Supercollider's Cancellation Changes Physicists' Lives

Subatomic particles around the world must have breathed a collective sigh of relief four months ago, when Congress scuttled the funding for the largest particle smasher ever designed.

For physicists at Harvard and around the country, however, it was a paralyzing blow--entirely closing off potential areas of study, and providing proof of the government's increased antipathy to long-term research in basic science.

The Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) was billed by physicists as their giant microscope to observe the fundamental particles of matter, a tool that would lead to the greatest progress in physics since quantum mechanics.

The collider, true to its name, was to be an oval underground tunnel 55 miles in circumference that would smash subatomic particles together at speeds approaching that of light.

According to Congressional Quarterly, the October vote abandoned $2 billion of work, which had paid for advanced physics equipment, 14.7 miles of tunneling, salaries for more than 7,000 jobs and 211,000 square feet of high-tech laboratory space in Waxahatchie, Texas, about 35 miles south of Dallas.

Physicists were hoping that data from the supercollider would help them formulate a Grand Unified Theory connecting the four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force binding the components of nuclei and the weak force involved in nuclear decay. Experiments using the supercollider would have proved or disproved key theories in particle physics.

The American Physical Society kept Harvard physicists informed of the debate in Washington through electronic mail up to the last vote. But news of the project's cancellation still surprised many Harvard physicists.

"The handwriting was on the wall, but I don't think anyone believed it," says George W. Brandenburg, director of the High Energy Physics Laboratory.

"It's been a very sobering experience. Most of the people in the field have spent all the time since the decision occurred doing a lot of re-evaluating, and planning what should be done next. There's been some unhappy people," says Brandenburg. "Our hope is that there's as strong a program emerging from the ashes, but it was a pretty rude awakening."

Brandenburg says three physicists, a large crew of technical people and four engineers were devoted to the SSC project, one of four projects done in the High Energy Physics Laboratory. A handful of other Harvard physicists had worked on theoretical aspects of the machine, including Higgins Professor of Physics Sheldon L. Glashow and Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics Howard Georgi.

Most Harvard professors could resort to other projects they were working on when the SSC was cancelled.

But others were less fortunate. BairdProfessor of Science Gary J. Feldman says twoengineers had to be laid off, and the technicalstaff will probably have to be reorganized.

Harvard lost about half a million dollars infunding which came from the state of Texas and theDepartment of Energy (DOE), says Feldman.

A Significant Setback to Physics

Scientists say the project's cancellation is asignificant setback to the field of high-energyphysics.

"In two-and-a-half years we wrote about 30papers for the SSC, which described particlebehavior, most of which were to lead toexperiments so that verification could take placeat a mega accelerator," says John A. Barrett,administrative assistant in the physicsdepartment. "There will be nothing available thiscentury to validate the theoretical work for theSSC."

Barrett says physicists can only hope to getpartial results without the supercollider.

To many, the supercollider may seem like aphysics toy that the country can ill afford. Butphysicists are quick to justify its importance.

"Basically, particle physics has reached aplateau in our knowledge," says Feldman. "We thinkwe understand almost everything, but not quite.But things we don't understand usually lead towhole new levels of complexity and understanding."

Feldman says the physics community hasn'tlearned anything "strikingly new" about particlessince 1980.

The SSC, he says, was, specifically designed toreach an energy level high enough to either provetheir theories for sure, or give them newones--the so-called "no lose" theorem. Thiscertainty was not assured using lesser energycolliders.

Cancellation Shatters U.S. Reputation

Physicists say the cancellation of thesupercollider has negative repercussions extendingbeyond Harvard's walls. It is not only a "greatloss to scientists but also injures America'sreputation in science, both domestically andinternationally, Feldman says.

"I think that the U.S. reputation as a reliableinternational partner in science projects is sobad that there is great skepticism outside of ourcountry that we can be trusted to live up tocommitments in future projects," says BurtonRichter, president of the American PhysicalSociety and director of the Stanford LinearAccelerator Center.

