Skip to main content

From Desire to Data: How JLab’s Experimental Program Evolved Part 3: From Experimental Plans to Concrete Reality, JLab Gears Up for Research, mid-1990 through 1997

Abstract

This is the third in a three-part article describing the development of the experimental program at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, from the first dreams of incisive electromagnetic probes into the structure of the nucleus through the era in which equipment was designed and constructed and a program crafted so that the long-desired experiments could begin. These developments unfolded against the backdrop of the rise of the more bureaucratic New Big Science and the intellectual tumult that grew from increasing understanding and interest in quark-level physics. Part 3, presented here, focuses on the period from 1990 to through 1997. During this period of continued revolutionary change, laboratory personnel and would be users labored to proceed from the approved 1990 experimental equipment conceptual design report, the official blueprint for the project, to fully constructed, commissioned, operating equipment under the watchful eye of Department of Energy officials and expert reviewers. The article ends with an assessment of the actual experimental resources and results compared with the initial scientific desires that prompted the decades-long effort to bring the project to life.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. At the time, the laboratory was called the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator (CEBAF). As of 2019, the accelerator facility is still known by that name, but the laboratory is called the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility or JLab. For the sake of simplicity and clarity, the laboratory is called JLab throughout this article.

References

  1. For more on the rise of the New Big Science, see Robert Crease and Catherine Westfall, “The New Big Science,” Physics Today 69 (2016), 30–26.

  2. Catherine Westfall, “From Desire to Data: How JLab’s Experimental Program Evolved,” pt. 1, “From Vision to Dream Equipment, to the Mid-1980s,” Physics in Perspective 18, no. 3 (2016), 301–50.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. CEBAF, “CEBAF Design Report,” May 1986, Jefferson Laboratory Archives, Newport News, VA (hereafter JLA).

  4. The evolution through the time of initial plans in the early 1980s of the wish list, including the newly developed quark-level experiments, is detailed in appendices 1 and 2 of Westfall, “From Desire to Data,” pt. 1 (ref. 2).

  5. Catherine Westfall, “From Desire to Data: How JLab’s Experimental Program Evolved,” pt. 2, “The Painstaking Transition to Concrete Plans, mid-1980s to 1990,” Physics in Perspective 20, no. 1 (2018), 43–123.

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. CEBAF, “Experimental Equipment Conceptual Design Report,” 1990, CEBAF R-90-001, JLA.

  7. For more on the decision to switch to superconducting radiofrequency technology, see Westfall, “From Desire to Data,” pt. 2 (ref. 5), 322–23.

  8. During the fifteen years of operation of the accelerator, which operated first at 4 GeV and later at 6 GeV, nearly 200 experiments were conducted. In 2008 a major upgrade of the facility, which is now nearing completion, began. The upgrade will double the beam energy, add a fourth experimental hall, and provide a new suite of major experimental equipment.

  9. Sherman Fivozinsky, interview with Catherine Westfall, November 18, 1996; Bernard Mecking, interview with Catherine Westfall, March 29, 1997; and Hermann Grunder, interview with Catherine Westfall, February 12, 1997.

  10. Quote from “Report of the DOE Review Committee on the Seventh Semi-Annual Review of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility,” April 24–26, 1990, JLA, 6. Also: “Evaluation of CEBAF Equipment Plan by the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee, July 7, 1990,” JLA. The author thanks Lawrence Cardman and Brenda May for the latter document.

  11. For more information, see Westfall, “From Desire to Data,” pt. 2 (ref. 5), 62, 80.

  12. At the beginning of the project, DOE managers were mainly focused on the Total Estimated Cost (TEC), which was the cost of construction. When Admiral James Watkins became Secretary of Energy of 1989, the focus shifted to the Total Project Cost (TPC), as part of the Big Science era’s push for greater accountability for DOE projects. The difference between the TEC and the TPC at the new laboratory was significant because the accelerator was not being built at an already established laboratory. For more on how Grunder founded the laboratory, including his struggles with DOE, see Catherine Westfall, “A Tale of Two More Laboratories: Readying for Research at Fermilab and Jefferson Laboratory,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 32, no. 2 (2002), 369–407.

  13. Hermann Grunder, interview with Catherine Westfall, June 19, 1995. For more information on the beginnings of RHIC, see Robert Crease, “Recombinant Science: The Birth of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC),” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 38, no. 4 (2008), 535–68.

  14. For more information on the Virginia delegation and the founding of CEBAF, see Catherine Westfall, The Founding of CEBAF, 1979 to 1987 (Newport News, VA: Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, 1994), JLA. Text quotes from John Warner, letter to W. Henson Moore, November 26, 1990, Washington Correspondence, JLA. Also: Hermann Grunder, letter to James Decker, November 21, 1990, Director Office Budget Documents, JLA.

  15. Quotes from Grunder, interview with Westfall (ref. 9).

  16. Hermann Grunder, letter to James Decker, March 1, 1991, Washington Correspondence, JLA.

  17. CEBAF, “Semi-Annual Review, December 3–6, 1990,” JLA.

  18. Grunder, interview with Westfall (ref. 13); Hermann Grunder, “Meeting with David Hendrie, Wilmot Hess, Sherman Fivozinsky, Clarence Richardson, Dean Helms,” May 10, 1991, Washington Correspondence, JLA.

