Summary of the Sept.19th Meeting:

The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the p-p, p-A and A-A physics capabilities of an EIC detector.

The physics case for the future Electron Ion Collider (EIC) was presented along with its formal status w.r.t. NSAC Long Range Review Planning. A rough time line was presented, as understood at the laboratory.

The physics case for carrying out the AA physics program beyond the present design luminosity and the detector designs especially in view of the fact that at the time (after 2007) LHC might be operational, is not made yet. However, studies in that directions are beginning, both on the physics motivational aspect as well as from the detector technologies and design aspect.

It was felt that to start a real combined effort, many studies have to be persued and completed. While some central detector components certainly would certainly seem to be compatible, more detailed considerations on both sides (AA as well as ep/eA) are necessary. If at a later date these studies do indeed bring the two communities together, then a strong case would be made for a common interaction point design.

The accelerator group commented that without a compelling case they see no reason for a diversion in their present effort to move towards an ambitious 5 species (possible) interaction region design requiring the ambitiously high beam luminosities.

So to summarise:

The commonality of the detector components in the central acceptance may be feasible, but details regarding momentum and position resolution, particle ID requirements need to be studied for both AA as well as the EIC physics requirements.
Unless a very good case for the common detector is made the C-AD would not like to attempt to modify the present plan for the EIC ring lattice w.r.t. the RHIC complex. The high luminosity requirements of the EIC and the RHIC upgrade (beyond 2007) are already taxing the present accelerator design plans.
We decided to persue independent studies (AA and e-A/ep) and keep each other informed of the progress through informal meetings and when necessary, small working group meetings. It is expected the each would lead to an evaluation of the common detector idea at that state.

(prepared by Abhay Deshpande & Bernd Surrow)