Hi Michael, all,
At the UCI meeting on BSM benchmarks, Markus Luty lead a very interesting and fruitful discussion in this spirit. We went through a list of potential scenarios, along the lines of: if Nature is like X, and we see Y at the LHC14 and don't see Z, what experiments/facilities do we need? He's working on writing it up.
Daniel
On Mar 15, 2013, at 11:42 AM, Peskin, Michael E. wrote:
> Kirill,
>
> You wrote:
>
>> However, I want to say that I believe, quite strongly, that we *must*
>> have a serious conversation about something similar to
>> the point 5, ideally instead of the panel discussion ...
>
> Thank you for bringing this issue to us very explicitly.
>
> Our hope was that the subgroup conveners would enunciate broad themes
> for each area that justify accelerator-based experiments not only technically
> but also at a gut level. The technical work is, in some sense, the raw
> material for that discussion.
>
> These should fit into the broad questions that Chip and I enunciated back
> at the Fermilab meeting:
>
> 1. Where is the physics beyond the Standard Model? What are our
> best ideas based on new information, especially from LHC ?
>
> 2. What is the physics case that motivates the LHC high-luminosity
> upgrade?
>
> 3. Is there a physics case for a lepton collider Higgs factory?
>
> 4. Is there a case today for experiments at higher energy beyond LHC, e.g. 3 TeV
> lepton colliders or 30-100 TeV hadron colliders?
>
> We need to argue these things out technically, but also we need to articulate
> the importance of our goals to the broadest scientific audience. Chip and
> I are looking to the group conveners to bring not only the correct answers
> but also the themes on which we will explain and argue for these answers.
>
> In planning the panel discussion at the BNL meeting, Chip and I wanted to encourage
> people at the meeting to think about optimistic scenarios in which the next
> stage in exploration beyond the Standard Model would involve additional discoveries.
>
> However, maybe this is too specific. You would like to discuss the broad themes
> and the best answer to the broad questions at a more general level.
>
> I would like to hear the opinions of the whole convener group on this point.
> We will save time to discuss it on Monday.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael E. Peskin [log in to unmask]
> HEP Theory Group, MS 81 -------
> SLAC National Accelerator Lab. phone: 1-(650)-926-3250
> 2575 Sand Hill Road fax: 1-(650)-926-2525
> Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA www.slac.stanford.edu/~mpeskin/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ________________________________________
> From: Kirill Melnikov [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:59 PM
> To: Peskin, Michael E.
> Subject: Re: [SNOWMASS-EF] Energy Frontier conveners phone meeting - correct message
>
> Michael,
>
> I will not be able to participate in the phone discussion, I will be on
> the road.
>
> However, I want to say that I believe, quite strongly, that we *must*
> have a serious conversation about something similar to
> the point 5, ideally instead of the panel discussion ``what if someone's
> favorite model is discovered'' or even the status of BSM
> (I think discussing these things is not very useful, quite frankly).
>
> I believe we should discuss a reasonable set of broad and general
> arguments that 1) can be turned into a strategy and 2) justify funding
> for hep, without feeling
> uneasy about these arguments at the first place ( I do feel uneasy
> arguing that improving the measurement of a parameter x to a precision
> y is
> an absolutely crucial thing to do for figuring out how fundamental
> physics works and I think this is not an argument that will be
> received warmly;
> by insisting on it, we may risk to loose credibility ).
>
> Most of the BNL meeting will be spent in extremely detailed discussions,
> it seems to me and I am afraid it will not help us figure out the best
> strategy
> for the field by the summer.
>
> I think that having a frank high-level conversation about this issue
> with leading hep-ph and hep-th figures will be very helpful.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Kirill
>
>
>
> On 03/14/2013 10:43 PM, Peskin, Michael E. wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> [please ignore the previous manifestly incorrect message]
>>
>> According to the Doodle poll, the best time for us to have a
>> phone meeting is actually Monday -- this Monday (!), March 18.
>>
>> The meeting will be at 10 am PDT, 1 pm EDT; convert to Geneva
>> time if you need to.
>>
>> The meeting will be by phone using ReadyTalk. Here are the coordinates:
>>
>> Toll-free number: 1-866-740-1260
>> access code: 7740224 (and # key)
>> International toll-free numbers at: http://www.readytalk.com/intl
>>
>>
>> Here is a preliminary agenda for the meeting: (1.5 hours, I hope.)
>>
>> 1. Status of the simulation frameworks, and who will talk about this
>> at Brookhaven?
>>
>> 2. Status of the BSM benchmarks. These need to be ready by
>> Brookhaven.
>>
>> 3. Activities of each working group at Brookhaven: Everyone ready?
>> Are there people or groups who need further encouragement
>> to attend?
>>
>> 4. Another task from Chip and Michael to you: Challenges.
>>
>> 5. Question of Big Picture at Brookhaven. Chip and I would like to
>> explain how we plan to use the Panel Discussion time at
>> Brookhaven. It has been suggested (by others) that we
>> use this time or another time for discussions of the Big Picture
>> of BSM in the light of LHC and other current results. What do
>> you think about discussions of this issue at Brookhaven,
>> and how should we conduct those discussions?
>>
>> 6. (If we are not exhausted) First discussion of what we
>> want to accomplish at the Minneapolis meeting, and
>> what group meetings we need to have scheduled.
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Michael E. Peskin [log in to unmask]
>> HEP Theory Group, MS 81 -------
>> SLAC National Accelerator Lab. phone: 1-(650)-926-3250
>> 2575 Sand Hill Road fax: 1-(650)-926-2525
>> Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA www.slac.stanford.edu/~mpeskin/
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ########################################################################
>> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-EF list, click the following link:
>> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-EF&A=1
>>
>
> ########################################################################
> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
>
> To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-EF list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-EF&A=1
>
########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-EF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-EF&A=1
|
