DOCSLIB.ORG

Balance of Programme Exercise – PPAN Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Balance of Programme Exercise – PPAN Table of Contents BoP POST Counv1 Balance of Programme Exercise – PPAN Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 2 2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 3. Balance of Programme Exercise Process .................................................................................................................. 7 4. Subject Areas .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Astronomy (including Solar System) ....................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Nuclear Physics ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 4.3 Part icle Physics ..................................................................................................................................................... 22 4.4 Particle Astrophysics ............................................................................................................................................. 31 4.5 Accelerators .......................................................................................................................................................... 36 4.6 Computing ............................................................................................................................................................ 41 5. Programme Balance and the Funding Scenarios .....................................................................................................47 5.1 Funding Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................ 49 5.2 Risk Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... 53 6. Education and Training ...........................................................................................................................................56 7. Economic and Societal Impact ................................................................................................................................57 8. Future Reviews ......................................................................................................................................................59 9. Conclusions and General Comments ......................................................................................................................61 Terms of Reference ..............................................................................................................................63 Members Biographies ..........................................................................................................................64 Documentation List ..............................................................................................................................67 Advisory Panel Questions ....................................................................................................................68 Key Science Challenges ........................................................................................................................70 Pie charts of Subject areas ...................................................................................................................72 Glossary of Acronyms ..........................................................................................................................80 Page 1 of 89 BoP POST Counv1 1. Executive Summary 1. This review forms part of the newly established three-yearly process to evaluate STFC’s core programme. Science Board appointed a Sub Group in July 2016, chaired by Professor Richard Harrison, to assess the balance within the particle physics, particle astrophysics, astronomy and nuclear physics (PPAN) science programme as a whole, together with the accelerator and computing aspects that support this. It did not look at the skills element (i.e. studentships and fellowships) or the public engagement and innovations programmes that are funded by Programmes Directorate. The Sub Group considered the strategic direction, balance and breadth within and across the science areas for three financial scenarios (flat cash +/- 5%) but did not review individual projects. This light touch review will be followed in the intervening years before the next Balance of Programme (BoP) exercise by detailed reviews of each of the subject specific programmes. 2. Input was sought from the Advisory Panels, which provided updated roadmaps as well as answering specific questions posed by the Sub Group. Further material, background information and financial data were provided by the programme managers. Each of the disciplines was assigned expert rapporteurs to provide an overview and lead discussion. It was noted that spend across the programme had been kept within a flat budget as had future planning lines. 