National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. An Assessment of U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25171.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. An Assessment of U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25171.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. An Assessment of U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25171.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. An Assessment of U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25171.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. An Assessment of U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25171.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. An Assessment of U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25171.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. An Assessment of U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25171.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. An Assessment of U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25171.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. An Assessment of U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25171.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. An Assessment of U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25171.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. An Assessment of U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25171.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. An Assessment of U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25171.
×
Page R12

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION An Assessment of U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science Committee on U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science Assessment Board on Physics and Astronomy Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences A Consensus Study Report of PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This study is based on work supported by the Contract No. DE-SC0016037 with the Department of Energy. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. government. Neither the U.S. government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. government or any agency thereof. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any agency or organization that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25171 Copies of this report are available free of charge from: Board on Physics and Astronomy National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. An Assessment of U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25171 PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

COMMITTEE ON U.S.-BASED ELECTRON-ION COLLIDER SCIENCE ASSESSMENT GORDON BAYM, NAS,1 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Co-Chair ANI APRAHAMIAN, University of Notre Dame, Co-Chair CHRISTINE AIDALA, University of Michigan PETER BRAUN-MUNZINGER, GSI, Germany HAIYAN GAO, Duke University KAWTAR HAFIDI, Argonne National Laboratory WICK HAXTON, NAS, University of California, Berkeley JOHN JOWETT, CERN LARRY MCLERRAN, University of Washington LIA MERMINGA, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory ZEIN-EDDINE MEZIANI, Temple University RICHARD MILNER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology THOMAS SCHAEFER, North Carolina State University ERNST SICHTERMANN, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory MICHAEL TURNER, NAS, University of Chicago Staff DAVID B. LANG, Study Director (until January 2018) JIM LANCASTER, Director, Board on Physics and Astronomy CHRISTOPHER J. JONES, Study Director (from January 2018) ANDREA PETERSON, Program Officer (until August 2017) NEERAJ GORKHALY, Associate Program Officer HENRY KO, Research Associate LINDA WALKER, Program Coordinator BETH DOLAN, Financial Associate 1 Member, National Academy of Sciences. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION v

BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY BARBARA V. JACAK, NAS, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Chair ABRAHAM LOEB, Harvard University, Vice Chair LOUIS DIMAURO, The Ohio State University FRANCIS J. DISALVO, NAS, Cornell University NATHANIEL J. FISCH, Princeton University DANIEL FISHER, Stanford University WENDY FREEDMAN, NAS, University of Chicago TIM HECKMAN, Johns Hopkins University WENDELL T. HILL III, University of Maryland ALAN J. HURD, Los Alamos National Laboratory BARBARA JONES, IBM Almaden Research Center ANDREW LANKFORD, University of California at Irvine LYMAN A. PAGE, JR., NAS, Princeton University STEVEN M. RITZ, University of California, Santa Cruz Staff JAMES C. LANCASTER, Director DONALD C. SHAPERO, Senior Scholar DAVID B. LANG, Senior Program Officer (until May 2018) CHRISTOPHER J. JONES, Program Officer (from November 2017) NEERAJ GORKHALY, Associate Program Officer LINDA WALKER, Program Coordinator HENRY KO, Research Assistant BETH DOLAN, Financial Associate PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vi

Preface The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened the Committee on U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science Assessment to assess the merits and significance of the science that could be addressed by an electron-ion collider (EIC), and its importance to nuclear physics in particular and to the physical sciences in general. The principal goals of the study were to evaluate the significance of the science that would be enabled by the construction of an EIC, its benefits to U.S. leadership in nuclear physics, and the benefits to other fields of science of a U.S.-based EIC. The science assessment included the special role of the structure of the nucleon in the broader context of nuclear science and the study of nuclei as the “heart” of matter. The complete statement of task is presented in Appendix A. The committee was composed of experts from universities and national laboratories in the United States and Europe. The committee consisted mainly of nuclear physics experts but also included experts in other disciplines. Biographical information for the committee members is listed in Appendix B. The committee met four times in person during the 2017 calendar year. The first and fourth meetings took place in Washington, DC, on February 1-2 and November 27-28, respectively. The second meeting took place in Irvine, California, on April 17-18, and a third meeting took place in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, on September 11-12. The committee invited and heard from scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe in order to evaluate the international context of construction of an EIC as well as an evaluation of the most compelling science questions. The committee heard from the EIC users group regarding the white paper “The Next QCD Frontier” and a community report on the research and development thrusts to achieve the necessary conditions in addressing the most important science questions of an EIC. Presentations from the Nuclear Physics Long Range Planning report informed the committee of the broader context of an EIC in the community. Several presentations to the committee specifically addressed the challenges and necessary innovations in accelerator science needed for constructing an EIC capable of addressing the most important science questions. The federal agencies that support nuclear physics research also briefed the committee and gave their perspectives. The committee thanks all presenters and attendees that met and provided all the information necessary for its deliberations. The co-chairs of the committee are most grateful to the committee members for their willingness to participate in this EIC science assessment, devoting many hours to meeting, discussing, preparing, and finally writing this report. The co-chairs also thank the National Academies staff members for their guidance and their assistance. Gordon Baym, Co-Chair Ani Aprahamian, Co-Chair Committee on U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science Assessment PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vii

