|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK PDF BOOK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 37
Recommenciations
This chapter recommends action that will permit atomic, molecular,
and optical physics (AMO physics) to continue to advance scientifi-
cally; to train scientists for industry, government laboratories, and
universities; and to contribute to the national programs. The changing
pattern of support of AMO physics during the past decade is reviewed
in the first section. The following sections describe a plan of action and
present recommendations. In the final section the roles of the funding
agencies are discussed.
BACKGROUN~THE HISTORY OF SUPPORT
AMO physics in the United States advances by the collective efforts
of over 300 groups in academic institutions, in government laborato-
ries, and in not-for-profit institutions. In addition, basic AMO research
is carried out in a number of industrial laboratories, including AT&T
Bell Laboratories, IBM Research Laboratories, Eastman Kodak Com-
pany, and Hughes Research Laboratories.
Four sources provide most of the federal funding for basic AMO
research: the Department of Defense (DOD) agencies, the Department
of Energy (DOE), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Na-
tional Bureau of Standards (NBS) also supports AMO physics through
its in-house programs and through the Joint Institute for Laboratory
37
OCR for page 38
38 ATOMIC, MOLECULAR, AND OPTICAL PHYSICS
Astrophysics. This diversified pattern of support has intrinsic
strengths: it reflects the varied interests within the field and provides
flexibility and some protection against sudden changes of policy.
Because no agency is responsible for the overall health of the field,
however, there is no mechanism for assuring continuity or for respond-
ing to major losses of funding.
Until early in the last decade, the DOD agencies provided substantial
support, but during the intervening years the DOD largely abandoned
its commitment to basic AMO physics. Although the NSF and DOE
increased their support, the increase fell far short of the loss. As a
result the field has suffered a serious cut in funding.
This history is documented in Figure 3.1 based on the data of Table
3.1. The figures include federal funding of atomic and molecular
physics and a small portion of optical physics. The research includes
basic AMO physics at universities and university-related private
research institutes, plus a fraction of the basic atomic and molecular
science at federally funded research and development centers. It is
estimated that the figures represent about two thirds of the total
support for basic research in AMO physics in universities and univer-
sity-related research institutes. Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 provide a
realistic portrait of the changing pattern of funding for atomic and
molecular physics because the data were assembled over the years
using a consistent set of criteria for basic research. Table 3.2 gives the
overall funding figures, including optical physics, for 1983.
Comments
· The physics survey* published by the National Academy of
Science in 1972 (the Bromley report) pointed out serious problems due
to inadequate support that confronted atomic, molecular, and electron
physics. Thus the level of funding in 1972, which serves as the starting
point in Table 3.1, constitutes a weak base.
· The history of funding between 1972 and 1983 borders on the
disastrous. The funding in constant dollars fell by 30 percent. Such a
loss by itself would be a serious blow to the field, but the true loss was
even greater. The constant dollar figures account for normal inflation,
but they do not allow for the increased complexity of science and the
need for more-sophisticated equipment. Informed estimates place the
*Physics Survey Committee, D. A. Bromiey, chairman, Physics in Perspective,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1972.
OCR for page 39
30,000
c', 20,(300
6
o
1 0,000
o
30,000
can
cry:
J
20,000
o
1 0,000
o
RECOMMENDATIONS 39
CU R R ENT DO LLARS (thousands)
I ~ ~
::.:::.:::.:.:::::: ::
_
_
_
~ .
.~
i.:. .:...:.:.:.:.:..,:.
Am_
it_
_
_.
. .-. .-.-.-. . . -.-. .1
: :::::::::::::: .::: .:3
_
_
_
_
1972 1 975 1977 1 979 1981 1983
//// NS F
_ DOD
_ AEC/ERDA/DOE
YEAR
CO NSTA NT DO L LA RS (thousands ~
·:: :_:;: :;-: :_:~3
At_
it_
| 1 NASA
~ NBS
~ ;-; .-.-. .-.-;-; .-; .
