c. h. shepherd-themistocleous - raliop hepp conference, ucl 29 th march 2010 1 particle physics...

C. H. Shepherd-Themistocleous - RALIoP HEPP Conference, UCL 29th March 2010

1

Particle Physics Advisory Panel

C. H. Shepherd-ThemistocleousRutherford Appleton Laboratory


2

Outline

• Role of PPAP • Events during last year• Report to PPAN• Where do we go from here?


3

Membership

Philip Burrows (Oxford) chair

Cinzia Da Via (Manchester)

Tim Gershon (Warwick)

Nigel Glover (Durham)

Claire Shepherd-Themistocleous (RAL) deputy chair

Mark Thomson (Cambridge)

Dan Tovey (Sheffield)

Rachel Boning (STFC)


4

Advisory Panels

Five standing advisory panels will report to STFC’s ScienceCommittee on Particle Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear Physics:

The panels will cover the areas of:– Particle Physics (PPAP)– Nuclear Physics (NPAP)– Particle Astrophysics (PAAP)– Near Universe (NUAP)– Far Universe (FUAP)

‘The remit of the panels will include Theory, High PerformanceComputing and Data Curation issues in their respective areas.’


5

Terms of Reference

‘Draft and maintain a roadmap describing current and future research opportunities in their areas, for presentation and approval by PPAN

Consult and interact with the community to ensure its views arecanvassed and there is an appropriate and effective route forcommunication with STFC on strategic programmatic issues

Make an independent presentation to PPAN on the relevant panel area in years in which an STFC Programmatic Review takesplace, thereby providing community input to the programmaticreview process

Respond to other specific requests from PPAN for advice as the need arises’


6

Report

First charge produce a report for PPAN

• Identify major challenges in the field over next 20-30 years

• Produce a Roadmap for the UK identifying the capability and requirements to address these challenges

• Report to be used in prioritization exercise


7

Road to Report

Meeting

Three day meeting:

Topics each day– Day 1 - Flavour Physics– Day 2 - Energy Frontier– Day 3 - Neutrino and Non-accelerator Physics

Programme Committees created for each area.

Summary of discussion and report produced for each

day


8


9

PPAP web page

• Links to all reports available


10

Road to Report II

13,14,15 July: PP reviews (Birmingham) c. 200community members attended! suggestion to make this (2yearly?) event

29 July: ‘findings’ and ‘summary of discussion’ reports posted

11 Sept: Presentation & discussion with experimental group leaders

16 Sept: draft report released to community

21 Sept: report submitted to PPAN

25 Sept: Appendix submitted to PPAN

28 Sept: P. Burrows report to PPAN


11

Report Outline

• Introduction• Major scientific challenges• Facilities• Recommendations

– framework– short discussion of each area/facility– summary/synthesis

• Appendix: more detailed discussion of each facility: UK expertise, capabilities, opportunity …


12

How do the experimental facilities address the major

scientific questions

Facilities divided into areas: – Energy frontier– Flavour physics– Neutrino physics– Non-accelerator

10 questions identified covering the major challenges


13

Experimental Facilities & science questions


14

Roadmap

Roadmap for next 20 years

Identifies status of facilities as a function of time

Identifies major milestones and possible decision

points

Identifies future scientific opportunities


15

Particle Physics Roadmap

Exploitation phase

R&D phase

Construction phase

Decision point

Potential future opportunity


16

Recommendations: framework

Recommended the following principles be followed:

• A broad and diverse particle physics programme focussed on high priority science questions is an essential pillar of the UK science + technology base.

• Optimal scientific return on long term investment should be supported during the exploitation phase of experiments.

• Participation in projects that are likely to form major components of the future global Particle Physics programme should be kept at viable levels.


17

Recommendations: framework

• The potential to engage in possible future activities should be kept open, especially where key decision time frames can be identified. Where the UK is playing a leading role in design studies, appropriate funds should be made available to support these activities. Minimally a watching brief should be kept on other promising future projects.

• A strong technological R&D base must be maintained to enable a world-leading UK Particle Physics science programme and future KE opportunities. This should include generic R&D as well as that more focused on specific experiments.


18

Request to PPAN

“IF POTENTIALLY SERIOUS CUTS ARE REQUIRED,

WE REQUEST PPAN TO HAVE AN ITERATION WITH

APs BEFORE MAJOR PROGRAMME CUTS ARE

IMPLEMENTED”

Post Submission

• Report to Advisory Panels by John Womersley 18th December 2009

• Feedback meeting with group leaders 23rd December 2009

• PPAP met 14th Jan. John W. Attended. Discussed - possible flexibility in implementation plans, ramp down speed, low levels of support to keep alive.


19

Post Submission

• Letter to PPAN expressing concern over limited programme 19th Jan 2010. “In our Particle Physics Roadmap report we attempted to present a scientifically balanced programme that included not only substantial support for obvious highest priority projects, but also appropriate levels of strategic support for projects that add significant value in terms of scientific merit, diversity and future opportunity.”

• PPAP meeting 1st March. Status and impact of LHC schedule.

• PPAP meeting 5th March with JW. News on upgrade element of RGs.

• Meeting with PIs 10th March


20


21

What now?

• Some efforts in direction of low level support and managed withdrawal. Individual efforts.

• Possible 1 day community meeting, May/June?– Discussion of PP Roadmap input to PPAN (see JN talk)– Strategic direction of community – Potential synergies across activities e.g. det. R&D

c. h. shepherd-themistocleous - raliop hepp conference, ucl 29 th march 2010 1 particle physics...

Documents

raliop hepp conference

reportiop hepp conference

need arisesiop hepp

respective areas

community input

community members

advisory panelsfive

independent presentation