"I think it's been potentially a catastrophe.The United States has been and was in a positionto continue to be a world leader in high energyphysics," says W. Anthony Mann, professor ofphysics at Tufts University. "And now we've justcompletely dropped the ball."

Most Harvard physicists working on the SSC weredesigning an instrument to detect muons--subatomicparticles liberated from collisions betweenprotons.

Brandenburg says the muon detector was but onecomponent of an all-purpose detector which about100 institutions were helping to construct.

Mann says a single university group wasill-equipped to design a detector alone. HarvardTufts and Brandeis Universities therefore sharedresources and formed the Boston Muon Consortium.Collaborators from the three universities had beenmeeting weekly at Harvard for the past three tofour years.

The consortium helped design the detector andconstructed an assembly line at Tufts to producedetector elements, says Mann, who worked full-timeon SSC research.

"We were within two-and-a-half weeks of a massproduction run when they stopped the project," hesays.

Mann says he plans to operate the assembly lineat a modest level despite the cancellation."Basically, we're going to follow through withproving out the design and assembly."

The final detector was to be a cylinder aboutfive stories long and eight meters in diameterwith "as much metal as a battleship," says John E.Huth, professor of physics.

Melissa Franklin, associate professor of thenatural sciences, says she was working on adifferent project--to construct a detector made ofsynthetic polycrystalline diamond. The diamonddetector would have withstood the massive doses ofradiation in the interior of the collider, shesays.

A Question of Politics

Harvard physicists have many theories as to whythe project failed to get passed by Congress.

Many professors attribute the project'scancellation to Congressional determination to cutthe budget and reduce the large federal deficit.According to Congressional Quarterly, manyfirst-year representatives campaigned on promisesto cut spending and thought the SSC was theperfect project to cut.

"It was cancelled because Congress was in abudget-cutting mood, and they wanted big-ticketitems to tell voters at home that they wereserious about deficit reduction," Brandenburgsays.

"There's been a loss of confidence in theability of our government to fund long rangeprojects," says Feldman. Typically such projectsare planned for ten years, during which theeconomy is bound to slow down, he says. Thegovernment must be able to support long-termprojects despite pressures to cut spending, hesays.

The project's spiralling costs also hinderedits passage in Congress.

Feldman says that the supercollider initiallyhad a price tag of $3 billion. Shortlythere-after, he says, the cost rose to $5 billion.After the site was chosen and a more completeengineering study was done, the cost shot up to$8.25 billion.

The Clinton administration then suggestedstretching the project an extra three years, saysFeldman. This would have reduced the yearly costbut added $3 billion to the total cost of theproject.

The final price tag? $11 to $12 billion, athree-to-four fold increase from the initialestimate.

"There was a feeling in Congressmen's mindsthat the project was not well-controlled. Itsounded like the costs were running planning. Thecosts should have been estimated accurately rightfrom the start."

Washington's Anti-Science Mood

Harvard physicists say legislators' ignoranceof scientific issues contributed to ananti-science mood in Washington which favoredcancellation of the project.

"The extent to which there's an antisciencemood in the Congress these days mirrors thelamentable level of science illiteracy throughoutthe country," says Brandenburg.

Feldman agrees. "It's clear that scientistshave to do a better job on educating the people onthe importance of basic science," he says. "Peopleare looking to shorter term solutions to problems,and are less willing to support long rangescience."

Franklin says people feel the number ofphysicists in the country should be cut in half."That's the climate anyway," she says.

Transistors, liquid crystals and magneticresonance imaging are just a few applied productsderived from basic science, says Franklin. Shesays a cessation of basic research would thereforebe "a little scary."

Opponents of the supercollider have accused theproject of being mismanaged, a charge that Harvardphysicists have called "grossly exaggerated" and"a fairly effective smear campaign."