  19. The total project cost had gone from $440 to $487 million; the total estimated cost had increased by $27 million. Grunder, interview with Westfall (ref. 13).

  20. For more on this episode, see Westfall, “Two More Laboratories” (ref. 12), 401. Text quote: Grunder, interview with Westfall (ref. 13).

  21. Roy Holt later remembered that because the Argonne director refused to allow the use of Argonne letterhead, Holt worked with a graphic artist to create mock letterhead for the new laboratory “to make the letter look more official.” He also remembered that Grunder later thanked him for the letter “on more than one occasion” noting that it was “in fact crucial.” Roy Holt, personal communication, November 12, 2018.

  22. Grunder continued to struggle to obtain funding for the laboratory throughout the construction years. In addition to the constant battle for operations funding, in 1994 he faced another construction funding deferral. In his words, to solve the problem he and his staff “marched off to Congress, and we got the money.” Grunder, interview with Westfall (ref. 13). Also: Hermann Grunder, letter to David Hendrie, June 18, 1991, Washington Correspondence, JLA; letter to Dean Helms, July 15, 1991, Director’s Office Budget File, JLA; letter to John Warner, August 5, 1991, Director’s Office Budget File, JLA.

  23. CEBAF, “Semi-Annual Review, June 25–27, 1991,” JLA, and Grunder, interview with Westfall (ref. 13).

  24. Quotes from interview with Hermann Grunder, interview with Catherine Westfall, July 10, 1996, JLA. Also: John Domingo, “Experimental Equipment Overview,” Roger Carlini, “CEBAF Hall C,” Jean Mougey, “CEBAF Hall A,” and Bernhard Mecking, “CEBAF Hall B,” Semi-Annual Review, December 3–6, 1990, JLA.

  25. Quotes from interview with Grunder, interview with Westfall (ref. 9). Also: Hermann Grunder, letter to David Hendrie, May 20, 1991, Washington Correspondence; Dennis Barnes, letter to David Hendrie, October 21, 1993, Washington Correspondence; Bernhard Mecking, “CEBAF Hall B,” Semi-Annual Review, February 1–3, 1994, JLA.

  26. Bernhard Mecking, interview with Catherine Westfall, June 19, 1998, JLA.

  27. Beverly Hartline, CEBAF, “Semi-Annual Review,” February 1–3, 1994, JLA.

  28. CEBAF, “CEBAF Construction Project Acceptance Report, September 1995,” JLA.

  29. John Domingo, interview with Catherine Westfall, November 9, 1998; Roger Carlini, interview with Catherine Westfall, September 10, 1997, JLA.

  30. For more on PAC1–4 and early research planning see Westfall, “From Desire to Data,” pt. 1 (ref. 2).

  31. J. J. Auburt et al., “The Ratio of the Nucleon Structure Functions F N2 For Iron and Deuterium,” Physical Review Letters B 123 (1983), 275–78; Ashman J. et al., “A Measurement of the Spin Asymmetry and Determination of the Structure Function g1 in Deep Inelastic Muon-Proton Scattering,” Physics Letters B 206 (1988), 364. For more on the growth of interest in quark-level studies within the context of developing plans for the JLab accelerator, see Westfall, “From Desire to Data,” pt. 1 (ref. 2).

  32. Quote from “Report of the CEBAF Program Advisory Committee,” January 1992, JLA. Also, Nathan Isgur, interview with Catherine Westfall, October 22, 1998, JLA.

  33. Domingo, interview with Westfall (ref. 29).

  34. Quotes, respectively, from Larry Cardman, interview with Catherine Westfall, September 10, 1997, JLA and Domingo, interview with Westfall (ref. 29).

  35. Bradley Filippone and Larry Cardman, interview with Catherine Westfall, June 4, 2014, JLA.

  36. John Cameron, interview with Catherine Westfall, August 12, 1998.

  37. Quotes, respectively, from Mike Finn, interview with Catherine Westfall, October 19, 1998, JLA, and John Calarco, interview with Catherine Westfall, November 6, 1997, JLA.

  38. Filippone and Cardman, interview with Westfall, (ref. 35).

  39. Cameron, interview with Westfall (ref. 36).

  40. Roy Holt, interview with Catherine Westfall, July 16, 2013, JLA.

  41. Quotes from Finn, interview with Westfall (ref. 37); Calarco, interview with Westfall (ref. 37).

  42. Lawrence Cardman, “Jefferson Lab Physics Division,” in “Science and Technology 1997 Peer Review,” September 17–19, 1997, JLA.

  43. CEBAF, “Experimental Equipment Conceptual Design Report,” CEBAF R-90-001.

  44. John Domingo, “Experimental Equipment Overview,” in “CEBAF Semi-Annual Review,” February 1–3, 1994, JLA.

  45. Domingo, “Experimental Equipment Overview” (ref. 44).

  46. Quotes, respectively, from Donal Day, interview with Catherine Westfall, February 13, 1998, and Roger Carlini, interview with Catherine Westfall, September 10, 1997, JLA.

  47. Carlini, interview with Westfall (ref. 46).

  48. Domingo, interview with Westfall (ref. 29).

  49. For more information on arrangements between JLab and the University of Illinois and Argonne, see Westfall, “From Desire to Data,” pt. 2 (ref. 5), 59–60. Also: John Dirk Walecka and Lawrence Cardman, interview with Catherine Westfall, August 8, 2013, JLA.

