The aim of this ECFA-NuPECC-APPEC working group is to find ways to improve the recognition of individual achievements in large collaborations. The working group was installed in July 2019 in Ghent. It continues previous work by ECFA, which among other activities performed a community-wide survey in 2018. Meetings with the collaborations were held separately for the three communities in two rounds, first in June-July 2020 and then in Oct-Nov 2020. A questionnaire was prepared and sent to the participating collaborations from all three communities in late 2020 and has been evaluated. A report summarizing the results has been prepared, circulated in the community and presented at the JENAS meeting in May 2022 in Madrid. Based on the feedback, a final version has been prepared that can be downloaded here.
Background: a composition of the center of the milky way (custom composition of three different wavelengths images)and a deep star map by NASA’s scientific visualization studio
Earth: textures are from NASA blue marble, 3D rendering from Simon Barke
LISA constellation: Simon Barke
Credts: NASA/JPL-Caltech/NASAEA/ESA/CXC/STScl/GSFCSVS/S.Barke (CC BY 4.0)
LISA, the future gravitational wave observatory in space, has passed major milestones and is expected to fly in the mid-2030s. Recent developments of LISA include the review of technologies and planning according to ESA´s standard development logic, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences’ Decadal Review. LISA has successfully mastered both milestones:
Mission Formulation Review and begin of Phase B1
LISA, the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, has reached an important milestone: it has passed the comprehensive “Mission Formulation Review” (MFR) and entered the next phase of development, Phase B1. The MFR review team, consisting of experts from ESA, NASA, the scientific community and industry, identified no showstoppers and confirmed that LISA has successfully reached a maturity sufficient to proceed to the next stage. The MFR is a prerequisite for mission development to continue. In an ESA mission lifetime cycle, the MFR is the formal end of Phase A (mission feasibility). Building upon the foundations laid in Phase A, the team now focuses on developing the requirements guidelines for the mission.
“LISA is well underway. In Phase B1 we do more detailed design work to establish the complete set of mission requirements and the verifications approach”, says Prof Karsten Danzmann, Lead of the LISA Consortium.
Martin Gehler, LISA Study Manager at the European Space Agency, adds: “The review was a major success for all stakeholders and the fruit of vigorous work on Consortium, NASA, and ESA side over the last years.”
Transitioning into Phase B1 finally lifts the mission out of concept studies and marks a major milestone for all of the scientists and engineers involved. With an implementation duration of around 10 years, LISA is expected to fly in the mid-2030s and, following a year-long cruise to its final, low-disturbance destination, can start to fulfil its mission to observe gravitational waves from space and enable new scientific discoveries.
US National Academy of Sciences highlights LISA as a New Window on the Dynamic Universe
The US National Academy of Sciences has noted the important presence in the NASA Program of Record for the implementation and execution of the LISA Mission, led by the European Space Agency. In the Astrophysics Decadal Survey, a panel of experts evaluated and prioritized research activities in astronomy and astrophysics in the coming decade. The survey noted the “tremendous promise” of the future gravitational wave space mission LISA because of the expectation that observations of gravitational waves in space will make “astronomical measurements that will change paradigms.”
LISA International Symposium
The online LISA International Symposium took place from July 25-29 and was organized by the Institute for Gravitational Research of the University of Glasgow. Updates on all areas of the project were presented during this meeting and recors of the talks are available here:
LISA Through observations of gravitational waves, LISA will offer an unprecedented and unique view of the Universe, quite different from any other space telescope and any ground-based gravitational-wave detector. LISA will deliver pioneering scientific results enabling insights not available through electromagnetic observations.
Combining LISA observations with those of other ground- and space-based facilities will also allow scientists to make enormous advances in multi-messenger astronomy.
LISA will observe gravitational waves in a lower frequency band than those detectable by LIGO and Virgo, allowing us to observe much larger systems at earlier times in the Universe’s history.
