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
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This study is based on work supported by 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: 978-0-309-47856-4
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-47856-1
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.
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.
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.
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)
JAMES C. 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.
BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY
BARBARA V. JACAK, NAS,1 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, NAS, Stanford University
WENDY FREEDMAN, NAS, University of Chicago
TIM HECKMAN, NAS, 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
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
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 Fron-
tier” 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 who 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
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
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
2 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
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.
3 ROLE OF AN EIC WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS IN THE UNITED STATES AND INTERNATIONALLY
U.S. Nuclear Science Context for an Electron-Ion Collider
U.S. Leadership in Nuclear Science
4 ACCELERATOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND DETECTORS NEEDED FOR A U.S.-BASED ELECTRON-ION COLLIDER
Description of BNL and JLab Accelerator Concepts
Enabling Accelerator Technologies
Crab Cavity Operation in Hadron Ring
Development and Benchmarking of EIC Simulations
5 COMPARISON OF A U.S.-BASED ELECTRON-ION COLLIDER TO CURRENT AND FUTURE FACILITIES
The COMPASS Experiment at CERN
RHIC at Brookhaven National Laboratory
The RHIC Physics Program Within the Context of the EIC
Other Future Electron-Hadron Collider Proposals
The NICA Project at JINR, Dubna, Russia
6 IMPACT OF AN ELECTRON-ION COLLIDER ON OTHER FIELDS
Role of an EIC in U.S. Accelerator Science
Importance of Sustaining a Healthy U.S. Accelerator Community
EIC and Advanced Scientific Computing
Connection to Condensed Matter and Atomic Physics
Connection to High Energy Physics