  50. Quotes from “CEBAF Semi-Annual Review,” June 25–27, 1991, JLA. Also: “CEBAF Semi-Annual Review,” February 4–6, 1992, JLA and “CEBAF Semi-Annual Review,” February 2–4, 1993, JLA.

  51. Quotes from Carlini, interview with Westfall (ref. 46). Also: John Domingo, interview with Catherine Westfall, July 8, 1996. For more on the history of the Supercolliding Super Collider, see Michael Riordin, Lillian Hoddeson, and Adrienne Kolb, Tunnel Visions: The Rise and Fall of the Superconducting Super Collider (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015).

  52. Quotes from “CEBAF Semi-Annual Review,” February 1–3, 1994, JLA. Also: “CEBAF Semi-Annual Review,” February 1–3, 1994, JLA.

  53. Quotes from interview with Carlini, interview with Westfall (ref. 46). Also: “Semi-Annual Review of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF),” February, 1994, JLA.

  54. Interview with Harold Jackson, November 4, 1997, JLA. “Out-of-plane” refers to the measurement of one of the reaction particles out of the scattering plane (the plane defined by the incident and scattered electron trajectories). Such measurements provide new information on the nucleus and the reaction being studied through their sensitivity to elements of the reaction that are not measurable in the scattering plane.

  55. Interview with John Domingo, July 8, 1996, JLA.

  56. Interview with Roger Carlini, September 10, 1997, JLA.

  57. For more on planning and design of Hall C before 1990, see Catherine Westfall, “From Desire to Data: Part 2,” (ref. 5).

  58. Personal communication with Larry Cardman, October 17, 2014.

  59. Interview with Roger Carlini, June 15, 1998, JLA.

  60. Interview with John Cameron, August 12, 1998, JLA.

  61. Quotes, respectively, from interviews with Roger Carlini, September 10, 1997, JLA and Brad Filippone, October 20, 1997, JLA. Also: interviews with Keith Baker September 9, 1997; Donal Day, February 13, 1997; and Charles Glashausser, November 6, 1997.

  62. Quotes, respectively, from interviews with Paul Stoler, September 5, 1997, JLA; Roger Carlini, September 10, 1997, JLA; and Roy Holt, July 16, 2013, JLA.

  63. Interview with Charles Perdrisat, November 4, 1997, JLA.

  64. Interview with Larry Cardman, March 29, 1996, JLA.

  65. Interview with William Bertozzi, November 3, 1997, JLA.

  66. Quotes, respectively, from interview with William Bertozzi, November 3, 1997, JLA and John Domingo, private communication, March 12, 1999. Also: interview with Roger Carlini, June 15, 1998, JLA.

  67. Quotes, respectively, from interview with John Domingo, November 9, 1998, JLA and interview with Charles Perdrisat, November 4, 1997, JLA. Also, CEBAF, “Nuclear Physics Field Budget Request Fiscal Year 1998,” March 1996. JLA.

  68. For more on how CLAS compares with and is modeled after other large particle physics detectors, see Catherine Westfall, “Collaborating Together: The Stories of TPC, UA1, CDF, and CLAS,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 32 (2001), 163–78.

  69. Interview with Bernhard Mecking, June 19, 1998, JLA.

  70. Quotes from interview with Bernhard Mecking, June 19, 1998. Also: J. D. Walecka, “Scientific Overview,” Semi-Annual, June 25–27, 1991, JLA.

  71. Quotes from interview with Bernhard Mecking, June 19, 1998, JLA.

  72. Interview with John Price, June 17, 1998, JLA.

  73. Quotes, respectively, from interviews with Larry Weinstein, September 5, 1997, JLA and Reinhard Schumacher, September 6, 1997, JLA.

  74. Interview with Reinhard Schumacher, September 6, 1997, JLA.

  75. Bernhard Mecking, “Hall B Status,” Science and Technology Peer Review, September 17-–19, 1997, JLA.

  76. “Report of the June 14–18, 1993 Meeting of the CEBAF Program Advisory Committee,” JLA.

  77. Quotes from interview with Donald Geesaman, June 18, 2012, JLA. Also: interview with Roy Holt, July 16, 2013, JLA; “Hall C, Proposed Schedule,” June 3, 1993. The author thanks Larry Cardman for this document.

  78. Quotes from H. Jackson to R. Carlini, “Hall C Scheduling (Consensus from Snowshoe Retreat), no date. Also: “Hall C, Proposed Schedule,” June 3, 1993. The author thanks Larry Cardman for these documents.

  79. Quotes, respectively, from “Report of the January 31–February 3, 1995 Meeting of the CEBAF Advisory Committee,” JLA, and CEBAF, “Nuclear Physics Budget Request, Fiscal Year 1998,” March 1996m JLA. Also: “1995 SURA Review of CEBAF,” November 29–December 1, 1995. JLA.

  80. Quotes, respectively, from interview with Roy Holt, 2013, JLA and “Report of the January 29–31, 1996 Meeting of the CEBAF Program Advisory Committee,” JLA.

  81. “Report of the January January 29–31, 1996 Meeting of the CEBAF Program Advisory Committee,” JLA.