The LISA instrument will consist of three spacecraft in a triangular configuration with 2.5 million kilometer arms, moving in an Earth-like orbit around the Sun. Gravitational waves from sources throughout the Universe will produce slight oscillations in the arm lengths (smaller than the diameter of an atom). LISA will capture these motions and thus measure the gravitational waves by using laser links to monitor the
displacements of test masses free-falling inside the spacecraft. The LISA satellites are being built by ESA, ESA member nations, and NASA.
LISA´s hardware got its first and very successful test in space with the LISA Pathfinder (LPF) mission, led by ESA with NASA participation. This included a thorough test of crucial components of LISA´s technology. LPF demonstrated that it’s possible to place and maintain test masses in free-fall to an astonishing level of precision, and that the exquisite metrology needed for LISA meets the requirements.
The LISA Consortium is a large international collaboration that combines the resources and expertise from scientists in many countries all over the world. Together with ESA as the lead agency and NASA as an international partner, the LISA Consortium is working to bring the LISA mission to fruition.
Round table discussions during the Town Meeting.
Credits: AAPEC/ Ashley Jones
On the 9th and 10th of June about 100 Astroparticle Physicists met in Berlin to discuss the Midterm review of the European Astroparticle Physics Strategy 2017-2026. The aim of the Town Meeting was to receive a final feedback from the community on the implementation process of the Astroparticle Physics Strategy with respect to the international context, and the new developments in Astroparticle Physics and neighbouring fields that could lead to further evolution of the strategic recommendations.
As input to the Town Meeting, written community feedback was obtained over the last months and together with the oral feedback from the Town Meeting, the APPEC Scientific Advisory Committee will release a draft Strategy Update document by fall for final community feedback. The Strategy Update is expected to be released by APPEC before the end of the year.
The first day of the town meeting was dedicated to discussions in small groups. According to their stated interests, the participants were put into mixed discussion groups with 4-6 participants and 14 different topics were discussed in eight rounds. In addition, there was the opportunity to discuss further topics during the “Open microphone speeches”.
After initial skepticism, this concept was subsequently highly praised and contributed a great deal to the successful outcome of the meeting. Especially after the long Corona break, without face-to-face meetings, the need for informal and personal discussions was very high and sufficient time was made available for these, which was gratefully appreciated by the participants.
Group picture
Credits: APPEC/ Ashley Jones
In the late afternoon and evening of the first day the outcomes of the discussions were collected by the table hosts together with the topical summary speaker who presented the results on Friday morning. From all the summary talks, it was the task for the APPEC SAC Chair to identify the most important topics and how to incorporate them into the midterm review and finally the update document. This was presented in a final presentation on Friday afternoon.
Christian Spiering has worked in Russia for more than four years in the 1970s and has collaborated with Russian researchers for almost fifty years. Russia with its language, its literature and its people became a kind of second cultural home for him. In the early APPEC/ASPERA period he chaired several roadmap processes and he initiated the Global Neutrino Network, a network in which neutrino astronomers from different countries and from several experiments work together. Russia’s attack on Ukraine has currently made such collaborations impossible. This war affects in first order the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian scientists but also has a huge impact on science in Europe as a whole and in particular on collaborations with Russian scientists. These aspects will be discussed in the following interview.
You have always worked closely with Russian scientists. How has this collaboration changed since the start of the war in Ukraine?
Before answering your question, let me make a general remark: I admit that I belonged to those who have tried to understand and to explain Russian policy, even to some degree Putin’s policy, and who see themselves disproved since February 24. I am also aware that with respect to the emergence of this conflict, there is no simple black and white. Historians will weigh the arguments of all sides against each other, including also those about chances missed by Western and Ukrainian policy. But whatever mistakes may have been made from all sides: nothing, really nothing justifies a war, and nothing justifies the support of the aggression against Ukraine.
Now to your question.
