Folks:
Here are some notes from today's phone meeting:
attending: Brock, Peskin, Luty, Wang, LeCompte, Kotwal, van Kooten, White, Raubenheimer, Prebys, Gerber, Prell, Narain, Padhi, Gritsan, Artuso, Agashe, Hatakeyama, Huston, Papucci, Schwienhorst, Qian, Erbacher, Wackeroth, Campbell
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Action items: ****
a. Suggestions of challenges -- see # 4 below
b. Your responsibilities for the Brookhaven meeting -- #6 below
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0. The Energy Frontier facilities list is finalized. It provides a canonical list
of future accelerators and a suggested luminosity sample for each. We
discourage people from exploring the physics for other parameter sets.
1. We are making progress toward a canonical Snowmass fast-simulation framework for
hadron colliders.
We have agreed on:
a common Snowmass detector, with, in each element, parameters equal to
the better of ATLAS and CMS
DELPHES 3
pileup inclusion as implemented by DELPHES 3
a group including Ashtosh Kotwal, Sergei Chekanov, Mina Narain, and
Sanjay Padhi are finishing this and comparing to ATLAS and CMS
simulation results
We agree that this must be finished to roll out at Brookhaven.
LHC background samples are now being generated as LHE events. They will be
run through this framework and the results stored for public download,
probably at Nebraska.
Fast simulation frameworks exist for lepton colliders, and background samples
are also available.
We need speakers to present this at Brookhaven 40-45 min for hadrons,
15-20 minutes for leptons. Chip and Michael will grap potential
speakers for these slots.
2. We discussed benchmark models. Studies of reach for particular signatures are
best done using simplified models or effective operator formalism. However,
Michael P. was concerned that, to compare across probes and to make
contact with other frontiers, we need complete BSM models with precisely
specified parameters from which implications can be calculated.
The NP group has put a number of complete SUSY models on their wiki site.
Kaustubh A. has created two useful Randall-Sundrum parameter points
with heavy resonances, top quark partners, and composite Higgs/ composite
top phenomenology. These models should also be completely documented
on the NP wiki site before Brookhaven. In general, the set of
"canonical" full-model benchmarks should be finalized before Brookhaven.
3. We quickly reviewed the status of each of the six working groups.
4. We discussed the "Challenges" exercise that you saw in your email yesterday.
Chip and Michael put this forward as an exercise to put forward a narrative
around possible discoveries in the next 5 years and their implications
for the longer-term program.
The reception of this idea was cool. People were concerned that we were
giving too much attention to temporary 2 sigma deviations in the current
data. Markus L. pointed out that the working groups are already
considering scenarios like this. The question is which to use as
examples for prominent discussion in our report.
We welcome suggestions from all of you as to what possible anomalies/discoveries
should be singled out for extended, illustrative discussion in our reports.
*** Send us your suggestions in the next week. We will raise this question to
larger audience at Brookhaven, but this will start the list.
5. We discussed "Big Picture" issues for Energy Frontier, particularly in the context
of the content of the panel discussion that we had scheduled for
Thursday afternoon at Brookhaven. There are many Big Picture issues, and
probably we should schedule a separate EF conveners' meeting, after
Brookhaven, devoted to talking through those issues in an organized way.
One question that we kept coming back to, relevant to the panel discussion, was
the following: Our goal, as the Energy Frontier conveners, is to articulate
the physics motivation for energy frontier experiments as strongly and effectively
as possible, both for presentation to the rest of HEP and to groups outside
of HEP. Yet we are confused about the right strategy and the right points to
emphasize. Brookhaven might be a good place to try out our arguments. In the
panel discussion, 6 people can give their best 10 minute discussions, and we can
schedule another 30 minutes of critique and contributions from the floor.
If you are burning to be a speaker in this session, please let us know.
6. Action items for the next two weeks:
**** 1. You are responsible for posting the scheduled talks in your sessions on
the Brookhaven agenda page. For joint meetings of working groups, the
first group listed has the responsibility.
**** 2. Bring out the troops! Registration at the Brookhaven meeting is now at 110,
there is room for more. Much homework will be given at the meeting,
so this will be a good opportunity for people to come and get involved.
Thanks,
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
|