Brandenburg says one example of wasteemphasized by critics was the purchase of liquorfor staff barbecues. Brandenburg says the liquorwas bought using special funds from outsidesupport, not government money.

Misplaced Nationalism?

Many scientists say the project could have beensaved if the government had established a closerpartnership with foreign countries, especiallyJapan. Instead, from the outset, the U.S.government decided that the project would besolely American.

Brandenburg says that only after the SSC wasapproved as a United States project did the U.S.government ask the Japanese to contribute.According to Brandenburg, the Japanese were neverinvited to help manage the collider. They wereonly asked to donate money.

"It should have been an international projectfrom the start," says Feldman. Because of a lackof action by the administration and bad planningby the Department of Energy, "they were never ableto get any sizable commitments for foreigncontributions."

Glashow says one candidate site which straddledthe border between New York and Canada wasrejected simply because it was not within U.S.borders.

Harvard physicists lobbied extensively inWashington to save the supercollider--writingletters and visiting legislators--but were unableto sway vote.

Frankling says she talked to Rep. Joseph P.Kennedy II (D-Mass.) and found that he was moreconcerned about "Mars. McGillicuddy's pensioncheck" than the electro-weak force.

"The problem is if I really thought that notbuilding the SSC would make poverty in America goaway, of course I wouldn't build it," Franklinsays.

Legislators can probably expect about $5billion extra to spend on social programs fromcutting the supercollider, but even the process ofterminating the project will be a drain on theTreasury.

Closing down the collider will be costlybecause building contracts have been broken, andthe tunnel must be back-filled.

A total of $640 million has been allotted forclosing the site, though Feldman says it may costas much as $1 billion.

The Future: An Exodus to Europe?

In the wake of the supercollider's demise manyscientists hope to be able to go to Europe andwork with a smaller version of the SSC--the LargeHadiron Collider (LHC)--in Geneva, Switzerland.

The LHC is slated to be based at the laboratoryof CERN, a multinational physics organizationfunded by 19 European countries.

While it has not yet been built, Brandenburgsays the CERN council is expected to approve theventure early next year.

Even so, scientists say the LHC will not be acomparable substitute for the SSC.

Feldman says the LHC will only be able tomuster one-third of the energy that the SSC wouldhave, so the conclusions from its experiments willbe much less certain. "It's a much larger gamble,"says Feldman.

Despite the reduced power of the LHC, Glashowsays it may be "the only game in town."

Regardless, U.S. participation in the Europeanfunded project may not be easy.

"The Europeans were already pretty far down theroad planning the LHC and deciding who would bedoing what on which project, so there was limitedspace to join up," says Brandenburg.

Feldman says that if the Europeans welcomeAmerican scientists to work on the LHC, the UnitedStates will be expected to contribute $400 millionto the project--an amount he is not sure thegovernment will be willing to offer.

"My opinion is that funds for high energyphysics will not increase, so we must live withinour present budget," says Glashow.

Instead of joining the LHC like otherprofessors hope to, Mann says he intends toexplore areas unrelated to particle accelerators,such as neutrino astrophysics and nucleon decay.Mann recognizes that these areas have lesspotential for yielding a break through, but sayshe prefers not having to travel constantly to andfrom Europe.

A special sub-committee has been appointed bythe High Energy Physics Advisory Panel(HEPAP)--which advises the government on aspectsof science policy--to determine the future of highenergy physics.

Huth, who sits on this "crystal ball"committee, says physicists are consideringbuilding cheaper instruments smaller versions ofthe SSC and machines which collide protons withelectrons. "It's a complementary approach, not asubstitute to the SSC," Huth says.

Though the sub-panel has not yet issued areport, Feldman says he thinks they will support aU.S. contribution to the LHC, "both to do thephysics, and also to establish firmly theprinciple of international cooperation in projectslike this."

The cancellation of the supercollider has notonly affected the future prospects of physicsprofessors, but also those of their graduatestudents.