3. The Sub Group noted that the BoP exercise has taken place following an extended, non-indexed period of funding. The 2013 Programmatic Review1 noted that ‘flat cash would result in a cumulative 37% reduction in volume if extended over the next four years’. A flat cash environment, imposed on the programme over many years, clearly erodes the UK’s ability to deliver broad and high quality science, and to maintain leadership in instrumentation, facilities and exploitation. It has a significant and adverse impact on the UK’s underpinning scientific output. It risks disadvantaging the UK’s position and reputation on the international scene. It erodes the knowledge-base on which we should anticipate future UK economic and academic returns. In terms of the current BoP exercise, it is important to stress that we are considering a programme that is already under extreme pressure and has lost opportunities and encountered restrictions on its ability to maintain and develop the UK’s scientific strengths for some years. Whilst the exercise identifies excellent science in the UK, makes recommendations on a number of key issues, and considers financial scenarios, it must be remembered that this is addressing a programme that cannot be stretched much further. 4. The Sub Group found that all areas support only excellent science and had equally felt the impact of long-term constrained finances. It was noted that STFC is unable to fund 1 http://www.stfc.ac.uk/files/programmatic-review-report-2013/ Page 2 of 89 BoP POST Counv1 additional, internationally-leading science proposals, and this constrains programme breadth. 5. The Sub Group noted that the consolidated grants, which fund exploitation, blue skies research and in some fields core support for construction projects, were identified as the highest priority by the Advisory Panels. This position was endorsed by the Sub Group, which noted the continuing reduction in the effort that could be maintained by these grants. 6. The Sub Group saw no reason to propose major change to the balance but does recommend modest modifications in response to the pressures resulting from the evolutionary changes in the science programme. Several high-level findings requiring action were noted; for Computing support, where demands are growing rapidly, Particle Astrophysics, which is an emerging field that needs to mature into an established element, Nuclear Physics, where support is at a critical level following a poor settlement in the last consolidated grant round, and Accelerator physics, which is also seen to be at a critical level. 7. The Sub Group considered the financial situation of the three funding scenarios. It noted the pressures and the need for continued tensioning within the subject areas, which should be considered in the subject-specific reviews. It recommended modest additional support for Nuclear Physics to provide an appropriate level of PDRA funding, a modest increase to Computing to cover the cost of the PRACE subscription, and additional support in Particle Astrophysics to maintain gravitational waves funding at flat cash. The Accelerator science programme is also identified to be at critical level and it is recommended that a modified funding model for that area be adopted. The Sub Group recommended a temporary suspension of the Project Research and Development (PRD) programme, to create some headroom in the PPAN programme, of no more than two years, as this could potentially cause increased risk to essential technology development over time. In the flat cash minus 5% funding scenario the Sub Group recommended cuts associated with reducing, or stopping, participation in planned construction projects to protect committed project funding and maintain the consolidated grants at the current level. These have been eroded by inflation during years of flat-cash budgets and protection will minimise any further loss of scientific leadership and reduce risks that previous project investment will not be exploited. In a flat cash plus 5% scenario PRD should be restored and all areas should receive some share of the uplift. 8. The Sub Group noted that this review can only be a snapshot
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Direct Search for Standard Model-Like Higgs Boson And
    Facult´edes Sciences de Base Institut de Physique de l’Energie´ et des Particules Laboratoire de Physique des Hautes Energies´ Direct Search for Standard Model-Like Higgs Boson and Software Integration of Data Acquisition Cards Th`ese de Doctorat pr´esent´ee `ala Section de Physique de la Facult´edes Sciences de Base de l’Ecole´ Polytechnique F´ed´erale de Lausanne pour l’obtention du grade de Docteur `es Sciences par C´edric Potterat Ing´enieur Physicien diplˆom´ede l’Ecole´ Polytechnique F´ed´erale de Lausanne, Suisse CERN-THESIS-2010-074 06/05/2010 Jury Prof. Nadine Baluc, Pr´esidente du jury Prof. Aurelio Bay, Directeur de th`ese Prof. Minh Quang Tran, Rapporteur Dr. Niko Neufeld, Rapporteur Dr. Tara Shears, Rapporteur CH - Lausanne 2010 R´esum´e Le Grand Collisionneur de Hadrons (LHC) au CERN, pr`es de Gen`eve, est con¸cu pour faire entrer en collision des protons `aune ´energie dans le centre de masse de 14 TeV. Il a ´et´etest´e `aplus faible ´energie en novembre 2009. Durant ces premiers jours, le LHC a ´etabli un nouveau record du monde avec ces deux faiseaux de protons `al’´energie de 1180 MeV. Le LHC a quatre points d’interaction pour les quartes grandes exp´eriences que sont : ALICE, ATLAS, CMS et LHCb. Le d´etecteur LHCb est situ´eau point d’interaction P8 (France). C’est un spectrom`etre `abras unique d´edi´e`ala physique des hardons contenant un quark b. Son but est l’´etude des processus qui ne conservent pas la sym´etrie CP et ainsi que certaines d´esint´egrations rares.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Literature Relating to Lhcb 2 Sin (✓W ) Measurement
