The following summary of the Arlington workshop was posted by George Gollin.
Dear LC colleagues,
Here is a far-from-complete description of events at the Arlington Linear
Collider Workshop. Since much of the content relating to physics and
technology can be found on the workshop web site
(http://alcworkshop.uta.edu/ ), I'll concentrate on other matters. (A sense
of the work presented at the workshop is best found through perusal of the
workshop web site.)
The next ALCPG meeting will be held at Cornell, July 13-16. Please attend!
(Also recall that our continental meetings concerning physics, technology,
and accelerator issues will begin in February.)
*** Intro ***
The Arlington Linear Collider Workshop took place January 9-11 at UT
Arlington. The meeting was very productive and flawlessly organized. There
were plenary and parallel session talks concerning technical and
organizational matters as well as a town meeting discussion. Peter Rosen
from the Department of Energy was present at the town meeting and then
discussed Linear Collider issues from the perspective of DOE in a
presentation the following afternoon. UCLC and LCRD organizers at the
workshop met with the US Linear Collider Steering Committee (chaired by
Jonathan Dorfan) Friday evening.
*** Getting started in spite of budget uncertainties ***
There were about eighty detector and accelerator R&D topics discussed in
parallel session talks. Somewhat more than half described R&D efforts which
are now underway at universities, in spite of delays in LCRD/UCLC funding.
This is a good thing!
During the UCLC/LCRD organizers' discussion with the US LC Steering
Committee, Dave Burke expressed the hope that a number of university groups
could be expected to have results to present at the ALCPG meeting in Cornell
in July, in spite of the continuing uncertainty in the arrival date for R&D
Some university groups may find that their R&D efforts involve
instrumentation and other resources which can be borrowed from Fermilab.
Slawek Tkaczyk ([log in to unmask]) and Gene Fisk ([log in to unmask]) will be
managing this: please contact them to discuss how they can help you get
*** Federal budget and the cap on LC expenditures ***
The sixth continuing resolution (which runs through Jan. 31) is presently
providing operating funds for the government since we still do not have a
The cap on LC spending is still in place. It sounds like the cap is a matter
for OMB and DOE to sort out, though advice from congress could play a
positive role in removing the cap.
The version of the budget put forward by the House asks that OMB and DOE
discuss removal of the cap. The senate version does not mention the cap.
My (George's) understanding is that DOE feels it cannot release accelerator
R&D money until the cap is lifted, and cannot release detector R&D funding
until the federal budget is ready.
During the town meeting, Peter Rosen was asked why DOE appears unwilling to
fund university R&D efforts directed towards TESLA. He said that it was
related to the existence of the funding cap on LC work. When asked if the
elimination of the cap would change the DOE's position with respect to TESLA
R&D, he said that they would be willing to consider supporting TESLA R&D.
(Please take note of the word "consider" in the previous sentence.)
Ritchie Patterson showed some slides, provided by Jim Whitmore, on the
status of NSF funding for the UCLC proposal. The proposal is currently in
the review process. Depending on the final outcome of the legislation for
the FY2003 budget, the NSF hopes to be able to provide some support for LC
R&D in FY2003.
Jim Siegrist described an initiative that he and Bill Carrithers will lead
to bring the case for federal support of the physical sciences to the public
and congress. Rather than arguing on behalf of the narrower interests of
high energy physics, this effort will advocate increased investment in the
broad spectrum of physical sciences pursued by domestic researchers. This is
very important, and not something that we, as a field, have done well in the
*** UCLC/LCRD organizers' discussions with the US LC Steering Committee ***
We discussed some general points concerning funding, the review process for
future years' proposals, and the nature of the LC funding cap. We also
learned more about the nature of efforts to advocate federal support for the
LC which are curfrently being considered. The general direction being
discussed involves participation in vigorous campaigning for a large
increase in funding for the physical sciences. Representative Judy Biggert
(Republican, IL; ANL is in her district) has proposed legislation which
would increase federal support for the Department of Energy's Office of
by 60% over the course of 4 years.
The subject of better communication between the US LC Steering Committee and
the HEP community was also discussed. The Steering Committee intends to make
use of its recently assembled web pages to disseminate information about
planning and strategies, to a greater extent than has been possible in the
*** We are so photogenic that we should all be movie stars ***
Take a look at photographs from the workshop, to be found at
George (for the UCLC and LCRD coordinators)