While most graduate students did not work onthe supercollider because of the long-term natureof the project and were not directly affected byits cancellation, the general message sent byCongress--that basic science is becoming less of anational priority--was depressing.

"These [events] are most significant, because[they] decrease the potential jobs for physicists,both experimental and theoretical," says George M.Michael, a third-year graduate student in physics.

Many recent physics PhDs have been forced totake jobs in financial institutions on WallStreet. "The training carries over amazinglyreadily," Mann says.

Ironically, Glashow says that despite thediminishing jobs in physics, he has seen a markedrise of undergraduates in introductory physicscourses.

"What we see is a very strange phenomenon," hesays. Students are "taking substantive physicscourses to fulfill the Science A requirement."

Glashow says that while there wereapproximately 120 students in the Physics 15acourse he taught this past fall, there were only alittle more than ten students in the equivalentcore course.

As Huth says, "Some people are very depressedby the prospects, some are undaunted."

And since "the undaunted" will probably be thenext generation of physicists, maybe thosesubatomic particles should start worrying again.Crimson File PhotoHiggins Professor of Physics SHELDON L.GLASHOW.

But others were less fortunate. BairdProfessor of Science Gary J. Feldman says twoengineers had to be laid off, and the technicalstaff will probably have to be reorganized.

Harvard lost about half a million dollars infunding which came from the state of Texas and theDepartment of Energy (DOE), says Feldman.

A Significant Setback to Physics

Scientists say the project's cancellation is asignificant setback to the field of high-energyphysics.

"In two-and-a-half years we wrote about 30papers for the SSC, which described particlebehavior, most of which were to lead toexperiments so that verification could take placeat a mega accelerator," says John A. Barrett,administrative assistant in the physicsdepartment. "There will be nothing available thiscentury to validate the theoretical work for theSSC."

Barrett says physicists can only hope to getpartial results without the supercollider.

To many, the supercollider may seem like aphysics toy that the country can ill afford. Butphysicists are quick to justify its importance.

"Basically, particle physics has reached aplateau in our knowledge," says Feldman. "We thinkwe understand almost everything, but not quite.But things we don't understand usually lead towhole new levels of complexity and understanding."

Feldman says the physics community hasn'tlearned anything "strikingly new" about particlessince 1980.

The SSC, he says, was, specifically designed toreach an energy level high enough to either provetheir theories for sure, or give them newones--the so-called "no lose" theorem. Thiscertainty was not assured using lesser energycolliders.

Cancellation Shatters U.S. Reputation

Physicists say the cancellation of thesupercollider has negative repercussions extendingbeyond Harvard's walls. It is not only a "greatloss to scientists but also injures America'sreputation in science, both domestically andinternationally, Feldman says.

"I think that the U.S. reputation as a reliableinternational partner in science projects is sobad that there is great skepticism outside of ourcountry that we can be trusted to live up tocommitments in future projects," says BurtonRichter, president of the American PhysicalSociety and director of the Stanford LinearAccelerator Center.

"I think it's been potentially a catastrophe.The United States has been and was in a positionto continue to be a world leader in high energyphysics," says W. Anthony Mann, professor ofphysics at Tufts University. "And now we've justcompletely dropped the ball."

Most Harvard physicists working on the SSC weredesigning an instrument to detect muons--subatomicparticles liberated from collisions betweenprotons.

Brandenburg says the muon detector was but onecomponent of an all-purpose detector which about100 institutions were helping to construct.

Mann says a single university group wasill-equipped to design a detector alone. HarvardTufts and Brandeis Universities therefore sharedresources and formed the Boston Muon Consortium.Collaborators from the three universities had beenmeeting weekly at Harvard for the past three tofour years.

The consortium helped design the detector andconstructed an assembly line at Tufts to producedetector elements, says Mann, who worked full-timeon SSC research.

"We were within two-and-a-half weeks of a massproduction run when they stopped the project," hesays.

Mann says he plans to operate the assembly lineat a modest level despite the cancellation."Basically, we're going to follow through withproving out the design and assembly."