    University of Liverpool Department of Physics Faculty of Science and Engineering Review of Literature Relating to LHCb 2 sin (✓W ) Measurement Author: Abbie Jane Chadwick Supervisors: Prof. Tara Shears Dr. Stephen Farry Areportconcludingthefirstyearof PhD June 2020 Contents 1 The Standard Model 1 1.1 TheBasics .................................................. 1 1.2 TheUnderlyingPhysics ........................................... 2 1.3 TheDownfalls ................................................ 2 2 Collider Physics 4 2.1 ProbingtheStandardModel ........................................ 4 2.2 WorldColliderOverview........................................... 4 + 2.2.1 e e− .................................................. 4 2.2.2 pp and pp ............................................... 4 2.2.3 e±p .................................................. 5 2.2.4 Heavyions .............................................. 5 2 3 Sin (✓w) Measurement Survey 6 3.1 CMS...................................................... 6 3.2 LEPandSLD................................................. 8 3.3 CDFandD0 ................................................. 9 3.4 ATLAS .................................................... 9 3.5 LHCb ..................................................... 10 1 1 The Standard Model 1.1 The Basics The Standard Model (SM) is the most complete description of known elementary particles and their interactions currently within physics. It combines electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions into a quantum field theory, with the notable
    [Show full text]
  • The Higgs Boson
    The Higgs Boson Introduction: The standard model of Particle Physics is a set of mathematical formula, observations and measurements which describe the elementary particles and their interactions. Its purpose is to create a quantum theory of matter so we can predict quantum behaviour accurately. The standard model also presented a gap in the model that predicted the existence of the Higgs Boson. The standard model is composed of two types of particles: Matter particles (fermions) and the particles which mediate the forces that allow the matter particles to interact which are called Bosons. The W Boson and Z Boson (the electrically neutral boson of the W boson) are both responsible for mediating the Weak Nuclear Force (which is responsible for the change in flavour of quarks). The Higgs Boson is responsible for giving matter particles and the Gauge Bosons (W and Z Bosons) their mass.1 The Standard model:2 The Higgs Boson’s origin: In the 1970’s the standard model was finalised and allowed the Electromagnetic Force and the Weak Nuclear Force to be unified in the same theory of the Electroweak Force. However, this theory first predicted that electromagnetisms gauge boson (the photon) and the weak nuclear forces gauge boson ( W and Z bosons) must both have 0 mass in order to compliment the symmetry requirements in gauge theory. However, this was an issue as W 1 Tara Shears (2012) Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 2 https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=LHDm1cNr&id=4369541D8F9C168E0CCF97D7C5C 666865A769921&thid=OIP.LHDm1cNr5Jeajxvg4Q04EAHaFk&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fwww.abc.net.au%2fc m%2flb%2f7864318%2fdata%2fstandard-model-of-physics- data.jpg&exph=526&expw=700&q=the+standard+model&simid=608046680252745529&selectedIndex=2&adl t=strict&ajaxhist=0 and Z bosons have been both proven to have the corresponding masses of: 80.385 GeV and 91.1876 GeV, both discovered in 1983 at CERN.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the Standard Model
    Status of the Standard Model Tara Shears 1. Overview 2. Tests of the Standard Model 3. Shortcomings 4. Conclusions Overview • What is the Standard Model? – What does it describe? – What does it need as inputs? • Experimental tests – Verification of theory – Adding the missing parameters – Check internal consistency • Shortcomings – Experimental problems – Philosophical problems See also pp plenaries and parallel sessions for more details 1. Overview 2. Tests of the Standard Model 3. Shortcomings 4. Conclusions What does the Standard Model describe? SM describes matter – force interactions; – 12 types of matter particle (fermion) – 3 forces, mediated by force carrying particle (boson) We use the SM to predict experimental observations space boson Quarks (3 generations) fermion Leptons (3 generations) Force carriers time 1. Overview 2. Tests of the Standard Model 3. Shortcomings 4. Conclusions Constructing the Standard Model SM is a field theory. Describe force - matter interactions by Lagrangians _ µνµνµν µµµ L = -1/4F µνµνµν F +ΨΨΨ(i γγγ Dµµµ –m) ΨΨΨ Field strength Boson-fermion of force field F Fermion mass interaction, fermion movement Lagrangian L obeys local gauge invariance Doesn’t change as a function of space and time: ΨΨΨ→e-iθθθ(x,t) ΨΨΨ Consequence that bosons must be massless Each force described by L of similar form (details of F, D, Ψ vary) 1. Overview 2. Tests of the Standard Model 3. Shortcomings 4. Conclusions Constructing the Standard Model LSM = L EM + L WEAK + L STRONG EM force Weak force Strong force Electric charge (1) Weak charge (2) Colour charge (3) Massless photon Massive W±,Z 8 massless gluons Coupling g Coupling gW Coupling gs Value unknown/ not predicted 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Universe Exists How Particle Physics Unlocks the Secrets of Everything