Let me give you a simple example: I am chairing the Technical Advisory Board of Baikal GVD and I am a member of its strategic Advisory Committee. Just in February we had sessions of these two committees and wrote detailed recommendations, including the advice to broaden the basis of the experiment by inviting more international collaboration partners. Now, a bit more than a month later, we neither could perform such sessions, nor would we write recommendations. The advice to invite more international partners at present would sound bizarre, to say the least.
Within the Global Neutrino Network, Baikal GVD is also part of transnational multi-messenger activities which – regrettably for all sides – will suffer from the present situation.
Another case is the TAIGA experiment in Siberia, with strong intellectual and hardware contributions from Germany. For the time being, Germans will not travel to Russia and participate in detector upgrade and operation. Parallel analyses in Germany and Russia are continuing, but when and how this could lead to a jointpublication is open. Another example is the FACT Cherenkov telescope in La Palma which was foreseen to be transported to the TAIGA site; if and when this could happen is currently written in the stars. On another note will be experiments like LEGEND, CUPID and others which used to (or have planned to) obtain purified materials from Russia. They might have to look for other, likely more expensive suppliers.
Are there still opportunities to work together with Russian colleagues?
For the moment all cooperation with Russian institutions has been frozen. I believe that – if artists and sportsmen cancel their participation in joint events – scientists should also send a strong signal against this completely unjustified and brutal war. There is no question that contacts will be resumed at some point after the end of the war, or at least after a ceasefire. This will certainly start with small projects shaped by individuals. However, I personally would find it difficult to come back to common work, such as if nothing had happened, with someone who has openly supported the invasion of Ukraine.
How do you assess the situation for science and scientists in Russia?
Russian scientists will be, or are already, the first to suffer with respect to their work. This starts with the possibilities to participate in international projects in the West, to be accepted as speakers on conferences, with problems to sign with their Russian affiliation on joint publications, and continues with the availability of high-tech components for experiments in Russia, like, e.g., the Baikal Gigaton Volume Detector or the TAIGA observatory.
On a completely different note is the exodus of excellent scientists, among them those of whom Putin says he “spits them out like a mosquito that has got into his mouth” (a formulation which reminds me of the darkest times in Germany as well as in Soviet Union). Historical situations are difficult to compare, but somehow this could become a version of the exodus of brilliant minds from Germany in the 1930s.
On the one hand, there is a declaration, signed by several thousand Russian scientists, against the war; on the other hand, Russian universities have issued a statement in which they express their full support for Putin’s politics. How can we deal with these different attitudes?
I have the deepest respect to the signatories of the letter against the war – for their clear inner compass and for their courage. For me, the rectors of the Universities who signed the second letter range on a similar level as all the Duma members, ministers and governors who have silently carried out the illegal orders of the government and therefore bear a considerable share of the blame for the current situation. Note, however, that some rectors did not sign this nasty document and that the names of some of them seem to have been inserted without their own knowledge. Also, a non-negligible number of faculty members and students signed a letter against that of their rectors – with consequences for them which likely will become fully visible only after the war.
I have no clear idea how to deal with that. The general principle should be to support the signatories of the anti-war letters wherever possible, and avoid the cooperation with the intentional signatories of the rector’s letter if any possible. How to translate this into action in concrete situations will have to be seen. For the duration of the war, a proper selectivity seems impossible, so I would vote for freezing any official cooperation until the weapons are silent and a ceasefire is reached, however fragile it may be.
Whatever we do, we should keep in mind, that Russian science does not only consist of Universities and Research Institutes, but is made up of thousands of unexpectedly isolated researchers, a large proportion of whom condemn war, even though they may disagree with us about its causes. I will keep the contacts to my Russian friends, and I fervently hope for a time when we see each other in person and can work together again.
Many collaborations and scientific institutions are currently discussing how to combine good scientific practice and the sanctions against Russia and how to deal, for example, with joint publications. What is your opinion on this?