The final detector was to be a cylinder aboutfive stories long and eight meters in diameterwith "as much metal as a battleship," says John E.Huth, professor of physics.

Melissa Franklin, associate professor of thenatural sciences, says she was working on adifferent project--to construct a detector made ofsynthetic polycrystalline diamond. The diamonddetector would have withstood the massive doses ofradiation in the interior of the collider, shesays.

A Question of Politics

Harvard physicists have many theories as to whythe project failed to get passed by Congress.

Many professors attribute the project'scancellation to Congressional determination to cutthe budget and reduce the large federal deficit.According to Congressional Quarterly, manyfirst-year representatives campaigned on promisesto cut spending and thought the SSC was theperfect project to cut.

"It was cancelled because Congress was in abudget-cutting mood, and they wanted big-ticketitems to tell voters at home that they wereserious about deficit reduction," Brandenburgsays.

"There's been a loss of confidence in theability of our government to fund long rangeprojects," says Feldman. Typically such projectsare planned for ten years, during which theeconomy is bound to slow down, he says. Thegovernment must be able to support long-termprojects despite pressures to cut spending, hesays.

The project's spiralling costs also hinderedits passage in Congress.

Feldman says that the supercollider initiallyhad a price tag of $3 billion. Shortlythere-after, he says, the cost rose to $5 billion.After the site was chosen and a more completeengineering study was done, the cost shot up to$8.25 billion.

The Clinton administration then suggestedstretching the project an extra three years, saysFeldman. This would have reduced the yearly costbut added $3 billion to the total cost of theproject.

The final price tag? $11 to $12 billion, athree-to-four fold increase from the initialestimate.

"There was a feeling in Congressmen's mindsthat the project was not well-controlled. Itsounded like the costs were running planning. Thecosts should have been estimated accurately rightfrom the start."

Washington's Anti-Science Mood

Harvard physicists say legislators' ignoranceof scientific issues contributed to ananti-science mood in Washington which favoredcancellation of the project.

"The extent to which there's an antisciencemood in the Congress these days mirrors thelamentable level of science illiteracy throughoutthe country," says Brandenburg.

Feldman agrees. "It's clear that scientistshave to do a better job on educating the people onthe importance of basic science," he says. "Peopleare looking to shorter term solutions to problems,and are less willing to support long rangescience."

Franklin says people feel the number ofphysicists in the country should be cut in half."That's the climate anyway," she says.

Transistors, liquid crystals and magneticresonance imaging are just a few applied productsderived from basic science, says Franklin. Shesays a cessation of basic research would thereforebe "a little scary."

Opponents of the supercollider have accused theproject of being mismanaged, a charge that Harvardphysicists have called "grossly exaggerated" and"a fairly effective smear campaign."

Brandenburg says one example of wasteemphasized by critics was the purchase of liquorfor staff barbecues. Brandenburg says the liquorwas bought using special funds from outsidesupport, not government money.

Misplaced Nationalism?

Many scientists say the project could have beensaved if the government had established a closerpartnership with foreign countries, especiallyJapan. Instead, from the outset, the U.S.government decided that the project would besolely American.

Brandenburg says that only after the SSC wasapproved as a United States project did the U.S.government ask the Japanese to contribute.According to Brandenburg, the Japanese were neverinvited to help manage the collider. They wereonly asked to donate money.

"It should have been an international projectfrom the start," says Feldman. Because of a lackof action by the administration and bad planningby the Department of Energy, "they were never ableto get any sizable commitments for foreigncontributions."

Glashow says one candidate site which straddledthe border between New York and Canada wasrejected simply because it was not within U.S.borders.

Harvard physicists lobbied extensively inWashington to save the supercollider--writingletters and visiting legislators--but were unableto sway vote.

Frankling says she talked to Rep. Joseph P.Kennedy II (D-Mass.) and found that he was moreconcerned about "Mars. McGillicuddy's pensioncheck" than the electro-weak force.