    Why the Universe Exists How particle physics unlocks the secrets of everything NEW SCIENTIST Contents Series introduction Contributors Introduction 1 Fantastic particles and where to find them 2 Boson power 3 The Higgs maker 4 Quark tales 5 Antimatter 6 The little neutral ones 7 The lethal lightweight 8 Superparticles and beyond 9 Pieces of gravity 10 After the Large Hadron Collider 11 Practical particles 12 Conclusion Fifty ideas Glossary Picture credits Series introduction New Scientist’s Instant Expert books shine light on the subjects that we all wish we knew more about: topics that challenge, engage enquiring minds and open up a deeper understanding of the world around us. Instant Expert books are definitive and accessible entry points for curious readers who want to know how things work and why. Look out for the other titles in the series: The End of Money How Evolution Explains Everything about Life How Your Brain Works Machines That Think The Quantum World Where the Universe Came From Your Conscious Mind Contributors Editor: Stephen Battersby is a physics writer and consultant for New Scientist. Series editor: Alison George is Instant Expert editor for New Scientist. Articles in this book are based on talks at the 2016 New Scientist masterclass ‘Mysteries of particle physics’ and articles previously published in New Scientist. Academic contributors Jon Butterworth is a professor of physics at University College London, and a member of the ATLAS collaboration at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, who researches the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking, which explains why some things have mass. He wrote ‘Why do we need the Higgs?’ in Chapter 2, and Detector story plus ‘The big discovery’ in Chapter 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer Students 2020.Pdf
    A brief tour of the Particle World (and your lecture programme) Tara Shears, University of Liverpool1 Overview • What particle physics describes • What we know (and what we don’t) • The Standard Model: matter; forces; Higgs. • Experiments; performing research • Outstanding questions and mysteries … … just a taster of what’s waiting in your lectures 2 The Universe BIG BANG NOW 3 Cosmology LHC Nuclear physics Q&A: 23/7/20 Q&A: 21/7/20 Cosmic rays Astrophysics Quark/gluon plasma Plus …. Heavy ions Q&A: 29/7/20 Antimatter Q&A: 20/7/20 Astroparticle physics Q&A: 16/7/20 4 Matter u c t e μ τ d s b νe νμ ντ quarks leptons 5 Mass 2.4 MeV/c2 1.27 GeV/c2 171.2 GeV/c2 Charge 2/3 u 2/3 c 2/3 t Spin 1/2 1/2 1/2 up charm top quarks 4.8 MeV/c2 104 MeV/c2 4.2 GeV/c2 -1/3 d -1/3 -1/3 1/2 1/2 s 1/2 b down strange bottom 0.511 MeV/c2 105.7 MeV/c2 1.777 GeV/c2 -1 e -1 -1 1/2 1/2 m 1/2 t electron muon tau leptons < 2.2 eV/c2 < 0.17 MeV/c2 < 15.5 MeV/c2 (more about the 0 0 0 discoveries in ne nm nt Lecture 1, 1/2 1/2 1/2 Particle World) e neutrino m neutrino t neutrino 6 and … antimatter … 2 2 2 2 4 Einstein’s equation of motion*: E = p c + m c Two energy solutions for the same mass; • Matter • Antimatter Every fermion has an antimatter version.
    [Show full text]
  • Parl MAGAZINE Whitsun 07
    THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER SWITCH ON PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE BREAKFAST BRIEFING ON TUESDAY 20TH FEBRUARY Working at CERN CERN provides an exciting environment for people working in a variety of roles British scientists have played leading roles in CERN operations and management from its inception in the 1950s. John Adams, who joined CERN in 1953 from the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell, was CERN's leading accelerator designer and engineer, eventually becoming Director General in 1976. With fellow Brit, Mervyn Hine, he built the accelerators that were to establish CERN as the leading particle physics laboratory in the world. Science in Parliament Vol 64 No 2 Whitsun 2007 23 At one stage, three of the four LEP experiments were led by UK physicists: Wilbur Venus (DELPHI), David Plane (OPAL) and Peter Dornan (ALEPH), while Chris Llewellyn-Smith, as Director General between 1994 and 1998, saw the LHC through its final stages of approval. Roger Cashmore was Director for Collider Programmes from 1999 to 2003, overseeing the running of LEP and co-ordinating the LHC programme. Today, you'll also find UK people working in CERN's extensive outreach programme, in IT, technology transfer and all aspects of management. And, of course, CERN runs on the fuel provided by the efforts of PhD students who come to CERN to work for short periods. Many of them are attracted by the international atmosphere, Geneva's central European location, the mountain scenery – and of course the ski-ing! THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER SWITCH ON Dr Lyn Evans Lyn Evans has been at CERN for 34 years, working first on the SPS.