- ;~.-.- .-. -.
1 ~ =1 ~ _
~ _ _ _ ~ ~
1972 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983
YEAR
FIGURE 3.1 Funding of basic atomic and molecular physics by the federal government
in universities and allied institutes, 1972-1983. Source: Table 3.1.
increase in dollar cost of front-line AMO research over the decade at a
factor of 4 or 5. Thus the effective loss to the field is significantly larger
than 30 percent; it may be greater than 60 percent. As a result of this
loss, the average grant size in AMO physics is now far below the cost
of carrying out front-line research.
OCR for page 40
40
~ A:
- · -
~ o
o ~
-
'e
so
au
-
- ~
of
- ~
no
c,:
~ -
.o o
v) ~
- ~
~ - ~
~ cat
an
- ~
~ o
o ~
At; cd
'e
c)
· -
o ~
~ . -
·
v) -
no o
or
~ an
· - -
~ o
v)
ad
4
~ ~ -
~ · -
ct of
~~ -
o ~
5
~ -
A:
z ~
no
~ ~ - ~
'e
·= ~
-
-
oo
-
A,
it
o
o ~
o ~
z o~
~ -
o ~
.
o ~
#7 s~
04
5~
o'
o ~
z 04
o ~
. ~
o ct
~ 5~
~ 04
o ~
. ~
o ct
t7
s~
o ~
.
o ~
04
s~
~s
~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
o o o o o o o-o
~ . . . . . . .
o o o o o o o o
~ ~ o - ~ o u~ ~
~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~D
ON ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ C~
_ r~
~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~ ~
-
~ ~ r~ ~ oo 0 x
. . . . . . .
~D ~ r~ O ~ _
} {~\
ox ~ cr~ cr.
oo ~t ~ - }
~ -
- ~c ~ - o o ~
-
-3
~ o~
o
c~
ch
. .
o oo
r~
c~
oO ~ ~ O O ~ ~D ~
. . . . . . . .
O ~ ~ - } ~ ~D
t
~ r~ ~ ~ ~ X
(~) =~ (~] ~ o
r~ 00
_ ~ r~
~ -
~ ~ O r~ ~ ON O O ~ O
. . . . . . .
'} ~
~ oo ~ ~ ~ o oo ~o ~
~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~ r~ ~ ~0
s~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ \o
~ ~ -
- ~ ~ - - - oo ~
_ oo r~
- ~
) (~\
. . . . ~ ~ ~
~ {~\ \o ~
rn ~ O ~ ~ cr~ 0
oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o
~ ~ ~ ~ - -
~ x
. .
O r~
-
r~ O ~ oo t
~D ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~
- - ~
oO 00 ~ r~ O O O
=\ ~ ~ oo ON
~ ~ ~ ~ o ~o ~ ~
00 r~ _
d- ', _ _ _
~ -
o ~
. - ~
u' o
~ c~
. - .
.
c~ ~
e~
. - s~
)
"s
v: ~ o
z
e
~o ~
v:
z
o
4
’
O
~ ~:
o
~3
~,
o
s~
_ oc
~ Ct
V) V: Ct s~
Z Z E~ <:
OCR for page 41
41
-
o
to
- to
11
-
'e
o
ct
v,
o
c:
so
en
-
oo
-
-
ret
en
ID ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Cal
. ~ . ~ . . . . .
~ oo ~ oo o ~ ~
~, \O
')
') - - - o
~3 -
- ~
oN
ON - - ~ ~ o o x
. . . . . . . . .
O~ ~ r~
r~ ~ ~N ~ 00 00 r~ r~
cM
~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~
r~
~ -
0~ ON 00 ~ O r~ ~ ~t
. . . . . . . . ~
~N ~ ~ ~ crx
O ~ ~ r~
crN ~]
~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~
r~ ~ c~ ~
~ -
~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ o ~
~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . .
r~ r~ ~ C~ r~ O ~ ~ ON
t - oo ~t
r~ ~ ~ O ~ O
r - , ', ~ ~ _ _ _
~ -
oo <5\ ~ ~ ') ~D ~ O
. . . . . . . . .
