweak" force, advancing the quest for grand unification. All forces in nature are believed to be transmitted, or "vectored." by particles. I h e photon, for has been shown to mediate electromagnetism. while the gluon the strong force. So, - 1987 The New York Times. Reproduced by the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service with permissionof copyright claimant. too, theorists predicted that a i elec~ troweaklorce would be mediated by an electroweak particle. The discovery at CERN, in collisions of a monstrous new atom smasher, confirmed the prediction, with evidence of a particle known as the intermediate vector boson. Such unifications are today a t the cutting edge of particle physics And the superconducting colossus, like no previous machine, is viewed a s the best way to see whether all the forces of nature are payoffs in the same way that the 19th century mathematical unification of electricity and magnetism laid the foundation for today's electronic products, including radio and television. Dr. Schramm of the University of Chicago said the huge accelerator might find particles to prove the se ductive new theory of Supersymme try. In one deft stroke, this rheo would unite twin pillars of m x em science, quantum physics, which describes the workings of the atom. and relativity theory, which describes gravity and the workings of the cosmos. Further, the massive particles predicted by Supersymmetry, with such bizarre names as photinos, squarks, gluinos, zinos and winos, might explain one of the great riddles of astrophysics: missing. mass. As astrone mers have charted the powerful gravitational pulls evident in galaxies, they have discovered that more than 90 percent of the mass needed to explain such'movements is missing. No one currently knows the nature of such "dark" matter. Moreover, its discovery would help scientists calculate whether the universe is to expand forever, or have enough mass to start to contrad. So, too, the super collider would help solve some of the riddles surrounding the birth of the universe because the enormous energies of panicle collision would resemble those of the primordial "Big Bang" 10 billion to 20 billion years ago. Dr. George F. Chapline Jr., a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Califomi4:said. borrowing from space launchihg ter- - minology. "You could explore the physics back much closer to T equals ?.era"One findinghe and other physlcists anticipate from the super collider is that the known uhiverse of four dimensions (three spacial and one temporal) might have an additional six or seven hidden dimensions. Finally, the super collider, if the Tevatron accelerator fails to do so first, may also find evidence for a massive particle known as the Higgs Boson. This particle would help ex- vices are becoming so expeniive, and what they're trying to find is so obscure, that we may be at the point where scientists can no longer justify the cost," said John E. Pike, associate directorof the Federation of American Scientists, a private policy evaluation group in Washington. The price tag of $4 billion to $6 billion rivals the $5 billion spent so far on President Reagan's hotly debated antimissile research program. For next year, in the biggest expansion yet of the "Star Wars" program, the Administration is asking Congress for an additional $5.9 billion. we Dr. Henry W. Kendalf,' a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of. Technology and chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which opposes Star Wars, criticized the antimissit6 effort as threatening the super collider. "Huge overblown projects like Star Wars have a deleterious effect on the remainder of the plain m e of the most fundamental budget structure," he said. The S.S.C, he added, was a good mysteries of physics how particles et their masses and why the photon thing to pursue. "American science and education have bear suffering no mass at a l l in general, physidsts hope the really badly over a long time and super collider will simplify the baf- many people ,in the academic comfling complexity that has been found munity sense this a s a bellwether of in the subatomic world Dr. Leder- revitalization," he said. man said the growing particle "m" Advocates of the super collider is evidence of a failure of the "sim- warn p a t its rejection could forfeit the international race in padcle plicity that has proved to be so physics to European or Russian ful a guide in the history % :g/o energy physics." A deeper explora- rivalswho dould then win an anticition of matter, he said, may simplify pated [treasure of scientific discovthings again, by revealing a relative eries, ,industrial spinoffs and Nobel few primordial objects behind the a p prizes. physicists also say the vast maparent complexity. Critics of the super collider, while chine will have educational spinoffs acknowledging I t s poiential for. dis- as it becomes a lure for the best covery, say the price tag is so high scientific brains in the world. "Our that it will sap the Federal budget young folks will be able to mingle other fields of science. Dr. Arno Pen- with these people," said Dr. Maury zias, a Nobel laureate at AT&T Bell Tigner, director of the Super Collider Laboratories, has written, "The design group, which is situated at the super collider's capital cost will Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory of clearly squeeze capital expenditures the University of