Page images

Mr. McCORMACK. OK. I'm desperately trying to figure out which one of these questions I wanted to ask each of you.


Mr. McCORMACK. Dr. Panofsky, was it you who talked aboutwhich one of you gentleman talked about the attraction/repulsion with protons at very high energies?

Dr. PANOFSKY. I think both of us did.

Dr. WILSON. I think I mentioned that quarks appeared to have a new type of force between them, completely strange, and which has never been seen before. The farther apart the quarks become, it appears the greater is the force. Normally, when something gets far enough apart, you know, it doesn't affect another body. For example, gravitation falls off as the inverse square of the distance. Electrical forces fall off that way. Nuclear forces are very short range.

But the quark force seems to get bigger the farther apart. That is one reason why it is believed that we do not see quarks come out in collisions between particles.

Mr. McCORMACK. What distances are you talking about? What do you mean when you talk about distances?

Dr. WILSON. Terribly small distances.

Mr. McCORMACK. You're talking about-
Dr. WILSON. Ten to the minus-

Mr. McCORMACK. Thirteenth?

Dr. WILSON. Thirteenth, or maybe fourteenth, centimeters.
Mr. McCORMACK. These are the ranges you're discussing?
Dr. WILSON. Yes.


Do you have any questions?

Mr. AMBRO. Just one.

Mr. McCORMACK. Go ahead, Mr. Ambro.

Mr. AMBRO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just one for Dr. Panofsky: You did focus a bit on diversity, and I got from that that your view was that we benefit by diversity and competition, as opposed to an argument that-it's kind of low-key, but still obtains-which has to do with centralization. Is that an accurate statement?

Dr. PANOFSKY. Yes, sir, that is what I was saying. I believe that the reason why our program has been as-to use an economic term hereefficient, is that: first, the program operates by decentralized initiative from large numbers of gifted, ingenious, inspired performers; and second: that the opportunities which are available to these performers is diverse in terms of the kind of a particle which is being accelerated, the energy to which it is being accelerated, and also the style in which the laboratory would be operated, in terms of the type of equipment available, and so forth.

This diversity gives a benefit which is somewhat intangible to measure, but which I believe to be very great and which I believe is responsible for the excellent performance of the American program relative to that abroad, in spite of the lower funding.

Mr. AMBRO. Well, that thought extends to a diversity, and let's say competition, as someone used the word this morning overlapping,

even amongst the multi-purpose high-technology laboratories. Is that correct?

Dr. PANOFSKY. I don't believe it is largely a matter of competition. Rather I believe it is the fact that when an experimenter actually comes down to the details of the design of his particular endeavor, he finds that the tools available at one or the other of the laboratories are more suitable in answering the particular question which he wishes to answer. In fact there is a minimum of duplication, of overlap, of opportunities at different laboratories.

The opportunities at Brookhaven are drastically different from the ones at SLAC, for instance. But when the experimenter has available to him a variety of tools he can optimize his design of an experiment by choosing those tools, since all these facilities are available nationally to investigators from all parts of the country.

Mr. AMBRO. Thank you. That's very helpful. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCORMACK. Thank you.

Mr. Rudd?

Mr. RUDD. Mr. Wilson, I'm not a physicist, but what you were saying here earlier interests me a little bit, in that you are talking aboutChairman McCORMACK. Use the mike, please.

Mr. RUDD. neutrons and quarks being parts of particles that fell away from-I assumee-fall away from protons and neutrons. There must be other particles, too, since you use it in the plural sense. This is all very nebulous, and I know it must be extremely interesting to physicists, but will this project eventually-or do you have hopes that eventually it will provide an energy propellant in any way at all for our future?

Dr. WILSON. I think it would be false of me to say that I could anticipate in any way that that can happen.

Mr. RUDD. I'm speaking of hope rather than knowledge.

Dr. WILSON. We always have hope. And I've never-as an old-timer in this business-I've never seen a time when this kind of knowledge didn't result in something of that kind. When we first started to study the neutron and proton, we had no idea that nuclear energy would


Mr. RUDD. I guess what I'm basically talking about-you don't seem to have any goals in mind, any perfect goals in mind, or even imperfect goals in mind. And are we

Dr. WILSON. The knowledge itself.