N
~ ~ ~ ~ - - o o ~
O ~ ~ ~ oo ~ r~
~ ~ ~ ~ - - -
~ -
oo oo ~o r~ O O O ~ O
. . . . . . . ~ ~
cr ~ ~ oo cr~ ~
r~ r~ ~ ~ O
~ r~ oo r~
~ v
~ ~ ~ ~ - - - ~
~ -
o ~ ~
:~.
._ ._ Q ·~
.> Z ~ .,
c~ ~ _ ~ ~L
.o s~ ~ ~ ~
C~ ~ O ~ _ 04
~Q ~ O O ~ ~ ~ O ~
Z C) ·< Z Z E_ ~
O
. _ ~ ~ ~ 4) . ~ ·
O ~ :D ~ .>
~ .0 ~ ~ ~:5
O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'~ -= 3 U: Ct .0
·- ~ V, Z ~ O ·:
~ _ >~= 0) ·~=1
~Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
Z ~ ~ o E~ C-)
C) 3 ct ~ F: Y
~ ~ n ,~, m ,=
3 ~ O ~n =, ' O
_ ~ ~ ct . _
3 ~ O n ~ ~ Ct
O Ct ~ ~ ~ O Z
c) C) ._ ~ C) ·_ O
~n ~ O =0 ~ ~ ~
O C; ~ <( X O C
n ~ s_ O ~ 5_ 0
._ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ct
C ~ C O .o,> c,)
s~ s~ ~ _
ct ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~
C O ~ ~ °
n C ~ O
~ n 5 ~ n
O
~ ~ ~e ,C C ~ .<
C ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~L~ _C
Ct n C . ~; C) ~ &Q
>' S~ n ~ -5:
C ~ ~ ~ , -,, ~ C
5 ~ c': Z 0 5 0
~ ~ C s~ ~ Ct ~
~ · C) V ~ . ~
0 s~ &Q ~ >4 3
~ C C ~ C
=: ~ ~ m3 ~ ~ ~ °
c e.o O ~ ~ ~ ° C
-
o
o
OCR for page 42
42 A TOMIC, MOLECULAR, AND OPTICAL PHYSICS
· The research awards in AMO physics are so small that many
experimental and theoretical groups now require two or more awards
to sustain an active program. The total number of awards did not,
however, increase during the past decade; instead, it slightly de-
creased. One must conclude that the number of AMO scientists
engaged in basic research has declined. The loss of investigators from
AMO physics was discussed in the Survey by the Committee on
Atomic and Molecular Science (CAMS)* though the Survey found no
means to identify the number of investigators who, having lost their
support, simply left AMO research. Nonetheless, it is evident that
there has been a severe winnowing of the field.
· A conspicuous feature in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 is the changing
posture of the DOD support. Although DOD support had already
dropped significantly in the 5 years preceding 1972, it was still the
largest single source of support in 1972, providing 37 percent of the
total. By 1983 DOD support had dropped to a relatively small second-
ary role, providing 15 percent of the total.
· The pressure generated by this severe erosion of support for basic
AMO physics has increased to the point that the future vitality of the
field is in jeopardy. The problems, which are documented in the CAMS
Survey, may be summarized as follows:
The shortage of sustained support for basic AMO physics is making
it increasingly difficult for the research groups to maintain the critical
level needed for rapid scientific advance; there is little flexibility to
move in new directions, to provide adequate support for graduate
students, postdoctoral fellows, and visitors. Essential equipment can-
not be purchased, and instrumentation in many AMO laboratories is
obsolete. The infrastructure of support services the shops, techni-
cians, and special facilities that are essential for effective research
has seriously deteriorated throughout the United States. There is wide
concern that long-term research is being sacrificed for short-term goals.
Opportunities in basic research for young scientists have diminished;
few universities have the resources to launch the research of a junior
faculty member. The pattern of chronic underfunding threatens to stifle
the freedom of imagination that is essential for science to flourish.