"The problem is if I really thought that notbuilding the SSC would make poverty in America goaway, of course I wouldn't build it," Franklinsays.

Legislators can probably expect about $5billion extra to spend on social programs fromcutting the supercollider, but even the process ofterminating the project will be a drain on theTreasury.

Closing down the collider will be costlybecause building contracts have been broken, andthe tunnel must be back-filled.

A total of $640 million has been allotted forclosing the site, though Feldman says it may costas much as $1 billion.

The Future: An Exodus to Europe?

In the wake of the supercollider's demise manyscientists hope to be able to go to Europe andwork with a smaller version of the SSC--the LargeHadiron Collider (LHC)--in Geneva, Switzerland.

The LHC is slated to be based at the laboratoryof CERN, a multinational physics organizationfunded by 19 European countries.

While it has not yet been built, Brandenburgsays the CERN council is expected to approve theventure early next year.

Even so, scientists say the LHC will not be acomparable substitute for the SSC.

Feldman says the LHC will only be able tomuster one-third of the energy that the SSC wouldhave, so the conclusions from its experiments willbe much less certain. "It's a much larger gamble,"says Feldman.

Despite the reduced power of the LHC, Glashowsays it may be "the only game in town."

Regardless, U.S. participation in the Europeanfunded project may not be easy.

"The Europeans were already pretty far down theroad planning the LHC and deciding who would bedoing what on which project, so there was limitedspace to join up," says Brandenburg.

Feldman says that if the Europeans welcomeAmerican scientists to work on the LHC, the UnitedStates will be expected to contribute $400 millionto the project--an amount he is not sure thegovernment will be willing to offer.

"My opinion is that funds for high energyphysics will not increase, so we must live withinour present budget," says Glashow.

Instead of joining the LHC like otherprofessors hope to, Mann says he intends toexplore areas unrelated to particle accelerators,such as neutrino astrophysics and nucleon decay.Mann recognizes that these areas have lesspotential for yielding a break through, but sayshe prefers not having to travel constantly to andfrom Europe.

A special sub-committee has been appointed bythe High Energy Physics Advisory Panel(HEPAP)--which advises the government on aspectsof science policy--to determine the future of highenergy physics.

Huth, who sits on this "crystal ball"committee, says physicists are consideringbuilding cheaper instruments smaller versions ofthe SSC and machines which collide protons withelectrons. "It's a complementary approach, not asubstitute to the SSC," Huth says.

Though the sub-panel has not yet issued areport, Feldman says he thinks they will support aU.S. contribution to the LHC, "both to do thephysics, and also to establish firmly theprinciple of international cooperation in projectslike this."

The cancellation of the supercollider has notonly affected the future prospects of physicsprofessors, but also those of their graduatestudents.

While most graduate students did not work onthe supercollider because of the long-term natureof the project and were not directly affected byits cancellation, the general message sent byCongress--that basic science is becoming less of anational priority--was depressing.

"These [events] are most significant, because[they] decrease the potential jobs for physicists,both experimental and theoretical," says George M.Michael, a third-year graduate student in physics.

Many recent physics PhDs have been forced totake jobs in financial institutions on WallStreet. "The training carries over amazinglyreadily," Mann says.

Ironically, Glashow says that despite thediminishing jobs in physics, he has seen a markedrise of undergraduates in introductory physicscourses.

"What we see is a very strange phenomenon," hesays. Students are "taking substantive physicscourses to fulfill the Science A requirement."

Glashow says that while there wereapproximately 120 students in the Physics 15acourse he taught this past fall, there were only alittle more than ten students in the equivalentcore course.

As Huth says, "Some people are very depressedby the prospects, some are undaunted."

And since "the undaunted" will probably be thenext generation of physicists, maybe thosesubatomic particles should start worrying again.Crimson File PhotoHiggins Professor of Physics SHELDON L.GLASHOW.