Mr. RUDD. Just running experiments with the vague hope that we're going to achieve things that will be beneficial in the form of energy and energy propellants?

Dr. WILSON. I think in the first place the idea of an understandable world is something that's been pursued for thousands of years, and we-it's always been beneficial. There has been an increase in the stature of man that results from that kind of knowledge. And it has always turned out that there have been practical benefits. It's very hard to see the nature of those practical benefits when you start.

Mr. RUDD. Maybe I'm confused by the fact it seems like a purely scientific endeavor, rather than--perhaps it should not be with ERDA. I don't know.

Dr. WILSON. Yes. It is a purely scientific endeavor. That is correct. Mr. RUDD. OK.

Dr. WILSON. There has been some question about what agency it should

Mr. RUDD. At the ISABELLE project that you have now, how many overall people do you have involved?

Dr. WILSON. I believe the ISABELLE project is at Brookhaven, and Dr. Vineyard should answer that.

Mr. RUDD. Dr. Vineyard, would you answer that question, please? Dr. VINEYARD. There are about 70 people involved in the research and development in ISABELLE at this point. This is being done with advanced R. & D. money, in anticipation of an ultimate authorization to construct that project. The typical history these projects go through is the following: First, conception, then advanced R. & D.; and advanced design. At that stage it either dies out or is authorized and goes into construction. We're at that crucial turning point right now.

Mr. RUDD. Would you feel more comfortable under the National Science Foundation than where you are?

Dr. WILSON. There are many good arguments why we should be under the National Science Foundation, because of the pure motivation, the scientific motivation, of the physics. There are very good arguments for the research to be with ERDA, because the things that we are studying are fundamental to the production of energy, and because of the expensive nature of the projects.

Mr. RUDD. Thank you, sir.

Mr. McCORMACK. Thank you, Mr. Rudd.

Mr. Fish?

Mr. FISH. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCORMACK. OK. I'm going to call on Mr. Goldwater in a second, in case he has a question. But let me give him a breather for

one moment.

If you'll pardon my getting back-we've been holding hearings on fusion, as you know, during recent days-and I want to pick up the more mundane aspects of this work for a second. And that has to do with this business of superconducting magnets. We are really quite concerned with moving forward in this area in fusion research and development.

I wonder is there some degree of coordination in terms of superconducting magnet design, and is this applicable? Are the superconducting magnets and the design that is coming out of these accelerator labs and the research associated with them going to be able to be picked up for the fusion program, for superconducting for electric transmission, for superconducting storage, and this sort of thing? Is it all close enough to being one body of knowledge that you're really getting a synergistic effect here? I'd be curious if you'd have some


Dr. Vineyard, would you care to try?

Dr. VINEYARD. I can cite my laboratory as an example. We have a unified or cooperative superconductivity effort stretching across three different departments, three different disciplines; participating in that is the accelerator department, which has this job of developing superconducting magnets for Isabelle, as well as for other purposes in high energy physics.

Also cooperating is the physics department and the department of applied science. Now, in the department of applied science, we have an offshoot which is a project to develop a superconducting electric

power transmission line which has a number of potential advantages, although the full realization may be a bit of a way off yet.

We also have a basic effort in developing new concepts of superconductivity, and a materials effort directed at finding better superconducting wires and materials. These things all interlace.

A further offshoot has been participation in the magnetic fusion program, to a modest degree. We have made studies on magnets for potential large magnetic iusion systems where there are questions of safety, stability, and so forth. And I believe a smilar picture prevails in a number of the other ERDA laboratories.

Mr. McCORMACK. Thank you.

Dr. Wilson, would you care to comment, or does that answer the question?

Dr. WILSON. Yes, I'd like to reinforce the comments of Dr. Vineyard in that regard, particularly with regard to fusion. They anticipate, as we learned last year, that in 1980 they would have needs for about twice the amount of superconductor that we expect to use in our energy doubler saver project, our superconducting ring project, at Fermilab.

