Community PP science reviews Philip Burrows John Adams Institute for Accelerator Science Oxford University Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09

PPAP 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 are canvassed and there is an appropriate and effective route for communication 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 takes place, thereby providing community input to the programmatic review process Respond to other specific requests from PPAN for advice as the need arises’ Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09

Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09 The PPAP 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) http://www.hep.phy.cam.ac.uk/~thomson/ppap.html Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09

Possible Workplan I: Future Opportunities (Walter Gear 6/3/09) ‘identify the top major scientific challenges to be solved in the future (in 20 – 30 years) in this field world wide; Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09

Possible Workplan I: Future Opportunities (Walter Gear 6/3/09) ‘identify the top major scientific challenges to be solved in the future (in 20 – 30 years) in this field world wide; highlight the UK involvement in research in these areas including what the UK reputation is in these areas and if it is likely that UK researchers will make these achievements; Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09

Possible Workplan I: Future Opportunities (Walter Gear 6/3/09) ‘identify the top major scientific challenges to be solved in the future (in 20 – 30 years) in this field world wide; highlight the UK involvement in research in these areas including what the UK reputation is in these areas and if it is likely that UK researchers will make these achievements; identify what facilities will be needed in order for the UK make significant contributions to these areas; Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09

Possible Workplan I: Future Opportunities (Walter Gear 6/3/09) ‘identify the top major scientific challenges to be solved in the future (in 20 – 30 years) in this field world wide; highlight the UK involvement in research in these areas including what the UK reputation is in these areas and if it is likely that UK researchers will make these achievements; identify what facilities will be needed in order for the UK make significant contributions to these areas; based on b) understand which of a) and / or c) are the top priorities.’ Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09

Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09 This Meeting Review our community’s PP expertise + aspirations Draw out community’s views on possible future directions: 20 - 30 year horizon Opportunity to air + debate tricky issues! Start roadmap drafting process PPAN has asked for first-pass roadmap by late September (2009!) Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09

Programme Committee for today Claire Shepherd-Themistocleous (RAL) Cinzia da Via (Manchester) Dan Tovey (Sheffield) Grahame Blair (RHUL) Craig Buttar (Glasgow) Rob Edgecock (RAL) Jerome Gauntlett (IC) Dave Newbold (Bristol) Paul Newman (Birmingham) Georg Weiglein (Durham) Terry Wyatt (Manchester) Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09

Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09 Programme for today 10.45 Introduction – Philip Burrows 10.50 PPAN briefing – Jordan Nash 11.05 Theory review – Georg Weiglein 12.05 LHC upgrades: physics + detectors – Marc Weber 12.50 LHC upgrades: accelerator – Steve Myers 13.15 lunch 14.00 Linear collider: physics + detectors – Andrei Nomerotski 14.40 Linear collider: accelerator – Jim Clarke 15.10 Future colliders + generic detector R&D – Ken Long 15.50 tea/coffee 16.05 LHeC – John Dainton 16.35 Formal theory – Nick Dorey/Jerome Gauntlett 17.05 General discussion 18.00 End Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09

Discussion questions for today Should investment in future colliders be dependent upon and await LHC results? If the UK had to choose between major investment in LHC upgrades and a 500-1000 GeV linear collider, what would the decision criteria be? Under what circumstances should the UK commit significant funds to LHeC? Is this mutually exclusive with the construction of other high energy facilities? Should the UK participate in R&D on very long-term colliders such as a muon collider, or a higher energy hadron collider? Should the UK be a player in the design of future high-energy accelerator facilities, or should we concentrate on physics and detectors? Within theoretical physics, what should the balance be between research into fundamental questions not yet directly accessible to experiment, and more phenomenological research? Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09

Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09 Housekeeping Apologies received 2. Thanks to: Birmingham Group IoP HEPP Group STFC IPPP Philip Burrows PPAP Community Reviews, Birmingham 14/7/09