Acknowledgment of Reviewers This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Halina Abramowicz, Tel Aviv University, Jean-Paul Blaizot, CEA Saclay, Larry Cardman, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Donald Geesaman, Argonne National Laboratory, Xiangdong Ji, Shanghai Jiao Tong University/Peking University, David Kaplan, NAS,1 University of Washington, Chuck Shank, NAS/NAE,2 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and Robert Tribble, Brookhaven National Laboratory. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Arden L. Bement, NAE, Purdue University. He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. 1 Member, National Academy of Sciences. 2 Member, National Academy of Engineering. PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION ix

Contents SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 5 Electron-Ion Collider, 5 Context, 8 Science Opportunities, 13 How Does the Mass of the Nucleon Arise?, 14 How Does the Spin of the Nucleon Arise?, 14 What Are the Emergent Properties of Dense Systems of Gluons?, 15 Accelerator Technology, 16 2 THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR AN ELECTRON-ION COLLIDER 18 The Origin of Mass, 18 Imaging Quarks and Gluons, 21 3D Imaging in Momentum, 24 The Origin of Spin, 25 Gluon Spin and Orbital Angular Momentum, 25 Transverse Motion in Polarized Nucleons, 26 Gluons in Nuclei, 28 3 ROLE OF AN EIC WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS IN THE UNITED STATES AND INTERNATIONALLY 35 Introduction, 35 U.S. Nuclear Science Context for an Electron-Ion Collider, 35 U.S. Leadership in Nuclear Science, 37 4 ACCELERATOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND DETECTORS NEEDED FOR A U.S.-BASED ELECTRON-ION COLLIDER 41 Introduction, 41 Description of BNL and JLab Accelerator Concepts, 42 The eRHIC Conceptual Design, 42 The JLEIC Conceptual Design, 47 Enabling Accelerator Technologies, 50 Magnet Technologies, 51 Strong Hadron Beam Cooling, 52 Energy Recovery Linacs, 54 Crab Cavity Operation in Hadron Ring, 57 Polarized 3He Source, 58 Development and Benchmarking of EIC Simulations, 59 Detector Technologies, 59 PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xi

5 COMPARISON OF A U.S.-BASED ELECTRON-ION COLLIDER TO CURRENT AND FUTURE FACILITIES 62 Introduction, 62 HERA at DESY, 62 CEBAF at JLab, 64 The COMPASS Experiment at CERN, 67 RHIC at Brookhaven National Laboratory, 68 RHIC Collider, 68 The RHIC Physics Program Within the Context of the EIC, 69 LHC at CERN, 71 Other Future Electron-Hadron Collider Proposals, 73 LHeC, 73 Status of the LHeC Proposal, 75 HE-LHC-he, 75 FCC-he, 76 Electron-Positron Colliders, 76 Related Nuclear Physics Facilities, 76 FAIR at GSI, 77 HIAF and an EIC in China, 77 J-PARC, 77 The NICA Project at JINR, Dubna, Russia, 78 6 IMPACT OF AN ELECTRON-ION COLLIDER ON OTHER FIELDS 79 Role of EIC in U.S. Accelerator Science, 79 Specific Benefits of EIC R&D, 79 Workforce, 82 Importance of Sustaining a Healthy U.S. Accelerator Community, 83 EIC and Advanced Scientific Computing, 84 Lattice QCD, 85 Connection to Condensed Matter and Atomic Physics, 86 Connection to High Energy Physics, 86 Connection to Astrophysics, 87 7 CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS 89 APPENDIXES A Statement of Task 95 B Committee and Staff Biographical Information 96 C Acronyms 100 PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xii

Next: Summary »
An Assessment of U.S.-Based Electron-Ion Collider Science Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Understanding of protons and neutrons, or “nucleons”—the building blocks of atomic nuclei—has advanced dramatically, both theoretically and experimentally, in the past half century. A central goal of modern nuclear physics is to understand the structure of the proton and neutron directly from the dynamics of their quarks and gluons governed by the theory of their interactions, quantum chromodynamics (QCD), and how nuclear interactions between protons and neutrons emerge from these dynamics. With deeper understanding of the quark-gluon structure of matter, scientists are poised to reach a deeper picture of these building blocks, and atomic nuclei themselves, as collective many-body systems with new emergent behavior.

The development of a U.S. domestic electron-ion collider (EIC) facility has the potential to answer questions that are central to completing an understanding of atoms and integral to the agenda of nuclear physics today. This study assesses the merits and significance of the science that could be addressed by an EIC, and its importance to nuclear physics in particular and to the physical sciences in general. It evaluates the significance of the science that would be enabled by the construction of an EIC, its benefits to U.S. leadership in nuclear physics, and the benefits to other fields of science of a U.S.-based EIC.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!