****************************************************************** To what follows: During DIS09 at Madrid the SAC met. They agreed to send a statement to the steering group, based on contributions written by Aharon Levy, Guido Altarelli, John Dainton and Tony Thomas. Allen had received 3(4) and upon my request has sent now (2.11.09) these 3 statements to me as he did not manage to combine these to one SAC statement, for which he apologised. The 3 mails are of some interest, and are listed below. Tony Thomas mentioned a WG9 meeting in August, to which we could have contributed had we known his statement in due time. MK 9/11/2009 ******************************************************************* ***** mails by Max to Allen and Allen to SAC members present ******* From: Max Klein Date: May 1, 2009 10:44:55 AM GMT+02:00 To: Allen Caldwell Subject: files Dear Allen The slides of my panel talk are here: http://hep.ph.liv.ac.uk/~mklein/lhec/panelmklhec.pdf The slides shown at the SAC meeting are here http://www.ifh.de/~klein/sacdis09.pdf best regards Max On Sat, 2 May 2009, Allen Caldwell wrote: Dear Colleagues, You will find the links to Max's talk below. #I remind you that we ended up with the following assignments: - review structure of CDR (Guido, Aharon) - statement on importance for LHeC to appear on CERN roadmap (John) - statement on relation of nuclear community to LHeC (Tony) Please send me your section by the end of next week. #I will take care of editing the report of the SAC and sending it around to other members of the committee. Best Regards, Allen ****** mail by Aharon Levy ******************************************* From: Aharon Levy Date: May 11, 2009 10:26:36 AM GMT+02:00 To: Allen Caldwell Cc: Altarelli Guido , Joachim Mnich , "JB (John) Dainton" , Anthony W Thomas Subject: Re: LHeC SAC meeting Dear Allen, Please forward this to the SAC and SC, Best regards,               Aharon Dear LHeC SAC and SC members, Here are a few comments concerning the structure of the CDR. As a table of contents it looks perfect. Much depends on the spirit of how it is filled. To this end my following comments might sound somewhat naive, but if we believe in the LHeC project, we need to express it in a clear way. I am saying this in particular because of the phrase appearing in the summary of the LHeC status as presented to ECFA end of 2008. The LHeC project should not be "subject to first results from LHeC". Our main goal is to study the structure of the proton and ep interactions are the best way to do it. The 'distance' - 'year' plot is the flagship of LHeC. We want to reach smaller distances. That is how partons were discovered. It would have been nice if lepto-quarks were found at HERA, but even without exotic discoveries we learned a lot about the proton from HERA, but obviously not enough. We need to dig down to lower distances - even if SUSY particles or extra dimensions are found at LHC.In fact, it might turn out that those LHC findings might not be possible because of our ignorance of QCD physics at the smaller distances. I feel that it is very important that this spirit is expressed in the introduction. I also think that the part titled ' Physics at high parton densities' should be upgraded in importance. This is the unique part that LHeC has advantage over the LHC and ILC/CLIC. Another possible example of the uniqueness of LHeC in terms of new frontiers, the low-x dynamics may be the unique place to study the duality between the Pomeron and graviton. Best regards,            Aharon -- +-------------------------------------------------------+ | Aharon Levy         | e-mail : levy@alzt.tau.ac.il    | | Professor of Physics| Tel    : +972-3-6405173         | | School  of  Physics | (or)   ; +972-54-4992645 (cell.)| | Tel Aviv University | Fax    : +972-3-6407932         | | 69978    Tel Aviv   |                                 | |       Israel        |                                 | +-------------------------------------------------------+ ****** mail by Guido Altarelli ************************************ Begin forwarded message: From: Guido Altarelli Date: May 8, 2009 6:23:13 PM GMT+02:00 To: Allen Caldwell Subject: Re: LHeC SAC meeting Dear Allen, I have considered the structure of the CDR for the LHeC. My first impression is that the structure as it was presented by Max Klein is fine. Clearly what really counts is how the different chapters are written up. I think the parts on the physics motivations are the most essential because the rest is pointless if the case for the machine is not convincing enough. So I would give a lot of weight also in terms of pages to points 1-2-3. In the Introduction I would give a first orientation on the parameters of the accelerator complex, its possible realizations (ring-ring or linac-ring), the planned beams and operation modes, the detector etc in order to give a precise enough framework for the following discussion. I would unify the points2-3 in a single chapter on " The Physics Case for the LHeC". For example the content list could be something as:- Continuing role of DIS in Particle Physics - Open Problems in the Exploration of Nucleon Structure - Motivation for DIS Experiments at the Tera Scale - Physics with p, d and Ion Beams - Examples of Interplay between LHC and LHeC  - New Physics at Large Scales - Precision QCD and Electroweak Physics - Physics at High Parton Densities For the remaining chapters on the machine and the detector I have little to say and I expect that Aharon will concentrate also on that. At this stage I have not much more to contribute.  Best wishes G ******* mail by Anthony Thomas *********************************** From: "Anthony W Thomas" Date: May 5, 2009 11:02:56 PM GMT+02:00 To: "Allen Caldwell" Cc: awthomas@jlab.org Subject: Re: LHeC SAC meeting At the request of C12, the Commission on Nuclear Physics, IUPAP created a new Working Group, WG.9 on International Cooperation in Nuclear Physics, chaired by A.W. Thomas, in October 2005. We recall that ICFA, which was created in the 1960s, is IUPAP Working Group 1. WG.9 prepared a handbook (IUPAP Report 41) of user facilities in nuclear physics around the world, together with a brief summary of the key problems being addressed by nuclear physicsists and how these facilities related to them. The working group also provided expert advice to a recent OECD GSF Working Group, which over the period 2006-2008 prepared a roadmap for nuclear physics world-wide. One of the recommendations of that OECD report charges WG.9 to work with NuPECC and NSAC and other similar committees to regularly update this roadmap. Amongst the future large scale facilities anticipated by the nuclear community is a possible high energy electron-ion collider. WG.9 has established a sub-committee to monitor developments in this area and to explore ways in which such a facility or facilities might be funded - since it seems possible that the cost may well go beyond what a single country or region may be willing to support. The next meeting of WG.9 will be in Juelich on the 30th August 2009 and it would be helpful to have a report on progress with respect to the LHeC, as well as a discussion of how it might address research issues in nuclear physics, at that time. There will certainly be reports on the possible options in the US as well as at GSI at that meeting.