the 2002 long range plan n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The 2002 Long Range Plan PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The 2002 Long Range Plan

The 2002 Long Range Plan

154 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

The 2002 Long Range Plan

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. The 2002 Long Range Plan • The DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee of the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation is charged with providing advice on a continuing basis regarding the management of the national basic nuclear science research program. In July 2000, the Committee was asked to study the opportunities and priorities for U.S. nuclear physics research, and to develop a long-range plan that will serve as a framework for the coordinated advancement of the field for the next decade. • This Plan has emerged from a process in which more than a thousand members of the nuclear science community participated. A smaller working group then prioritized the resulting recommendations. This Plan addresses the charge to NSAC to develop a “framework for the coordinated advancement of the field.” The opportunities for such advancement are extraordinary, and addressing them will ensure the continuing vigor of nuclear science.

  2. The Long Range Plan • What is the DOE/NSF Long Range Plan? • A document to describe the road ahead for Nuclear Physics • Typically re-written about ~5 years • The document tries to look ahead 10 years to set new directions and it becomes the basis for funding large projects (even beyond 10 yrs) • The Process • A sub-committee of the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC) will write the document. It is an ‘invitation only’ process. • The Division of Nuclear Physics at the APS will have input to the LRP through a series of town meetings that will be organized by the DNP executive committee. • Schedule • Finalize the design of the town meetings – June • Three Town Meetings – November • White Paper – January-March 07 • Super Town Meeting at Spring APS meeting – April 07 • NSAC writing group – May 07 • Final LRP document – End of Year 07

  3. NSAC & DNP Executive Committee Members • Susan J. Seestrom, LANL, Chair (2006) • Richard G. Milner, MIT, Chair Elect (2006) • Richard F. Casten, Vice Chair (2006) • Bradley M. Sherrill, MSU, Past Chair (2006) • Benjamin F. Gibson, LANL, Sec.-Treas. (2005) • A. Baha Balantekin , Univ. of Wisconsin - Divisional Councilor (December 2009) • Ani Aprahamian, Univ. Notre Dame (2006) • Jolie A. Cizewski, Rutgers Univ., (2007) • Anna C. Hayes, LANL (2006) • David Hertzog, Univ. Illinois (2006) • Cynthia E. Keppel, Hampton Univ., (2007) • Steven E. Vigdor, Indiana Univ., (2007)

  4. The Town Meetings (as proposed by the DNP Chair) • Nuclear Degrees of Freedom • Nuclei, Nuclear Astrophysics, Nuclear Structure • Quark Degrees of Freedom • QCD Physics • Neutrinos and Fundamental Symmetries • Physics beyond the standard model Tentatively Scheduled for November

  5. Preliminary Discussion within NSD • James Symons has requested that we hold discussions within NSD to identify areas that are vital to our interests and where we must ensure that our interests appear in the Long Range Plan • In some areas, we can take the lead in preparing for the LRP • In some areas, there are others who can and will take the lead and that is OK • In the areas of greatest importance to us, our goal is to make significant contributions to the discussions at the November Town Meetings • Only a very select group of people will actually write the LRP. • What does it take to do this? Calculations? mini-White Papers? • NSD Planning Meeting • Meet on May 13th (Saturday morning) for a few hours to discuss the LRP • Contributions are expected from each program in the division • We will give an approximately 30 minute talk (30 slides) • Identify the areas of science that are of interest to our program • Briefly, demonstrate our expertise • Identify areas of particular importance or sensitivity to our program • Identify open questions in areas where we may not yet be expert • Identify areas where we have sufficient expertise to take the lead

  6. Questions to stimulate thought (from James) • What are the principal scientific goals for QCD physics in the coming decade? • What initiatives are under way? • What initiatives are currently under consideration? • How well aligned is NSD/RNC/Theory with these goals and initiatives? • Are there new ideas that we can add to the mix? • What are our highest priorities for the Town Meetings? • Can we identify likely areas of controversy? Where is our position? • What resources will be needed from the Division to reach these goals? • What special challenges do we face?

  7. The Experimental Landscape • A-A physics at RHIC • Spin physics at RHIC • A-A physics at the LHC • e-A physics at RHIC or JLAB • Low energy AA physics at RHIC and GSI • QCD physics at low x (eRHIC) • Nuclear physics at the quark level using electron beams (JLAB) • ELIC • JPARC Are there other bullets to add to the list?

  8. An Intimate Example (for experimentalists) • The Ultimate HFT detector is ready to take data in 2011 • We would like to run the HFT in a Au-Au beam, a d-Au beam, a p-p beam, and perhaps a low energy or low mass beam Ten years is gone in the blink of an eye!

  9. The Road Ahead • Rank order and identify topics of interest to us as shown (for example) on the previous page • Identify areas where we have expertise but progress is certain • Identify areas where we have expertise but progress is uncertain • Identify areas where we are not experts but issues are still important • The next step is to reduce our activities to a small group of authors who will write the division talk to be given on May 13 • Grazyna has kindly agreed to lead this group and record our observations and comments at today’s meeting • Goal is to finish the talk by the end of next week • I would like to request 5 slides and 1 page of text from the principal proponents of each key research area that we identify in today’s discussion