Hi all,
I mean to mention this at end of the phone meeting, but the time ran out. So, let me do it here: a somewhat similar (to the Higgs) question
can be raised for the top quark, i.e., new physics at TeV-ish scale (related to EWSB) is likely to affect Higgs AND top quark properties
(Higgs is obvious, but top quark is also plausible given that it couples most strongly - among all SM particles - to Higgs)...but, even after almost 20 years of its discovery, top quark
properties (e.g., coupling to Z, W) have not been precisely measured: LHC can do it to some extent, but maybe ILC is better (?)...
Regards,
Kaustubh Agashe
________________________________________
From: [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Yuri Gershtein [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 3:56 PM
To: Andrei Gritsan
Cc: Chip Brock; [log in to unmask]; Michael Peskin
Subject: Re: [SNOWMASS-EF] proposed agenda
Hi,
On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Andrei Gritsan wrote:
Hi Chip, Michael,
On this first question from the CF that we did not have time to discuss today:
Questions to us from the Cosmic Frontier, to be discussed today:
"HE1": • The message from the LHC seems to be that with data in hand, we consistently outperform
expectations for extraction of Higgs properties. How much is there really for an ILC to contribute?
What key assumptions are we making now that we could relax with ILC inputs?
This is a rather broad question covering the broad ranges of Snowmass studies (and beyond just Higgs
boson study alone, as Chris points), so we will be answering this as the report takes it shape. At the same
time we could have some examples. First of all, the wording of LHC outperforming expectations is
questionable (perhaps people did not trust that LHC would do well, but it is a separate question)
and the ILC/e+e- and LHC programs are really complementary.
Chris has covered some of this, but I wanted to bring the examples such as spin or CP violation as
the Higgs properties. LHC may indeed complete the measurements of spin well before any Higgs factory
may have a chance to contribute (we know a lot now already). But then the next step is to measure / limit
CP-violation from Higgs kinematics, and this will be a long way for LHC. It will do well, but only as well
as statistics allows. The Higgs factory would quickly outperform in statistics in the HZZ coupling, the
golden coupling on LHC and even more so on the Higgs factory. So, this is one example to contradict
the points hidden in the question asked. It is of course not enough to answer the question fully, but
the goal of the Snowmass report is to lay out all these physics cases.
I thought future measurements of EDMs of e/p/n/d would be more sensitive to small CP violation in the Higgs sector
then direct measurements of Higgs properties?
I guess it's related to Michael's "pump-priming" question to IF...
-y
Andrei
________________________________
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
--------------------------
Prof. Yuri Gershtein
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
http://physics.rutgers.edu/~gershtein
(732)445-5500 x1794
W316 Serin Building
Department of Physics and Astronomy
136 Frelinghuysen Rd
Rutgers University
Piscataway, NJ 08854
________________________________
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
|