  82. Quotes, respectively, from “Summary of 12/9/95 EXPINT Meeting,” interview with Gerassmios Petratos, December 10, 1994, JLA; interview with Charles Glashausser, November 11, 1997, JLA; and John Domingo to Members of the CEBAF Program Advisory Committee, January 1996, JLA. The author thanks Larry Cardman for the first document.

  83. Quotes, respectively, from interview with William Bertozzi, November 3, 1997, JLA and Larry Cardman, “Jefferson Lab Physics Division,” Science and Technology 1997 Peer Review,” September 17–19, 1997, JLA. Also: CEBAF, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, “Nuclear Physics Field Budget Request Fiscal Year 1999,” April 1997.

  84. Bernhard Mecking, “Hall B Status,” Science and Technology Peer Review, September 17–19, 1997, JLA.

  85. Quotes from “CLAS Schedule,” November 1995. The author thanks Larry Cardman for this document. Also: “Report of the January 31–February 3 1995 CEBAF Program Advisory Committee,” March 6, 1995, JLA and “Recommendations on a CLAS Run Plan.” The author thanks Larry Cardman for the latter document.

  86. Quotes, respectively, from Ralph Minehart to Roy Whitney, December 19, 1995 and “Report of the January 29–31, 1996 Meeting of the CEBAF Program Advisory Committee,” April 3, 1996, JLA. The author wishes the thank Larry Cardman for the first document.

  87. Quotes from “Report of the February 3–4, 1997 Meeting of the Jefferson Lab Program Advisory Committee,” JLA. Also: Volker Burkert, “CLAS: Calibration and Commissioning Overview, Class Collaboration Meeting, Jefferson Lab, January 8–10, 1998.” The author thanks Volker Burkert for this document.

  88. Quotes, respectively, from Bernhard Mecking, “Hall B Status,” Science and Technology Peer Review, September 17–19, 1997, JLA; and Larry Cardman, “Jefferson Lab Physics Division,” Science and Technology 1997 Peer Review,” September 17–19, 1997, JLA. Also: Hermann Grunder to Members of the Jefferson Laboratory User Group, February 3, 1998, JLA.

  89. Quote from Hermann Grunder to Members of the Jefferson Lab User Group, March 1998, JLA. Also: Larry Cardman, “Jefferson Lab Physics Division,” Science and Technology 1997 Peer Review,” September 17–19, 1997, JLA.

  90. The average number of experiments was 2.3 instead of 3 because of the time required to mount major new experiments including the necessary equipment.

  91. For more on the role of J. Dirk Walecka, see Catherine Westfall, “From Desire to Data,” pt. 1 (ref. 2).

  92. C. Sinclair, P. A. Adderley, B. M. Dunhan, J.C. Hansknecht, P. Hartmann, M. Poelker, J.S. Price, P. M. Rutt, W. J. Schneider, and M. Steigerwald, “Development of a High Average Current Polarized Electron Source with Long Cathode Operational Lifetime,” Physical Review Special Topics—Accelerators and Beams 10 (2007), 023501.

  93. C. Leeman, D. Douglas, and G. Krafft, “The Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility,” Annual Review of Nuclear Particle Science 51 (2001), 413–50.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  94. Y.C. Chao, M. Drury, C. Hovater, A. Hutton, G. A. Krafft, M. Poelker, C. Reece and M. Tiefenback, “CEBAF Accelerator Achievements,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 299 (2011), 012015.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Larry Cardman, personal communication, October 8, 2018.

  96. See Jefferson Laboratory, “The Science and Experimental Equipment for the 12 GeV Upgrade of CEBAF,” Jefferson Lab internal report JLAB-R-05-01, 2005 for a summary of the science program and the experimental equipment planned for the Upgrade.

  97. Ad Hoc Panel on the Future of Nuclear Science, G. Friedlander, chair, Committee on Nuclear Science, Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Science, Future of Nuclear Science (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1977). For more on this era, see Westfall, “From Desire to Data, (ref. 1), 302–10.

  98. See https://www.jlab.org/conferences/ugm/2012/program.html). Last assessed October 6, 2018.

  99. V. Punjabi, C. F. Perdrisat, M. K. Jones, E. J. Brash, and C. E. Carlson, “The Structure of the Nucleon: Elastic Electromagnetic Form Factors,” European Physical Journal A 51 (2015), 79, and references therein.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  100. J. Volmer, et al., “Measurement of the Charged Pion Electromagnetic Form-Factor,” Physical Review Letters 86 (2001), 1713, and T. Horn, et al., “Determination of the Charged Pion Form factor at Q2 = 1.60 and 2.45 (GeV/c)2,” Physical Review Letters 97 (2006), 192001.

  101. A. Acha, et al., “Precision Measurements of the Nucleon Strange Form Factors at Q2 ~ 0.1 GeV2,” Physical Review Letters 98 (2007), 032301; K. A. Aniol et al., “Parity-Violating Electron Scattering from 4He and the Strange Electric Form Factor of the Nucleon,” Physical Review Letters 96 (2006), 022003; K. A. Aniol, et al., “Constraints on the Nucleon Strange Form Factors at Q2 ~ 0.1 GeV2,” Physics Letters B 635 (2006), 275; K. A. Aniol, et al., “Parity-Violating Electron Scattering from 4He and the Strange Electric Form Factor of the Nucleon,” Physical Review Letters 96 (2006), 022003; Z. Ahmed et al., “New Precision Limit on the Strange Vector Form Factors of the Proton,” Physical Review Letters 108 (2012),102001; and D. S. Armstrong, et al. “Strange Quark Contributions to Parity-Violating Asymmetries in the Forward G0 Electron-Proton Scattering Experiment,” Physical Review Letters 95 (2005), 092001.