*Subcommittee on Atomic and Molecular Survey, NRC Committee on Atomic and
Molecular Science, Survey of Atomic and Molecular Science in the United States,
1980-1981, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1982.
OCR for page 43
RECOMMENDATIONS 43
TABLE 3.2 Overall Funding of Basic Atomic,
Molecular, and Optical Physics by the Federal
Government in Universities and Allied Institutes,
1983~
Atomic and Molecular Physics
NSF
Physics Division
Other Divisions
DOD
DOE
NBS
NASA
Total Atomic and Molecular Physics
Optical Physics
NSF
DoDb
ONR
AFOSR
AROD
Total Optical Physics
Total AMO Support
$9,330,000
2,870,000
3,410,000
3,490,000
600,000
2,750,000
$22,458.000
$ 891,000
2,650,000
1 ,000,000
2,093,000
$ 5,743,000
$28,201.000
" Data on the support of atomic and molecular physics were
compiled using the criteria described in Table 3.1. The support for
optical physics is more difficult to identify owing to the lack of a
clear distinction between optical physics and optical engineering.
The NSF support, $891,000, is estimated as the optical-physics
component of a $2.293 million program in quantum electronics in the
Division of Electrical, Computer and Systems Engineering. (In
addition, approximately $550,000 of the atomic and molecular
physics program can be characterized as optical physics.)
b The DOD support for optical physics is dominantly the universi-
ty-based component of research. It does not include support for the
free-electron laser ($2.25 million from ONR; $1.5 million from
AFOSR), nor does it include costs of basic research in optical
physics within the DOD laboratories.
· The panel notes with pleasure that federal priorities for research in
the past few years have placed increasing emphasis on the support of
basic research. This provides a constructive climate for addressing the
serious problems that confront AMO physics.
A PLAN OF ACTION
In order for AMO physics to pursue the opportunities outlined in the
Program of Research Initiatives, as well as the other scientific oppor-
OCR for page 44
44 A TOMIC, MOLECULAR, AND OPTICA ~ PHYSICS
"unities that are sure to arise, the nation must increase its investment
in basic AMO physics. The effects of the pattern of chronic undersup-
port during the past decade must be countered. In considering alter-
native routes for accomplishing this, the panel discussed adopting
centralized institutional modes and also the possibility of organizing
large areas of research around highly visible major facilities. However,
the panel concluded that the great strength of AMO physics in the
United States has been the high quality of the many diverse, relatively
small, research groups. The tradition of scientific innovation and rapid
advance by these groups in universities, in government laboratories,
and in industrial laboratories, working with the freedom and the
resources to pursue scientific leads as they unfold, has been the major
factor in the success of AMO physics in this nation. The panel places
the highest priority on assuring the continued vitality of these groups.
At present hardly any federally funded AMO university group in the
United States has the resources to move forward in new research. We
propose a plan to bring the support of a reasonable number of groups
to a level where they can undertake new research effectively. The plan
is based on the following points:
· A decade of severe underfunding and high turnover has winnowed
the field. Attempts to concentrate the existing support on fewer groups
would be counterproductive; as much excellent research would be
hindered as helped. New support is essential.
· The research community in basic AMO physics in the United
States is not large; an estimate based on the CAMS survey indicates
that it comprises about 300 individual groups. For AMO physics to
retain its vitality, support for a significant number of these groups must
be brought to a realistic operating level, and there must be an
opportunity for some new groups to start.
· The gap between the available funding and the costs of research
has become so great that the timetable for bolstering the research must
be prompt.
Based on these considerations, we recommend a 4-year program to
allow individual research groups to start work in the areas of the
Scientific Initiatives. The goal is to bring the support of the field up to
a level where new work can be undertaken as old work is phased out.
Special infusions of support would then no longer be needed.