    [Show full text]
  • Year1 Talk1.Pdf
    Abbie Jane Chadwick 1st year PhD, LHCb Supervised by Prof. Tara Shears and Dr Stephen Farry LHCb • Single-arm forward detector which observes hadrons containing heavy quarks (c and b) Upgrade I • During LS2 subdetectors will be substantially upgraded • The Vertex Locator (VELO) will be tested within LSDC Weak Mixing Angle • Ratio of vector and axial-vector couplings of the Z boson to fermions • Experimentally determined using the angular distribution fit of Z boson final states Top Physics • Top quark production and decay are sensitive to new physics outside the standard model • Forward region allows for the study of alternative production mechanisms compared to central region detectors Antony Hibbert - 201069849 Supervisor: Dr Joe Price Liverpool HEP Christmas Meeting 2019 Implementation of Machine Learning to the Muon g-2 Straw Tracking Detectors Muon g-2 -Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment - Precision of 0.14ppm - BSM Physics? Straw Trackers - Three stations - Precise reconstruction of decay positrons Machine Learning Simulated -> Offline -> Online Applications Elsewhere - Mu3e uses similar tracking detectors Adam Abed Abud Particle Physics Annual Meeting 2019 Bio: Italian, M.Sc Univ. of Pavia, now PhD at Liverpool/CERN Working for the - Data acquisition (DAQ) - Research on high throughput storage technologies: save all the neutrino data! - Distributed databases to manage collected events - Future: track reconstruction of neutrino signals using ProtoDUNE data Deep Learning Applications for ν Event Reconstruction in LArTPC detectors & Joint
    [Show full text]
  • Particle Physics: the Missing Manual, 15Th May 2020 [email protected] Introduction
    1 Particle Physics: The Missing Manual, 15th May 2020 [email protected] Introduction ‣ Colleagues! Have you ever wondered… ‣ How things really work? ‣ What’s going on behind the scenes? ‣ Why interactions occur in the way they do? ‣ Where it all comes from? 2 Particle Physics: The Missing Manual, 15th May 2020 [email protected] Introduction ‣ Colleagues! Have you ever wondered… ‣ How things really work? ‣ What’s going on behind the scenes? ‣ Why interactions occur in the way they do? ‣ Where it all comes from? 3 Particle Physics: The Missing Manual, 15th May 2020 [email protected] Introduction ‣ Colleagues! Have you ever wondered… ‣ How things really work? ‣ What’s going on behind the scenes? ‣ Why interactions occur in the way they do? ‣ Where it all comes from? ‣ Today we answer all some a few questions ‣ Including some you didn’t know you had ‣ To be covered ‣ How particle physics gets done ‣ How collaborations work ‣ The machinery of particle physics ‣ The UK field ‣ Your career ‣ Q&A 4 Particle Physics: The Missing Manual, 15th May 2020 [email protected] 1. How Particle Physics Gets Done “Don’t let me catch anyone talking about the Universe in my Department” – Rutherford 5 Particle Physics: The Missing Manual, 15th May 2020 [email protected] Field Spotter’s Guide ‣ PP theorists: ‣ PP experimentalists: ‣ Think about Lagrangians ‣ Think about measurements ‣ Particles = “field quanta” ‣ Particles = “tiny charged blobs” ‣ (Can) work in small teams ‣ (Must) work in huge teams ‣ Can rapidly play with new ideas
    [Show full text]
  • IOP Newsletter 7.Indd
    Summer 2005 the HEPP Group Newsletter ISSUE 2: BURSTING WITH CHEERS & APPLAUSE! ANNUAL CONFERENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK INSIDE THIS ISSUE 10TH TO 12TH APRIL 2006 We are proud to introduce a new addition to your newsletter: fter our 2005 Dublin meeting, we wish to thank all involved for A ‘Outreach Stories’ (on page 4). making it such a success - thanks! After the appointment of Anna Now it’s time to announce Starkey to the position of Outreach our 2006 Annual Conference. Officer for PPARC, we approached It will be hosted by the her about writing for us. Hopefully Elementary Particle Physics this will become a regular spot to Group at the University of showcase the marvelous work by Warwick. As another young people in our field to reach out to group (featuring some familiar the community and inform them faces) we are very happy to be about the world of high energy welcomed to Warwick. particle physics. So, if you are involved in outreach work, or have Closer to the date, further details of the conference will be posted at: been inspired by someone else’s project (including ‘Travels with a http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/research/epp/iop06/ Spark Chamber’) please contact Anna at [email protected]. Perhaps we will be featuring you THE EUROPEAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY’S in an upcoming edition?! 2005 OUTREACH PRIZE Staying on the ‘outreach’ theme, has been awarded jointly to please join us in congratulating Peter Kalmus and Dave Barney on ave Barney for promoting his fascination of particle physics to the D being jointly awarded the EPS’s public, in parallel to his research work in the CMS collaboration at 2005 Outreach Prize.