  102. G. D. Cates, C. W. de Jager, S. Riordan, and B. Wojtsekhowski, “Flavor Decomposition of the Elastic Nucleon Electromagnetic Form Factors,” Physical Review Letters 106 (2010), 252003.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  103. A. Deur, S. J. Brodsky, and G. F. de Téramond, “The QCD Running Coupling,” Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 90, 74 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. See Particle Data Group, “Review of Particle Physics, M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group),” Physical Review D 98 (2018), 030001, and references therein to earlier annual reviews by the particle data group.

  105. See, for example, V. V. Frolov, et al. “Electroproduction of the Δ(1232) Resonance at High Momentum Transfer,” Physical Review Letters 82 (1999), 45–48, and K. Joo, et al., “Q2 Dependence of Quadrupole Strength in the \(^{*} p \to^{ + } \left( {1232} \right) \to p^{0}\) Transition,” Physical Revi. ew Letters 88 (2002), 122001.

  106. S. Stepanyan et al., “Observation of Exclusive Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering in Polarized Electron Beam Asymmetry Measurements,” Physical Review Letters 87 (2001), 182002, and C. Muñoz Camacho et al., “Scaling Tests of the Cross-Section for Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering,” Physical Review Letters 97 (2006), 262002.

  107. L. E. Marcucci et al., “Electromagnetic Structure of Few-Nucleon Ground States,” Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 43 (2016), 023002, and references therein.

  108. C. Bochna et al., “Measurements of Deuteron Photodisintegration up to 4.0 GeV,” Physical Review Letters 81 (1998), 4576–79.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  109. S. Nakamura, T. Gogami, and L. Tang, “Spectroscopic Study of Λ Hypernuclei with Electron Beams at Jefferson Lab,” Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Hypernuclear and Strange Particle Physics, JPS Conference Proceedings 17 (2017), 011002, and references therein.

  110. S. Abrahamyan et al., “Measurement of the Neutron Radius of 208Pb Through Parity-Violation in Electron Scattering,” Physical Review Letters 108 (2012), 112502.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  111. For information on how early EMC experiments aided JLab recruitment see Catherine Westfall, “From Desire to Data, Part 1” (ref. 2), 324–25.

  112. C. Seely, A. Daniel, et al., “New Measurements of the European Muon Collaboration Effect in Very Light Nuclei,” Physical Review Letters 103 (2009), 202301.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  113. K. S. Egiyan et al., “Measurement of 2- and 3-Nucleon Short Range Correlation Probabilities in Nuclei,” Physical Review Letters 96 (2006), 082501; N. Fomin, et al, “New Measurements of High-Momentum Nucleons and Short-Range Structures in Nuclei,” Physical Review Letters 108 (2012), 092502; and R. Subedi, et al., “Probing Cold Dense Nuclear Matter,” Science 320 (2008), 1476–78.

  114. L. Weinstein et al., “Short Range Correlations and the EMC Effect,” Physical Review Letters 106 (2011), 052301.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  115. Xiaochao Zheng et al., “Measurement of Parity Violation in Electron–Quark Scattering,” Nature 506 (2014), 67–70.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  116. D. Androic et al., “Precision Measurement of the Weak Charge of the Proton,” Nature 557, (2018), 207–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. I. Larin et al., “A New Measurement of the π 0 Radiative Decay Width,” Physical Review Letters 106 (2011), 162303.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  118. Particle Data Group, “Review of Particle Physics” (ref. 104).

  119. For more on how Grunder successfully switched to a superconducting radiofrequency design see Westfall, “From Desire to Data, Part 1,” (ref. 2), 322–31.

  120. Larry Cardman, personal communication, February 12, 2018.

  121. For more on the Barnes Subcommittee, the Bromley Panel and the deliberations and planning considerations of the time, see Westfall, “From Desire to Data, Part 1” (ref. 2), 310–16.

  122. Leemann, Douglas, and Krafft, “Continuous Electron Beam” (ref. 93).

  123. Leemann, Douglas, and Krafft, “Continuous Electron Beam” (ref. 93).

  124. Jefferson Laboratory, “Science and Experimental Equipment” (ref. 96).

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article was written for Jefferson Science Associates, LLC under US DOE Contract no. DE-AC05-06OR23177. The author received support for the interviews conducted in 2012 and thereafter from a grant-in-aid from the Friends for the Center for the History of Physics, American Institute of Physics. Earlier interviews were supported by Jefferson Science Associates. The US Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce this manuscript for US Government purposes. The author wishes to thank Roy Holt and Bernhard Mecking for technical assistance. She also wishes to thank Joe Martin, Richard Staley, and other members of the Physics in Perspective staff for patient and astute editorial help. In particular, she wants to express her deep appreciation to Lawrence Cardman for advice, technical information, and the nonstop support which made this history project possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Westfall.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Catherine Westfall, a professor at Michigan State University, has written numerous publications on the history of national laboratories including co-authored books on the developments of the first atomic bombs at Los Alamos and the history of Fermilab. Her current research topic is the New Big Science.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Evolution of the Science Motivation from Early Discussions in the mid-1970s through the Experimental Equipment Conceptual Design Report and the Number of Experiments in each Physics Topic Actually Run