Altogether eight initiative areas are described in Chapter 1. (Three
areas are proposed in atomic physics, three in optical physics, and two
in molecular physics.) Each of these areas is broad, and one can expect
that new opportunities will also occur within the next few years. We
OCR for page 45
RECOMMENDATIONS 45
propose a plan to start support for approximately four or five groups in
each area for 4 years. At the end of the 4-year period there would be
approximately 140 groups in the three disciplines. This number is not
large considering the breadth of the area, the likelihood of unforeseen
scientific opportunities, and the need to start some new groups,
perhaps one in each area every year.
The proposed program relates primarily to AMO groups at univer-
sities and university-related private research institutes. The needs of
AMO groups working in federal laboratories are difficult to document
and quantify because much of the basic research is carried out in
support of mission-oriented programs. Basic AMO research in federal
laboratories is an important component of the field, however, and
many of these groups require special infusions of support to move
ahead.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Base Support
To undertake new experimental and theoretical research on the
Program of Initiatives, funds are required to
Support graduate students, postdoctoral workers, and other pro-
fessional scientists;
Help restore the infrastructure of technicians, shops, and special
research facilities that has largely vanished;
Purchase new equipment at an adequate rate;
Maintain the equipment;
Support travel and visitors;
Allow enough flexibility for groups to pursue new scientific leads
without the 2- to 3-year delay that is now often required for starting
new research.
The cost of operating a typical active university-based AMO re-
search group is estimated to be about $350,000/year (1984 dollars).
Contributing to this figure are the following. The cost to a research
grant for supporting one postdoctoral researcher is about $50,000/year.
Most experimental groups need a technician, though hardly any AMO
group in the United States has been able to retain one; supporting a
technician costs a grant typically $70,000/year. Approximately
$50,000/year is needed to keep instrumentation up to date. As a result
of these and other operating costs, a number of estimates place the
average total cost for an experimental group at about $60,000/year for
each graduate student in the group.
OCR for page 46
46 ATOMIC, MOLECULAR, AND OPTICAL PHYSICS
We estimate that the average increase in funding for an AMO group
to move forward effectively is at least $200,000/year (in 1984 dollars).
This includes both theoretical and experimental groups, taking cogni-
zance of the higher cost of exprimental work and that the majority of
groups are experimental. Based on a target plan of funding for 35
groups a year, the incremental cost for additional funding is $7
million/year for 4 years.
The figures are targets to guide the intensity of the overall effort; they
are not meant to fix the exact size of individual grants, the precise
number and structure of the research groups, or the timetable for
starting research in each area.
Instrumentation
The lack of instrumentation is seriously hindering AMO research in
laboratories throughout the United States. During the past decade the
complexity of scientific instrumentation increased substantially, caus-
ing the costs to skyrocket at the same time that support withered. A
state-of-the-art tunable-dye-laser system costs from $100,000 to
$150,000; it is not unusual for one experiment to require two of these
lasers plus a large amount of peripheral equipment. A modern clean
vacuum system for electron scattering costs about $100,000; a state-
of-the-art supersonic molecular-beam scattering apparatus costs more.
A high quality superconducting magnet and Dewar costs $200,000; a
microwave signal synthesizer costs $70,000. Theoretical groups need
minicomputers, and some groups need access to larger machines. A
university group can require years to acquire funds for a single piece of
such equipment.
The DOD-University Research Instrumentation Program, a 5-year
program encompassing broad areas of research related to national
defense, provides a perspective on the need for instrumentation. The
program is funded at $30 million/year; in its first year the requests
exceeded $645 million. For the period 1984-1985, 70 requests were
submitted by AMO groups; only 10 were funded. These figures
demonstrate the overwhelming need for support for instrumentation in
AMO physics as well as other areas of university-based research.
Equipment in most AMO laboratories is obsolete. This is true not
only for major equipment but for minor equipment such as oscillo-
scopes and leak detectors. These laboratories must be thoroughly
re-equipped in order for the groups to carry out effective research. The
increase in base support recommended above is not adequate for
re-equipping the AMO laboratories. (It should, however, let the groups
OCR for page 47
RECOMMENDATIONS 47
replace and maintain instruments as necessary, avoiding this type of
instrumentation crisis in the future.) Special one-time support is
essential to re-equip AMO laboratories promptly.
