A (Draft) Proposal for a 
Canadian Institute for Theoretical Physics



The paragraphs below are intended to help crystallize ideas on the 
creation of a Canadian Institute for Theoretical Physics.  
Assuming that the project can be developed in some detail with 
broad support for the community, the upcoming NSERC reallocation 
exercise offers a good occasion to seek a significant part of the 
funding that would be required.

1. Why Theoretical Physics?

Physics has been, and may be expected to continue to be, of 
critical importance for the development of all of the sciences.
The most recent re-emphasis of this central truth is the
report of the National Research Council's Physics Survey Overview 
Committee entitled "Physics in a New Era: An Overview", which 
can be read online at the following address 
http://books.nap.edu/books/030973421/html/index.html.

The above mentioned report identifies the following 
six priority areas that are likely to be at the core of 
striking advances in science and technology.

1. Developing quantum-technologies
2. Understanding Complex Systems
3. Applying Physics to Biology
4. Creating New Materials
5. Exploring the Universe
6. Unifying the Forces of Nature

Being the oldest theoretical science, theoretical physics 
has gone the furthest in bringing powerful mathematical 
and computational tools to bear on the description of nature. 
Besides making theory indispensable for progress in physics, 
these tools have proven extremely fruitful when applied to other 
sciences.

Theoretical physics is certain to continue to play a core
role in both physics research, and in a broad variety of
interdisciplinary research challenges with an enormous
variety of potential applications. 

2. The Canadian Perspective

Canada would be well advised at this juncture to provide itself 
with a national infrastructure that would significantly enhance 
collaboration within theoretical physics, with a special eye to
interdisciplinary activities.

The organization of physics funding through NSERC strongly 
influences the development of the discipline within the country.  
Funding is now provided separately for various 
subfields, with theory and experiment sharing funds within each
subdiscipline. By and large this vertical integration of 
theory with experiment is serving us very well.  

Nevertheless, there is a lack in this country of a horizontal 
dimension that brings together theory from across many sub-areas.
Funding for some aspects of theoretical research, such as 
thematic programs, the gathering of specialists for extended
concentrated work, meetings, schools and workshops, and the 
support of cross-disciplinary theoretical ventures, is difficult 
to provide purely within the present Canadian framework. We 
believe that the creation of a national institute (CITP) would 
be the best way to fill this missing element of the Canadian 
funding scheme.

The appropriateness of a such an institute for fostering the
goals of theoretical physics is evident from the experience
in other countries, where these institutes have been created
and are operating very successfully. Examples along the lines
of what we have in mind include the ITP at Santa Barbara and
the ICTP in Trieste, to name just two.

The creation of the CITP would bring several obvious benefits.
It would raise Canada's research impact worldwide, it would
improve the research environment and opportunities of the
Canadian theory community, and it would bring the community of 
Canadian and foreign theorists together. The successes of similar
Canadian institutes within mathematics (CRM, Fields and PIMS) 
testify to the benefits of this kind of initiative within the
Canadian scene.

3. A model for CITP

The model we have in mind for the CITP is one of a national 
institute distributed across the country with three nodes,  
distributed across the country in the west, the east and in
Ontario.

We envisage the scientific activities of CITP will comprise
the organization and funding of:

- large programs on specific themes involving significant 
        numbers of visitors
- shorter-term conferences and workshops, both at the
        nodes and at universities and other sites across
        the country
- graduate-student and postdoctoral fellowships, tenable
        at universities across the country
- outreach to industry.

A general description could be similar to that of the workshop
program currently organized by ITP in Santa Barbara. We do not
see CITP as being organized along the lines of IAS in Princeton,
which performs largely in-house research aimed at several
narrowly-focussed subtopics in science (and the arts).

We see CITP as complementing the two existing institutes, CITA 
and the Perimeter Institute, which are currently organized more
along the IAS blueprint. Several scenarios are possible, perhaps
with CITA and/or PI broadening their scope to become the Ontario
node, or their taking charge of events which fall within the
scope of their focus topics.

One might argue, that the need for the CITP is alleviated by 
the presence of the 3 mathematical sciences institutes. 
On the contrary, we believe that their presence reinforces the 
need for CITP. Although CRM, FI and PIMS have organized some
very successful activities in theoretical physics, they are
fully committed to mathematics and they cannot sustain the need 
for yearly programs in theoretical physics.

We expect nevertheless, that the CITP could be organized so as 
to use the infrastructure of the institutes already in place,
so that CITP and the existing mathematics institutes can reinforce
one another in the overlap of their areas of interest.

4. Funding and strategy

Based on the experience of the existing mathematics institutes,
we believe an envelope of $500K from NSERC for each node
might be appropriate. As is the case for the current institutes, 
it is recommended that a separate line item be created for 
CITP, by bringing new money into the overall physics budget.

It is also expected that participating universities will 
contribute adequately to CITP, ensuring leverage between the 
various agencies. Several universities have expressed the
willingness to do so.

It would seem desirable to see the steering committees
for each of the GSC's involving theoretical physics (Subatomic,
Condensed Matter, General Physics, Space and Astronomy,...)
express support for the initiative during the reallocation
exercise. Such support would be likely to encourage NSERC to
support CITP as a special project, and so to bring more support 
into physics.

A strategy should be developed at this point to

i.   generate and properly exploit the support from departmental 
        chairs from across the country
ii.  coordinate with the GSC's to jointly support a joint submission
        within the reallocation exercise
iii. coordinate the preparation of the joint submission to NSERC