This table shows the wish lists from the early advisory committees that stimulated plans for JLab; the 1982 Southeastern Universities Research Association proposal that obtained initial funding for JLab; JLab’s first program advisory committee; and the 1990 DOE-approved experimental equipment conceptual design report that was used as a guide to develop the laboratory’s initial complement of experimental equipment. Then the last column shows the number of experiments run over the operation of the original facility. For simplification the physics topic and experiment type in which the actual experiments are listed is based on the primary motivation provided in the experiment proposal (for many of the experiments the results were relevant to more than one category). Note also that a few rows were added to the version of this table in the earlier publications of this series in order to more correctly reflect the physics topics and experiment types covered by the full suite of experiments run.

Physics Topic

Experiment Type

Physics Description

1975 NRC*

1977 Livingston

1979 LRP

1981 Blue Book

1982 Barnes

1982 SURA Proposal

1987 PAC1

1990 Expt. Equip CDR

# of Expts. in the full 6 GeV Program

I. Nucleon Structure

          

  A. Elastic scattering (e,e) from free nucleons

To measure the charge and current distributions of the nucleon (both polarization transfer technique and Rosenbluth) as a key ingredient for nuclear theory and, in particular, comparison of nuclear models with precise electron scattering data

A, C

2

II. The QCD Structure of the Hadrons

          

  A. Elastic scattering from hadrons

   

~✓ a

A, B, C

 

   1. Elastic scattering (e,e) from hadrons

To measure the charge and current distributions (both polarization transfer technique and Rosenbluth) as fundamental tests of QCD calculations of the hadrons

        

13

   2. Photon scattering from hadrons

Compton scattering, Virtual Compton Scattering, and Deeply Virtual Compton scattering to determine the 3D structure of the hadrons and their spin structure as tests of QCD

        

7

  B. Photon-excitation (γt,x) of the hadrons

Excited state structure of the nucleon as a testing ground for QCD descriptions of the nucleon

    

~✓ b

B

14

  C. Electro-excitation (e,e’x) of the hadrons

Excited state structure of the nucleon as a testing ground for QCD descriptions of the nucleon, with additional information from transition densities and differing multipole sensitivities

      

B

25

  D. DIS from quarks in free hadrons

          

   1. Measure PDFs

Measure PDFs (spin independent and spin dependent and their integrals) to test QCD calculations of hadron structure

        

6

   2. 3D Imaging (GPDs and TMDs)

Exclusive [e.g. (e,e’γ)] and semi-inclusive [e.g. meson production] reactions in the DIS regime to enable 3D imaging of the nucleon’s quark structure in coordinate and momentum space through determination of generalized parton distributions (GPDs) and Transverse Momentum Dependent parton Distributions (TMDs)

        

6

   3. Explore Duality

To explore duality of the partonic and hadronic descriptions of strong interaction physics

        

9

  E. Parity violating elastic scattering from nucleons

To measure the weak neutral currents (WNC) of the nucleon, and then to study the strangeness content of the nucleon

   

WNC only

WNC only

 

C

7

  F. Other tests of QCD

Experiments testing the predictions of QCD that are broadly different from the thrusts of the categories above

        

21

III. Nuclear Structure

          

  A. Elastic scattering (e,e)

          

   1. From few-body nuclei

Tests of ab initio nuclear theory based on hadronic degrees of freedom (including meson and relativistic effects) searching for the limits of the applicability of that theory and the onset of quark degrees of freedom

A, C

5

   2. From complex nuclei

Measurements of the nuclear charge and current densities as tests of other approaches to nuclear structure calculations (beyond ab initio, which is applicable only to light nuclei). More generally, the goal is to explore the limits of a hadronic description of nuclei

   

0

  B. Inelastic scattering (e,e’) and electro-production (e,x) or photo-production (γ,x)

          

   1. From few-body nuclei

Searching for exchange currents and for the limits of applicability of traditional nuclear theory and the onset of quark degrees of freedom in nuclei

A, B, C

9

   2. From discrete and continuum states in nuclei

Nuclear Structure (discrete states)—as tests of other approaches to nuclear structure calculations (beyond ab initio, which is applicable only to light nuclei)

   

2

  C. Inelastic scattering (e,ex)

          

   1. From continuum states in nuclei

Nuclear Structure (Giant resonances)

  

  

0

   2. (e,ep) from nuclei

“Classical” (e,ep) to study nuclei “shell by shell”

A, B

9

   3. (e,e’2N) from nuclei

To study N-N correlations more directly

B

2

  D. DIS from quarks in nucleons in nuclei

To measure N-N correlations without FSI

      

 

3

  E. Parity Violating Electron Scattering

Determination of the weak neutral current structure of nuclei and study of the neutron distribution

 

Hints

Hints

 

Hints

 

Cc:

2

  F. Photo- (or electro-) production of hypernuclei

Nuclear structure with strangeness providing both access to deep hole states and complementary information (from comparing Λ-N to N-N) on the origins and character of the N-N force (complementary to traditional pion production)

 

C

9

IV. The QCD Structure of Nuclei

          

  A. Elastic Scattering from few-body nuclei

Searching explicitly for the limits of ab initio nuclear theory (including relativistic and meson effects) and the onset of quark degrees of freedom

   

A

2

  B. Inelastic Scattering from and photo-disintegration of few-body nuclei

Searching for the onset of quark degrees of freedom in nuclei

   

A, C

11

  C. DIS from quarks in nucleons in nuclei

A window on the quark substructure of complex nuclei from the observation of deviations from single nucleon additivity (EMC effect, etc.).