I think that withdrawing already submitted publications is not a good way. Work on publications in preparation, however, might easily be paused – this kind of “freezing” does not violate good scientific practice. Let’s be honest: for more than 99.9% of all possible publications, at this very moment a clear sign against the war is more important than their delay by a few months (I hope that this time scale does not turn out to be an illusion).
In any case, I would wish that the APPEC countries find a coordinated answer to this question.
Do you expect an increasing number of Russian refugees, including scientists? How should we as a scientific community deal with these?
Journalists, writers, artists and scientists are probably the most exposed and vulnerable groups. The European governments should create a support program so that our Universities and research institutes are enabled to create positions for exiled Russians and to integrate them in our research landscape. Given the excellent scientific quality of many of the Russian opponents to the war, this would certainly turn out as a clear benefit for astroparticle and particle physics in western countries.
You yourself live in Berlin, where many Ukrainian refugees are currently arriving. How do you personally experience this situation?
Together with a few others, I am taking care of eight Ukrainian women with their 13 children. At the beginning, they were accommodated in a hostel, but without meals. So, we prepared breakfast and dinner for them for a fortnight. Meanwhile we could accommodate them in four flats and are helping them with all the confusing formalities – financial support, health insurance, language lessons, etc. Most of them want to go back to Ukraine as soon as the war is over.
A Russian-speaking colleague of mine, also retired, took a job as a full-time teacher of Ukrainian kids. In general, there is great support from volunteers, and even the cumbersome Berlin bureaucracy is – slowly but steadily – getting into gear.
This interview took place on 2 April 2022.
Further information
Database of positions and accommodation for Ukrainian students and researchers: Science for Ukraine
Christian Spiering (born 1948) studied Physics at Humboldt University Berlin. 1974-78 he worked at JINR Dubna. Having started his carrier with hadron-nucleus interactions, he moved to a neutrino experiment at Protvino/USSR, and 1988 to neutrino astrophysics – starting with the neutrino telescope in Lake Baikal, later AMANDA at the South Pole, and ending up with IceCube. Being engaged in “two worlds”, he initiated the Global Neutrino Network in 2014. He worked also in the Tunka/TAIGA air shower experiments in Siberia. Christian served as AMANDA European Spokesperson and later IceCube spokesperson. From 2006 to 2012 he chaired the APPEC Peer Review Committee. He was awarded the Markov Price of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the O’Ceallaigh-Medail of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. He is author of two popular-scientific books, quite recently “Neutrino astronomy – looking to hidden worlds”.
Artist’s impression of the white dwarf and red giant binary system following the nova outburst. (Credits: DESY/H.E.S.S., Science Communication Lab)
In a publication in Science, the H.E.S.S. collaboration has for the first time described the time sequence of the acceleration process in a nova.
Novae are a source of high-energy particles and photons and RS Ophiuchi (RS Oph) is a recurrent nova system comprising a white dwarf and a companion red giant star. RS Ophiuchi exploded on August 8, 2021 and the H.E.S.S. telescopes were turned to the constellation in the night after the first sightings and promptly detected the explosion. The observations continued for more than one month, resulting in an exquisitely covered light-curve of the event.
The paper ‘Time-resolved hadronic particle acceleration in the recurrent nova RS Ophiuchi’ describes the spectral and temporal properties of the gamma-ray emission. They reveal that it takes longer to reach maximum brightness at the highest energies compared to less energetic light and offers insights that allow a more profound understanding of such explosions.
