...And Well-Informed, Responsible Opposition

I was appalled at Michael J. Moravcsik’s commentary on the SSC (THE SCIENTIST, June 1, 1987, p. 11). I welcome the expression of differences when they are based on well-informed points of view. The first of his four points might generously be interpreted in that way. The other three are glaringly factually incorrect and, therefore, quite irresponsible. First, elementary particle physics is today’s “physics of the very small.” The previous two generations of that most “reductionist” (to use Bob Schrieffer’s word) field of fundamental research have been atomic physics and nuclear physics. Surely those fields have no apologies to make for their contributions to our science, our culture, our technology, or our industry. So, high-energy physics is not a field that “suffers” from Big Science syndrome. Rather, it is a field that has arrived at a point where it knows a set of questions that are important to answer and knows how to obtain answers to at least some of those questions. It happens that to get those answers large facilities are required. Such facilities are expensive and demand the participation of large numbers of people. Either we accept the scale of this research or we give it up. In that context, the word “suffers” has no meaning. In the final analysis elementary particle physics research is done by graduate students working with their mentor professors in much the same style as characterizes Small Science. In fact, I note that some of the work on the new superconductors is being reported by groups consisting of several dozen collaborators. I don’t know what potential breakthrough Moravcsik is referring to when he suggests cost reductions by a factor of 1,000 or more in the construction of an accelerator. Perhaps he should come to work for the SSC. In the first place, the proposed energy and circumference of the SSC were chosen only after an optimization analysis showed them to be at or near the cost minimum. That minimum has nothing to do with any particular kind of superconductor. A smaller circumference with stronger magnets would cost more, not less. Second, replacement of liquid helium by liquid nitrogen saves refrigerating costs but increases vacuum system costa by a similar amount. As for other “advanced” acceleration schemes, no one has yet proposed even the germ of an idea that might be feasible and cost-effective. What would Moravcsik consider a “serious competitive threat” in the area of basic research or accelerator construction? The fact is that CERN has seriously proposed the construction of a Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to be installed in the Large Electron Positron tunneL To imply that there is no competing proposal is just plain wrong. The CERN long-range planning committee has recommended construction of the LHC if the United States does not go ahead with the SSC on a schedule that would bring it into operation in the 1990s. Moravcsik’s figures on the operating costs of the SSC and on the investment the United States makes in all of basic research are also suspect. Published figures give $270 million as the operating budget for the SSC, whereas the total 1987 investment in basic research is around $10 billion. That places the SSC at 2.7 percent of the national total. Of course, there is room for an honest difference of opinion whether that is too much, too little or just about right for “the physics of the very small” given its history of contribution to human culture and to industrial development. But the number is not, as Moravcsik says, 10 percent. The problem is not one of how the United States should divide up the money it invests in basic science. Rather, we should question why we are investing a smaller fraction of our gross national product in basic research than are, say, the Japanese or the West Germans. This nation should increase its overall support of basic science because it is a sound investment in the future and not simply an incremental cost. The comments about the state of elementary particle physics are no less wrong the others. Moravcsik contends that the elementary particle theory cannot explain 10 percent of the the available data and that within that 10 percent, the accuracy is very poor. Steven Weinberg however testified before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology on April 7, 1987 that the standard model, although incomplete and "full of holes and loose ends," accounts for all the particles and forces that have been observed in naturally occurring atoms or molecules or that can be produced with existing accelerators. That’s no mean accomplishment and Weinberg goes on to say that "the SSC is just that we need to get us going again toward a final theory.” Most knowledgeable elementary particle theorists take a similar view. In any case, atomic physics theory and quantum mechanics have proved invaluable in spite of the fact that probably less than 10 percent of observed spectral lines have been accurately calculated. Finally, Moravcsik's scheme for choosing which projects should be done by polling some half million scientists does not seem to promise much wisdom. It would provide the opportunity for all kinds of pressure groups to operate in a considerably more objectionable and less constructive way than usual. And his proposed committee of 10 scientists is not a terribly new idea; in fact, something very much like it has already been involved in evaluating the case of the SSC. Goldwasser is a professor of physics at the University of Illinois, on leave of absence as associate director of the Central Design Group of the Superconducting Supercollider project of the Universities Research Association, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory—90/4040, Berkeley, CA 94720.

...And Well-Informed, Responsible Opposition

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of