    

 

 

5

  D. Elastic scattering (e,ep) from nucleons in nuclei

To examine differences between free nucleons and nucleons in the nuclear medium

      

B, C

6

  E. Photo and electro-production of vector mesons and baryons off nuclei

Electro- and photoproduction of ρ, ω, ϕ and other mesons with polarized electron beams can extend our knowledge of the spin properties of vector meson couplings to nucleons and to understand shadowing, exchange currents, and the short range N-N force.

   

B, C

8

  F. Photo-and electro-production of ∆ and N* off nuclei (more generally, of mesons and baryon resonances)

Focused on the nucleon excitations as components of the nuclear wave function important at high Q, for nuclear forces, and for an eventual quark-gluon description of nuclear structure.

d

 

 

B, C

5

V. Standard Model Tests

          

  A. Parity violating (e,e)

Searches for parity violating amplitudes in high q elastic electron scattering on nuclei test modem theories of the weak interaction.

  

e

C f

2

VI. The Electromagnetic Interactions

          

  A. Tests of our understanding of the Electromagnetic Interactions

Experiments aimed at quantifying the precision and interpretability of the electromagnetic interaction, such as e+/e comparisons and measurements of first-order forbidden processes

        

5

  1. NB: the A, B, and C in the column for the 1990 experimental equipment conceptual design report refer to the hall(s) in which the equipment planned included the physics topic and experiment type
  2. Notes:
  3. a. Mentioned, but no detailed experiments identified
  4. b. Mentioned, but not encouraged
  5. c. Hints of future studies with STAR (not built)
  6. d. But not aimed toward understanding QCD
  7. e. But identified as second generation experiments
  8. f. But not built

Appendix 2: Early JLab Experiment Status as Presented at the 1997 Science and Technology Peer Review

Expt. #

Experiment Title

Spokesperson

Science Category*

Start Date

Complete Date

1st Results Presented

1st Pub.

Hall C

 E-91-013

Energy Dependence of N Propagation in Nuclei in (e,ep)

D. Geesaman

IV.D

11/95

5/96

5/96

10/97

 E-89-012

Two-Body Photodisintegration of the Deuteron at Forward Angles and Photon Energies between 1.5 and 4.0 GeV

R. Holt

III.B.1

2/96

4/96

5/96

12/97

E89-008

Inclusive Scattering from Nuclei at x > 1 and High Q2

B. Fillipone

IV.C

7/96

8/96

4/97

11/97

 E91-016

Electroproduction of Ks and Light Hypernuclei

B. Zeidman

III.F

8/96

9/96

10/97

 

 E-93-018

L/T separation in p(e,eK+)

O. K. Baker

II.A.1

10/96

11/96

4/97

12/97

 E-94-014

Delta Form Factor at High Momentum Transfer

J. Napolitano/P. Stoler

II.C

11/96

12/96

10/97

12/97

 E94-018

T20 from D(e,ed)

E. Biese/S. Kox

III.A.1

4/97

9/97

10/97

 

 E93-021

Charged Pion Form Factor

D. J. Mack

II.A.1

11/97

   

Hall A

 E89-003

Study of Quasielastic (e,ep) Reactions in 16O at High Recoil Momenta

A. Saha/W. Bertozzi

III.C.2

5/97

8/97

10/97

 

 E89-033

Measurement of Recoil Polarization in the 16O (e,ep) Reaction with 2.4 GeV Electrons

C. Glashausser

III.C.2

7/97

8/97

10/97

 

 E91-026

Measurement of the Electric and Magnetic Structure Functions of Deuterons at Large Momentum Transfers

G. Petratos

IV.A

10/97

   

 E91-010

Parity Violation in Elastic Scattering from the Proton and 4He

P. Souder

II.E

12/97

   

Hall B (In commissioning phase)

 e1 run group**

N* Excitations at High Q2

V. Burkert

II.C

12/97

   
  1. * See appendix 1 for science category definitions
  2. ** The e1 run group had begun experiment-specific commissioning and data taking

Appendix 3: The 25 Most-Cited Jefferson Lab Experimental Publications*

Citation Rank

Reference

Science Categorya

\(\vec{\varvec{e}}\) Usedb

1

M. K. Jones et al., “GEp/GMp Ratio by Polarization Rransfer in \(\vec{e}p \to e\vec{p}\),” Physical Review Letters84 (2000), 1398.

II.A.1

2

O. Gayou et al., “Measurement of GEp/GMp in \(\vec{e}p \to e\vec{p}\),” to Q2 = 5.6-GeV2,” Physical Review Letters88 (2002), 092301.

II.A.1

3

S. Stepanyan et al., “Observation of an Exotic S = +1 Baryon in Exclusive Photoproduction from the Deuteron,” Physical Review Letters91 (2003), 252001.

II.B

 

4

V. Punjabi et al., “Proton Elastic Form-Factor Ratios to Q2 = 3.5-GeV2 by Polarization Transfer,” Physical Review C71 (2005), 055202; Erratum: Physical Review C71 (2005), 069902.