The instrumentation required for a typical active university labora-
tory to start up research initiatives is estimated to cost approximately
$300,000. This could purchase, for instance, two laser systems
($220,000), a small vacuum apparatus ($50,000), and smaller equipment
including microprocessors, oscilloscopes, and leak detectors ($30,000~.
Alternatively, the research might require one laser ($150,000) and a
superconducting magnet ($100,000) plus smaller equipment, or a fully
instrumented state-of-the-art electron-scattering apparatus ($200,000)
plus smaller equipment. Some programs will require less than
$300,000; but many activities require more-expensive equipment such
as specialized magnets, helium liquefiers, or high-power laser systems.
This estimate takes cognizance of the fact that theoretical groups
require less but that most of the groups are experimental.
Based on a target of re-equipping 35 groups a year, the cost is $11
million/year in 1984 dollars.
Theory
Theoretical atomic physics is not a major activity at most universi-
ties in the United States; yet, as demonstrated by activities in Europe,
the Soviet Union, and Japan, the field is ripe for exciting and substan-
tial advances. We envision that the general increase in base support
will improve the climate for theoretical research, but further steps are
required to bring the effort in this country up to the level required to
guide and interpret the experimental research. A major problem is the
dispersed nature of the theoretical community in the United States.
Active theorists are currently found in many different types of institu-
tions, widely separated geographically. There is a critical need to focus
efforts in the country, to strengthen the field, and to attract students.
The panel recommends that the agencies invite and support proposals
addressing this issue, for example, by creating centers, workshops, or
summer schools where students and active theorists could come
together for varying periods of time.
Access to Large Computers
AMO physics provides a natural testing ground for new modes of
description and new mathematical procedures because the underlying
physical laws are generally known and precise experiments are possi-
OCR for page 48
48 ATOMIC, MOLECULAR, AND OPTICAL PHYSICS
ble. New approaches made possible by large computers are profoundly
changing AMO physics. For example, numerical integrations of the
Schrodinger equation can provide visualizations of time-dependent
processes. Threshold laws can sometimes be found by numerical
experiments, and the effects of intense radiation fields can be explored
numerically. A new order of precision can permit the calculation of the
rates of atomic processes that are too difficult or too expensive to
measure.
In the last few years the available computing capability in Japan and
Western Europe has advanced enormously from powerful computers
at individual universities and the construction of efficient networks.
The lack of computational facilities for theoretical atomic physicists in
the United States has seriously hindered activity here.
The Report by the Subcommittee on Computational Facilities for
Theoretical Research (National Science Foundation, Washington,
D.C., 1981) emphasized the general need for increased computational
capability in physics, and the problem is being examined by various
bodies. An important component of the need in AMO physics is time
on Class 6 computers. The present supercomputer usage is close to the
equivalent of half-time on a Cray 1. Based on a survey of potential
users, we recommend that over a 4-year period computer time equiv-
alent to at least one full-time Cray 1 be made available to AMO
physicists, supported by high-speed remote-access facilities.
Special Facilities
Two areas of AMO physics require special instrumentation or access
to large facilities: accelerator-based atomic physics and AMO physics
with synchrotron radiation light sources. Because of their relatively
high cost on the scale of support for AMO physics, these require
separate attention.
ACCELERATOR-BASED ATOMIC PHYSICS
As described in Chapter 4 in the section on Atomic Physics Requir-
ing Larger Facilities, many new scientific opportunities have been
created by advances in accelerator-based atomic physics. Pursuing
these opportunities requires beam lines at large national-user acceler-
ators, together with accelerator and ion-source installations dedicated
to atomic phyiscs. Provision for funding the installation and mainte-
nance of larger facilities, while common in nuclear and high-energy
physics, is not traditional within the AMO framework. As a result,
OCR for page 49
RECOMMENDA TIONS 49
AMO physics in the United States generally operates in a parasitic
mode. The number and availability of such arrangements has been
diminishing because of cutbacks in other areas, especially in low-
energy nuclear physics.