    [Show full text]
  • Particle Physics Outreach
    Impact case study (REF3b) Institution: University of Liverpool Unit of Assessment: 9 – Physics Title of case study: Particle Physics Outreach 1. Summary of the impact (indicative maximum 100 words) Professor Tara Shears is one of the most recognizable faces in particle physics (PP). Her work on the matter-antimatter experiment Large Hadron Collider b (LHCb) has reached a huge audience. As an expert on PP and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), she is a point of contact for the media. She is regularly interviewed in print, and on radio and television, has appeared at Science Festivals, debated and talked at learned institutions and starred in outreach videos. As one of the most influential nationally known particle physicists, she is an excellent female role model for thousands of aspiring young physicists. At a conservative estimate, her broadcast and print work has reached over a million and her personal appearances over four thousand people. 2. Underpinning research (indicative maximum 500 words) The outreach programme described here communicates LHC science, latest results, and their relevance and importance to a broad audience. The LHC started operation in 2008 and is the most powerful PP facility ever constructed. Based at CERN, the European centre for PP, its data revealed the existence of the Higgs Boson, and allowed investigation of matter and antimatter differences (“CP violation”), Dark Matter and other phenomena that cannot be explained by our current understanding of PP, the Standard Model (SM). Each of these topics is of outstanding importance to our knowledge of fundamental physics. Four main experiments are based at the LHC; ATLAS, CMS, LHCb and ALICE.
    [Show full text]
  • Update from Science Board
    Update from Science Board • Our role (STFC advisory structure + changes) • Who we are (+ membership changes) • Current issues (+ opportunities) • Activities Tara Shears, University of Liverpool, for Science Board. Science Board terms of reference: “…to provide the STFC with a strategic scientific overview and assessment of, and science advice on, all of the programmes STFC supports.” Reliant on: • Advisory panels • Peer review panels • Other (ad hoc) review committees • You, the community. STFC advisory structures (last NP community meeting): UKRI – new Council and new Executive Chair. STFC COUNCIL (Chair: Sir Michael Sterling) INNOVATION ADVISORY BOARD SCIENCE BOARD SKILLS & ENGAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD (Chair: Richard Worswick) (Chair: Sean Freeman) (Chair: Carole Mundell) Education, Training and Careers Committee ADVISORY PANELS PEER REVIEW PANELS (Chair: Seb Oliver) Advisory Panel for Particle Physics Public Engagement Grants Panel (Chair: Colin Pulham) Particle Physics AP Solar System AP (Chair: Jocelyn Monroe (Chair: Claire Shepherd- (Chair: Huw Morgan) / Nick Evans) Themistocleous) Astronomy Grants Panel Life Sci. & Soft Matter AP Particle Astrophysics AP (Chair: Jim Wild) (Chair: Martin King) (Chair: Chamkaur Ghag) Nuclear Physics Grants Panel Physical Sci. & Eng. AP Astronomy AP (Chair: Douglas (Chair: Howard Stone) (Chair: Paul O’Brien) MacGregor) (Sean’s slide) Projects Peer Computing AP Review Panel Nuclear Physics AP (Chair: David Colling) (Chair: Julian Osborne) (Chair: Andy Boston) Accelerator Strategy Board (Chair: Andy Wolski)
    [Show full text]