II.A.1

5

V. Kubarovsky et al., “Observation of an Exotic Baryon with S = +1 in Photoproduction from the Proton,” Physical Review Letters92 (2004), 032001; Erratum: Physical Review Letters92 (2004), 049902.

II.B

 

6

S. Stepanyan et al., “Observation of Exclusive Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering in Polarized Electron Beam Asymmetry Measurements,” Physical Review Letters87 (2001), 182002.

II.A.2

7

J. Volmer et al., “Measurement of the Charged Pion Electromagnetic Form-Factor,” Physical Review Letters86 (2001), 1713.

II.A.1

 

8

R. Bradford et al., “Differential Cross Sections for \(\gamma p \to K^{ + } + Y\) for Λ and Σ0 Hyperons,” Physical Review C73 (2006), 035202.

II.B

 

9

O. Gayou et al., “Measurements of the Elastic Electromagnetic Form-Factor Ratio µpGEp/GMp via Polarization Transfer,” Physical Review C64 (2001), 038202.

II.A.1

10

D. S. Armstrong et al., “Strange Quark Contributions to Parity-Violating Asymmetries in the Forward G0 Electron-Proton Scattering Experiment,” Physical Review Letters95 (2005), 092001.

II.E

✓, P

11

I. A. Qattan et al., “Precision Rosenbluth Measurement of the Proton Elastic Form-Factors,” Physical Review Letters94 (2005), 142301.

II.A.1

 

12

S. Abrahamyan et al., “Measurement of the Neutron Radius of 208Pb through Parity-Violation in Electron Scattering,” Physical Review Letters108 (2012), 112502.

III.E

✓, P

13

R. Subedi et al., “Probing Cold Dense Nuclear Matter,” Science320 (2008), 1476.

III.C.3

 

14

A. Acha et al., “Precision Measurements of the Nucleon Strange form factors at Q2 ~ 0.1 GeV2,” Physical Review Letters98 (2007), 032301.

II.E

✓, P

15

S. Abrahamyan et al., “Search for a new gauge boson in electron-nucleus fixed-target scattering by the APEX experiment,” Physical Review Letters107 (2011), 191804.

V

 

16

A.J.R. Puckett et al. “Recoil Polarization Measurements of the Proton Electromagnetic Form Factor Ratio to Q2 = 8.5 GeV2,” Physical Review Letters104 (2010), 242301.

II.A.1

17

M.E. Christy et al., “Measurements of Electron Proton Elastic Cross-Sections for 0.4 < Q2 < 5.5 (GeV/c)2,” Physical Review C70 (2004), 015206.

II.A.1

 

18

I. Passchier et al., “The Charge Form-Factor of the Neutron from the Reaction 2\(\vec{H}\left( {\vec{e},e^{\prime}n} \right)p\),” Physical Review Letters82 (1999), 4988.

II.A.1

19

T. Horn et al., “Determination of the Charged Pion Form Factor at Q2 = 1.60 and 2.45 (GeV/c)2,” Physical Review Letters97 (2006), 192001.

II.A.1

 

20

K. Joo et al., “Q2 Dependence of Quadrupole Strength in the \(^{*} p \to^{ + } \left( {1232} \right) \to p^{0}\) Transition,” Physical Review Letters88 (2002), 122001.

II.C

 

21

T. Eden et al., “Electric Form Factor of the Neutron from the \({}_{{}}^{2} H(\vec{e},e'\vec{n}){}_{{}}^{1} H\) Reaction at 0.255 (GeV/c),” Physical Review C50 (1994), 1749.

II.A.1

22

V. V. Frolov et al. “Electroproduction of the Δ (1232) Resonance at High Momentum Transfer,” Physical Review Letters82 (1999), 45.

II.C

 

23

C. Muñoz Camacho et al., “Scaling Rests of the Cross-Section for Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering,” Physical Review Letters97 (2006), 262002.

II.A.2

24

I. G. Aznauryan et al., “Electroexcitation of Nucleon Resonances from CLAS Data on Single Pion Electroproduction,” Physical Review C80 (2009), 055203.

II.C

 

25

K. S. Egiyan et al., “Measurement of 2- and 3-Nucleon Short Range Correlation Probabilities in Nuclei,” Physical Review Letters96 (2006), 082501.

III.D

 
  1. * Note: this list was assembled using the citations taken from Inspire-HEP database (https://inspirehep.net/) on September 22, 2018. To focus on experiments carried out at Jefferson Lab, citations of papers that included Jefferson Lab authors but were not directly reporting Jefferson Lab experiments (review papers, such as the Particle Data Group annual publications, theory papers, and papers presenting experimental equipment or accelerator details) have been omitted
  2. a The Science Categories are defined in appendix 1
  3. b A ✓ indicates that polarized electron beam was used for the work reported, and a P indicates that the beam had to be parity quality (meaning that its properties were remarkably stable independent of the helicity state of the electrons

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Westfall, C. From Desire to Data: How JLab’s Experimental Program Evolved Part 3: From Experimental Plans to Concrete Reality, JLab Gears Up for Research, mid-1990 through 1997. Phys. Perspect. 21, 108–159 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-019-00238-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-019-00238-9

Keywords

  • Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
  • Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility
  • New Big Science
  • US National Laboratories
  • nuclear physics