They were very pleased to learn that we had developed the capability of the industry to supply as much superconductor as we are getting now, because that production will make it possible for them to get the amount of superconductor in 1980 which they will then need.

If we had not been doing that-and by we I mean many of the laboratories, Brookhaven, Fermilab, Stanford and Berkeley-it would not be possible to satisfy their needs. And we do speak to the fusion scientists and we do cooperate with them in very great detail about the designs of our magnets and in the manner in which the industry is developing.


Dr. Panofsky?

Dr. PANOFSKY. Yes. There is extensive communication among the workers in superconductivity working in the different ERDA laboratories, and at each of the high energy accelerator conferences— both national and international-superconductivity is always a major subject of discussion.

At SLAC, for instance, we developed a superconducting magnet used for medical application, namely for nonsurgical repair of aneurisms; these are thin spots in the blood vessels. If it is difficult to intervene surgically, then we can immobilize magnetic materials in the bloodstream with a magnet to make a patch, and a very strong magnetic field is required for that. The UCLA medical people came to us to design such a thing, using superconductivity.

Because of the fact that we had acquired the technology for superconducting magnets for the accelerators, we were able to be helpful to this group, and it has been a successful enterprise.

So, indeed, there is a great deal of cross-fertilization among disciplines in this field.

Mr. McCORMACK. Dr. Kane, another question: Do you feel that the work that's been done in high energy physics is of assistance, or will be of assistance, in exploring the use of heavy metal ion beams for inertial fusion?

Dr. KANE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think it's not just of use, but absolutely essential. I alluded to possible applications that have grown

out of high energy and nuclear physics, mainly the use of accelerators-one for a fusion application and the other for a fission application. Of the two, the fusion application-the replacement of the laser system with a charged particle accelerator-is by far the most difficult, and would only even have been thought of by the technological people. It wouldn't have been thought of had not these very sophisticated accelerators been developed. It's a really very difficult job, and only imaginative accelerator designers would even think of doing it.

It depends a very short pulse, very high energy, heavy ion charge. And this is something that is only possible because of the type of developments you've heard about today from these three gentlemen.

Mr. McCORMACK. Now, I understand that at least the initial part of the accelerator for the heavy metal ion beam uses a very small ionization charge, it's +1 or 2 or 3, something like that, until you actually go into the last phase of acceleration?

Dr. KANE. There are several concepts, and I think it's fair to say that all of them at this time are just concepts. At least one of them does involve accelerating the particle for most of its history at a low charged state, and then finally removing the rest at the very last.

Others I think involve a single-charged state all the way. And I think it's fair to say we don't know yet which of these is the most desirable.

Mr. McCORMACK. Thank you.

Mr. Goldwater.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions or anything to add, except to-I have had an opportunity to read various statements that have been presented and recognize the fine contribution these gentlemen have made to our record and the understanding of high energy physics and related subjects.

Especially I want to recognize Dr. Panofsky from Stanford and the fine work that he has done. It's reassuring to a fellow Californian that we have such capability from the west coast here in Washington, D.C. to provide the benefit of his knowledge and contribution.

And I do thank the gentlemen for being here, and I apologize for having to be elsewhere for other committee meetings and not being able to listen to your presentation. But I do recognize the contribution that you've made and do appreciate that.

Mr. McCORMACK. I want to thank Mr. Goldwater. It's tough for all of us to make these meetings And without his support and close cooperation the work that we've been able to do in this committee would not be possible.

I have one last question I'd like to ask, and I don't know-this may go to you, Dr. Kane-if we were to provide money for Isabelle, we would line item some amount of money for A&E work; if we were to add additional money for the Doubler/Saver this would be under operating funds, operation money. Is that correct?

Dr. KANE. I may have to ask for help on that. Certain aspects of this project are being run out of operating funds, and yes, they would be accelerated by an increase in operating funds.

However, the final chapter, so to speak-and Dr. Wilson should be allowed the last word on this if I'm incorrect-the final chapter of this, before it becomes a true Saver/Doubler fully at the capabilities which he is aiming toward, and we certainly agree, does take some construction funds, but I believe in a later year.

« PreviousContinue »