Credits: Image: Photography: Luca Zanier; Artwork: Leonard Köllenberger, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. Cover Design: Amie Fernandez, Nature Physics
The international KArlsruhe TRItium Neutrino Experiment (KATRIN) located at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) has now been the first to constrain the mass of neutrinos to less 1 electron volt (eV) and, hence, has broken an important “barrier“ in neutrino physics. From the data recently published in Nature Physics, a new upper limit of 0.8 eV has been derived for the mass of the neutrino. These results obtained by means of a model-independent laboratory method allows KATRIN to constrain the mass of these “lightweights of the universe” with unprecedented precision. The publication is available here: DOI: 10.1038/s41567-021-01463-1
The results have also been presented in a public outreach event in German. The presentation is still accessible via the following website: https://www.katrin.kit.edu/leicht-leichter-neutrinos.php
Sketch from the illustrator Julie Borgese. She was invited to capture the atmosphere of the symposium and to transform scientific concepts into pieces of art.
After being canceled in 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions, the 2021 edition of the Paris-Saclay Astroparticle Symposium was organised from October 18 to November 26, 2021 at the Institut Pascal of the Paris-Saclay university. The organisation of this event was made possible thanks to support from P2IO, the P2I graduate school of the University of Paris-Saclay, IN2P3, APPEC and CEA. The symposium was a great success: nearly 230 researchers participated either by being present at the Pascal Institute (about 40 per week, many staying for several weeks) or by participating via videoconference.
The symposium was aimed at researchers specialised in the broad field of astroparticle physics, who were invited to come and work at the Institut Pascal in order to initiate, pursue or finalise research projects and publications. The format of the symposium is particularly well suited for this purpose, with a limited number of plenary sessions dedicated to presentations and leaving a significant amount of time reserved for joint work and informal discussions.
Due to the cancellation of the 2020 edition it was decided to extend the duration from the usual 4 to 6 weeks in 2021. Each week focused on specific topics and followed a similar outline: moderated by one or more specialists, informal discussions of about 2 hours on a specific topic triggered very fruitful exchanges and initiated joint works. One day per week was dedicated to presentations by participants who wished to present their work.
The following topics were discussed during the symposium (the details of the different sessions are available on the event website https://indico.ijclab.in2p3.fr/event/7119/):
Week 1: Galactic Cosmic Rays
Week 2: Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays
Week 3: Dark Matter: Theories
Week 4: Dark Matter: Theories versus Experiments
Week 5: The transient sky (GWs and compact objects, multi-messenger astronomy)
Week 6: Gravitational waves, theoretical point of view
In addition, a series of seven lectures for the general public, given by well-known external speakers, was organised. These lectures took place in the evening at the Institut Pascal and were a great success. Finally, an illustrator was invited to capture the atmosphere of the symposium and transform certain scientific concepts into pieces of art. A first sketch is shown below.
The 2022 edition of the Paris-Saclay Astroparticle Symposium is already in preparation!
Mark your agenda: it will take place from October 31 to November 25, 2022 at the Institut Pascal of the Paris-Saclay university.
Composition of the Paris-Saclay Astroparticle Symposium 2021 organising committee:
Fabio Acero (AIM, CNRS/INSU)
Philippe Brax (IPhT CEA)
François Brun (CEA/IRFU – Department of Particle Physics)
Olivier Deligny (IJCLab, CNRS/IN2P3)
Carla Macolino (IJCLab, CNRS/IN2P3)
Yann Mambrini (IJCLab, CNRS/IN2P3)
Fabian Schüssler (CEA/IRFU – Department of Particle Physics)
List of scientific symposia :
The implications of discovery of PeVatrons, by Zhen Cao
Perspectives in Astroparticles, by Andreas Haungs
Searching for ultra light dark matter and gravitational waves with atom interferometers, by John Ellis
Strategies for European astroparticles, by Gianfranco Bertone
Multi-messenger astronomy including gravitational waves, by Marica Branchesi
The Cherenkov Telescope array and its science, by Werner Hofmann
List of public lectures :
Physics in science fiction films, by Richard Taillet
Why the sun shines, by Roland Lehoucq
What is the vacuum full of, by Étienne Klein
A history of the Universe: from the Big Bang to the present day and beyond, by Yann Mambrini
Seeing and hearing black holes, by Alain Riazuelo
The arrow of time, from molecular billiards to the dance of stars, by Cédric Villani