California. For the discipline of physics as a for other sciences." The impact may be espeaally strong, he said, on small whole, Dr. Lederman of Fermilab but important physics teams at uni- warned that rejection of the super collider would mean scientists would versities around the nation. Other critics say the super collid- "drown in speculative literature with er's potential for discavery dots not only distant vistas ,of confronting speculation with fact" warrant the huge cost " 'Then again, may be in for a great surprise.' Leon Lederrnan ' L - Chemical and Engineering News, May 11, 1987, p.14 News F o c s Recent discoveries stir debate over Superconducting Super Collider The waves of superconductivity discoveries announced during recent weeks have stirred considerable debate over whether the government should proceed with its present plans to build the newest high-energy particle awlerator, the proposed $6 b i l h to 58 billion Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). last January Resident Reagan gave approval to the Department of Energy to hrnd the big facility. coveted by several states as an ecommic bonanza. DOE. after an initial screening pre cass done by a National Academy of Sciences panel, will choose the final site a few weeks after the 1988 electlon. Resent scheduling calls for com pletionof the project In 1996. But a hrse segment of the sce i ntfik community, mostly physicists. sees the SSC as such an intensively expew sive project that DOE will be' forced to sacrifice support for other areas of research. So this group is using the new superconductivity findings as a m munition in arguments to slow down the project. They believe the new discoveries could lead to a cheaper. maller. and more powerful SSC than the one being planned. Their arguments revolve around the design of the enormously powerful magnets. About 10,000 such superconducting magnets will precisely steer two parallel beams of protons streaming in opposite directions around the 53-mile-long, 10-foot-wide circular tunnel. Tremendous ,currents flowing through the superconducting wires will produce the magnetic forces needed to control the beams. The wires, made of niobium-titanium filaments. will be twisted, wound, and 0 1987 braided into cables. "More supercon- because of the recent superconductor ducting material will be used in these discoveries. The reason, he says. is that too magnets." says Westinghouse Corp.'s director of research John K. Hulm. little is known about those new mate"than for all superconducting magnets rials. They are "too brittle," like the built in history." Magnet costs, he says, niobiumtin alloy that was previously will run to fully 25 % of the total cost considered for superconductlng cycloof the SSC. Westinghouse was one of trons, and could present mechanical the pioneers in superconductivity difficulties. "ln addition." he says. "It has been research. But James A Knunhansl, professor widely o h w e d in preliminary experiof physics at ~ & l lUniversity. is one ments that tha cwentcanykrg capac~ W h O t N n k t D O E s h o u l d r a ity of the new superconducton Is bcthink L scheduling in light ot the new tween 10 and 100 times less than that d i m e s . KNmhanslbelieves many of the niobiurititaniurn alloys." The ueas of science will suffer funding niobium-titanium material a! 4.5 to 9 K shintages H DOE continues to commit carries 105amp per sq cm. In the new L e l f to the present materials at the materials, currents flow at only a few arrent fast pace of SSC develop hundred amperes per square centiment. "With these new materials and meter. Thus. Hulm thinks research on the Ihe tremendous competition." he says. "there is now even more reason to new materials for magnetic uses would ~stablish vigorous program support take too long and inordinately delay immediately at the individual project the SSC. He says large numbers of and graduate level. especially in con- prototype magnets would be required ' densedmtterphysiqtheaeticalphyc 'to achieve reliable performance betae designers could even t h i i of built% ics. inorganic chmklry, and ceramia." The American Association for the brg the 10.000 units needed for the Advancement of Science also opposes SSC. But he urges further research on present SSC scheduling policy. And them because "the knowledge gained AAAS president Sheila E. Widnall in will almost certainly be applicable to tes:imony last month before the House other types of magnets if these are Science. Space & Technology Com- selected later." mittee, urged that Congress look into A DOE official, speaking for back"stretching out" the SSC's schedule. ground, says niobium-tin is a proven Westinghouse's Hulm agrees that material, since it already is used in with the new higher-temperature ma- magnet coils on the Fermi Laboratory terials "considerable savings" could accelerator in Illinois. "For years." he be achieved in the inital cost and the says. "we've been hoping to replace operating expense of refrigerators for niobium-titanium with higher-temperathe SSC. But he says it would be twe materials. :. . But we don't think "irresponsible to stop the engineering there will be anylhlng to replace the development of the existing niobium- current materials for 10 to 20 years." titanium magnet coil material simply Wil Lepkowski, Washington American Chemical Society Reproducedby the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service with permission of copyright claimant.