The opportunity exists for the United States to seize a leadership
role in accelerator-based atomic physics, but for this to happen it
cannot remain a parasite operation on facilities whose major purpose is
to serve other fields. In order to exploit this opportunity, the following
steps are required:
1. A new generation of sources of highly charged ions needs to be
provided for dedicated atomic-physics programs.
2. Dedicated beam lines for atomic physics with fast heavy ions are
required at national user facilities.
3. Dedicated atomic collisions accelerator facilities need to be
upgraded, taking advantage of recent advances in accelerator technol-
ogy.
Cost estimates (in 1984 dollars):
1. High-charge ion-source facilities (3)
2. Beam lines at existing and proposed
relativistic heavy-ion accelerators
3. Accelerator upgrades and replacement
Total
$3.0 million
$4.7 million
$4.3 million
$12 million
These recommendations are in agreement with the 1981 report of the
Committee on Atomic and Molecular Science.*
ATOMIC, MOLECULAR, AND OPTICAL PHYSICS WITH
SYNCHROTRON RADIATION
Synchrotron light sources are expected to have a major impact on
wide areas of AMO research in the coming decade. Many of the
opportunities are summarized in Chapter 4, in the section on Atomic
Physics Requiring Larger Facilities; others appear scattered through-
out this report.
Toward the end of this decade, the cutting edge of synchrotron-light-
intensive research will lie with the new generation of insertion-device
*Workshop on Accelerator-Based Atomic and Molecular Sciences, July 1980 (Na-
tional Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1981).
OCR for page 50
50 ATOMIC, MOLECULAR, AND OPTICAL PHYSICS
machines (using wigglers and undulatory. Although conceived and
justified for a number of fields and a broad range of applications, AMO
physics is a natural component of this user community and stands to
gain particularly because of its need for high photon intensity and high
resolution. This country has the opportunity to gain world leadership in
AMO research using synchrotron light. Existing facilities need to be
fully equipped and exploited, and we must be ready with fully
instrumented beam lines for atomic and molecular research when the
new generation of machines starts operating.
The panel recommends that insertion devices be supported for
existing synchrotron light sources and that substantial access to them
be made available to the AMO community. The panel endorses the
construction of next-generation light sources, both VUV and x-ray,
and recommends that beam lines be provided for the AMO community.
RELEVANCE OF ATOMIC, MOLECULAR, AND OPTICAL
RESEARCH TO THE FUNDING AGENCIES
Department of Defense
Basic research in AMO physics has revolutionized important areas
of military technology. Atomic clocks and laser gyroscopes are central
to modern navigation and global positioning systems; fiber-optics
communication is widely used in ships, tanks, and planes. Data on
atomic and molecular processes from AMO laboratories are vital to the
understanding of atmospheric and meteorological phenomena that
affect military scenarios. Lasers are used for range finding, guidance,
optical radar, and numerous other applications; high-power lasers are
being employed in new classes of countermeasures and directed energy
weapons systems. Remote-sensing techniques from AMO physics have
applications ranging from combustion analysis for engine design to
chemical weapons monitoring. Numerous other examples could be
cited, but this brief summary should suggest the scope of the impact of
basic AMO research on DOD objectives.
The DOD laboratories depend on scientists trained in university-
based AMO research. In order for the DOD agencies to identify new
opportunities and to avoid technological surprise, and to evaluate
proposals involving advanced technologies, the DOD needs to main-
tain a close relationship with the AMO basic research community.
Considering all of these facts, and considering the enormous contri-
butions to the nation's military program from basic AMO research, it
is difficult to understand why the DOD has so drastically reduced its
OCR for page 51
RECOMMENDATIONS 51
support of basic AMO physics. By abandoning the tradition of long-
range support of basic research, guided by scientific imperatives rather
than relevance to immediate DOD objectives, the DOD agencies are
paving the way to military obsolescence in the coming decades.