Thirty years of progress in astrophysics, by Hervé Dole
The “Low-latency alerts and data analysis for Multi-messenger Astrophysics workshop”, organized with the support of the H2020 funded project AHEAD2020, the APPEC consortium, IN2P3, APC Laboratory and EGO was held on 13-14 January online. The workshop, the first of a series, gathered over 150 participants and aimed to provide an overview of the existing and future developments from a data analysis perspective of the space-based and ground-based infrastructures, identify and discuss technical issues and foster new interactions and community building around the multi-messenger data analysis science and tools. Together with the future events on this topic of paramount importance to be announced in the first half of the year by the committee, the long term goal is to contribute to the emergence of a common path towards a more integrated approach for the multi-messenger astrophysics data analysis. The contributions can be found here: https://indico.in2p3.fr/event/25290/contributions/
Interview with the APPEC Scientific Advisory Commitee Chair Sijbrand de Jong about the review process
The (European) Astroparticle Physics community is invited to provide feedback on the draft APPEC mid-term review of the Astroparticle Physics Strategy 2017-2026. The APPEC SAC, with its chair Sijbrand de Jong, has been preparing this preliminary review over the last few months and has now made it available to the community. The report as well as the feedback form are both accessible at https://indico.desy.de/event/32140/overview – feedback will be possible until January, 21st, 2022. It will be further discussed during the Berlin Town Meeting in June, after which the final report will be prepared. In this interview, Sijbrand de Jong gives us an insight into the entire process.
You have been coordinating the review process over the last months. What is your intention with the current draft document?
We are now half-way the 2017-2036 period of the current European Astroparticle Physics Strategy and a lot has happened since then. Hence, this is a good time to take stock concerning the present strategy and to see if corrections on the course are needed and to start thinking about the European Astroparticle Physics Strategy in the period after 2026. Therefore, the APPEC General Assembly (GA) has asked the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) to organise an update of the strategy. The SAC would like to involve the entire Astroparticle Physics community in Europe and beyond in the update process. The final draft of the strategy update that will be offered to the GA for endorsement will be based on the outcomes of a Town Meeting to which then entire community is invited and which will be held in Berlin on 9 and 10 June 2022. To prepare both the agenda, the discussion form and the content of this meeting, the SAC is preparing a document to review the current situation and to indicate new developments since 2017 and topics for discussion. Such a document will help to structure the discussion and will allow us to arrive at a good conclusion after two days of gathering. The SAC consists of some very knowledgeable people, but it falls short compared to the intellectual capacity of the entire APP research community. In the preparation of this review, the SAC therefore requests the help of the entire community to arrive at a balanced document as input for the discussions in Berlin. To structure the input from the community the current draft review serves as a framework where we hope we already give a decent summary of the status and developments and list of discussion items, and we ask for feedback to complete and refine the review.
Localization of the gravitational-wave, gamma-ray, and optical signals for the binary neutron star merger GW170817. (From B. P. Abbott et al 2017 ApJL 848 L12)
What you consider as major changes since the publication of the roadmap in 2017?
In particular in multi-messenger astronomy things move forward fast, but also our knowledge on particle physics is progressing steadily. There are lots of experiments and observatories announced as desirable in the current strategy that are being realised. The use of machine learning is gaining terrain rapidly and will also be very important to our research field. With the experiments getting bigger and more expensive in time, the pooling of resources and the availability of central research infrastructure gains importance to the point that going to a next level of organisation and coordination seem inevitable. There have also been major developments in society at larger and in our scientific surroundings. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and the care for all our researchers must be on the agenda. Some of these topics were not much addressed in the current strategy, but the SAC feels they ought to be addressed from now on.
Who should give feedback and how?
We are reaching out to the entire APP community. All individuals are invited to give feedback. It is important that every voice is heard. In addition, it is also particularly useful to receive the feedback of collaborations and national communities. Collaborations often already have their own strategy, sometimes even involving a follow-up experiment. National communities are usually the closest to the sources of our resources. The National roadmaps have a real impact on what we can do in the European context. There is a fort and back between the European strategy and the national strategies. One may hope that the national strategies align with the European strategy, but this is only possible if the national strategies are considering the European strategy. Of course, we hope for feedback from committees and boards that represent the research fields bordering APP, such as particle physics through e.g. ECFA and nuclear physics through e.g. NuPECC. There is much overlap with these communities and real synergy is possible, the Joined ECFA, NuPECC, APPEC Seminars are a good example for meeting and starting joint projects.
What do you expect from the community feedback?
Most likely we will have missed things and made some factual mistakes. It is important to get these potential distractions out of the way to keep the discussions in Berlin focussed and effective. Despite its length, the document is relatively short on any particular experiment, observatory or development. We are trying to keep the document as concise as possible, while maintaining a balance in the amount of information for each subject and issue. We have probably succeeded when everybody feels that we are too short on their darlings.
What are the next steps after the feedback deadline?
After gathering all the feedback, the SAC will adapt the review to be as comprehensive and correct as possible. This final review, after being endorsed by the GA, will be made public well in advance if the Berlin Town Meeting. At the same time as finalising the review, the SAC will also draw up the agenda for the Berlin meeting with all the information of what the community thinks is. We will also carefully consider all suggestions for “burning questions” that can be given in the feedback form. This is a very important part of the feedback form.
How will you include the discussions taking place during the Town Meeting in the final document?
Ideally, the strategy update document will be much shorter, and hence it will contain much less detail than the review document. Yet, all relevant information from the Town Meeting will have to be included. This is a daunting challenge, to which the SAC will set itself over the summer of 2022. Basically, it means that the strategy update will be written from scratch, following the format of the current strategy document. The strategy update will also contain many more pictures than the single one in the current review document. The SAC wanted the review document to be picture free, but the only one included replaced a lot of text to explain the interrelations of all sorts of neutrino properties and their measurements and is therefore included. Not as an illustration of the text, but as the replacement of a potential lengthy text paragraph.
When the final document will be published and what is your goal with this review?
During the process this document will serve as the basis of our discussion in the Town Meeting and as one of the basic inputs for the strategy update document. It will also serve as the basis for the deliberations of the SAC on the programme for the Berlin Town Meeting and be a lead for structuring the discussions during this meeting. It is therefore a pivotal working document. The review and the talks and summaries of the Town Meeting will be made public. After the completion of the update process, they will serve both as documentation of the process itself and as background information of the strategy for those who really want to dig deep.
Sijbrand de Jong was trained as an experimental particle physicist and worked on deep inelastic neutrino, muon, and electron scattering and electron-positron, antiproton-proton and proton-proton colliders, before turning to ultra-high-energy cosmic ray science. He worked on both instrumentation, data analysis and phenomenology in particle and astroparticle physics. Presently, he is a member of the Pierre Auger Collaboration and GRAND Collaboration, specialising in radio detection of ultra-high-energy cosmic particles. He held several management and governance positions, e.g., member of the LHC committee, and CERN Council president and presently is the dean of the Faculty of Science of Radboud University.
Ideally, the strategy update document will be much shorter, and hence it will contain much less detail than the review document. Yet, all relevant information from the Town Meeting will have to be included. This is a daunting challenge, to which the SAC will set itself over the summer of 2022. Basically, it means that the strategy update will be written from scratch, following the format of the current strategy document. The strategy update will also contain many more pictures than the single one in the current review document. The SAC wanted the review document to be picture free, but the only one included replaced a lot of text to explain the interrelations of all sorts of neutrino properties and their measurements and is therefore included. Not as an illustration of the text, but as the replacement of a potential lengthy text paragraph.