This panel recommends that the DOD agencies resume a serious
commitment to the support of basic AMO research.
Department of Energy
AMO physics contributes broadly to the support of the mission of
DOE to develop existing technology and to discover new technologies
for the generation and transfer of energy. The AMO community
provides expertise and essential data on electronic and atomic colli-
sions, which are needed to model and to diagnose magnetically
confined thermonuclear fusion devices. It provides knowledge of
collision processes that are important for isotope separation in the
processing of fission fuels and for understanding the interaction of fast
fission products with matter. DOE laboratories working on environ-
mental problems depend on the AMO community for scientific talent
and for vital data. For example, our understanding of the interaction of
radiation with matter a central problem for the health and environ-
mental mission of DOE is carried forward at the atomic and molecu-
lar level by AMO physicists. The weapons laboratories of DOE require
highly skilled scientists to carry out their mission; many of these are
trained in university laboratories engaged in basic AMO research.
The problems of future energy technology will require continued
expertise and manpower from AMO physics. The vitality of this field
over a long period demands vigorous support of basic AMO physics
unfettered by immediate program objectives. DOE has attempted to be
responsive in this area by supporting high-risk, long-term projects as
well as strongly mission-oriented projects. However, the level of
support has fallen far behind the costs of research. In order for the
AMO community to continue to meet its obligations to our energy
programs, the support for basic AMO research within DOE must be
brought up to a level that realistically reflects today's needs.
National Science Foundation
The NSF is the agency responsible for federal support of basic
physics in the United States. It plays a major role in AMO physics. The
NSF Physics Division provides about 33 percent of the total support of
U.S. university-based atomic and molecular research; other Divisions
OCR for page 52
52 A TOMIC, MOLECULAR, AND OPTICAL PHYSICS
provide an additional 17 percent. The NSF relies on the peer review
system to judge the quality of the research and to select likely new
areas of scientific advance. The Atomic and Molecular Physics Pro-
gram has attempted to assure the continuity of support for long-range
innovative research and to provide grants large enough for effective
research. At the same time, the NSF has attempted to provide new
starts. Because of budgetary limitations, however, these goals could
not be accomplished simultaneously, and the competition for funds has
become intense.
In spite of the fact that the NSF is the primary federal agency in the
support of AMO physics, it has never acted as the parent agency for
the field. The overall size and the scope of the NSF programs reflects
a pattern established several decades ago when the DOD agencies
provided most of the support and NASA participated more actively
than today. Although the atomic and molecular program grew some-
what in comparison with the total support by the Physics Division
during the past decade, the increase fell far short of the losses that
occurred because of withdrawal of DOD and other agency support.
Thus the overall size of the AMO program in the NSF still reflects the
situation when AMO physics had broadly based support, rather than
the situation today where much of the AMO research is subject to the
vagaries of mission-oriented agencies. Furthermore, the average size
of the grants has fallen far below the costs of the research.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The space missions conducted by NASA yield data whose interpre-
tation requires an understanding of the extensive range of atomic,
molecular, and optical processes that occur in atmospheric and astro-
physical environments. A new generation of instruments will soon start
to extend enormously the sensitivity and spectral range of astronomical
observations. From the proposed Shuttle Infrared Telescope Facility,
Solar Optical Telescope, 25-meter Millimeter Wave Radio Telescope,
and Space Telescope will follow a vast array of data that will create
new demands for reliable data on atomic and molecular spectra and
atomic and molecular processes. In order to exploit the full power of
these new instruments, it is essential to maintain a vigorous experi-
mental and theoretical effort to understand the underlying atomic and
molecular processes.
The panel urges NASA to recognize its responsibility to contribute
to the support of research in the basic AMO physics involved in
atmospheric and astrophysical phenomena.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
optical physics
