hi Ayres and Sven,
I hear you - but we are talking more than 20 years in the future.
I am amazed at the progress in theory of higher order calculations over the past 20 years. No way do I see this "precision theory frontier" slowing down over the next 20 years.
I am at the Instrumentation Frontier Snowmass workshop in Boulder and they talk of "grand challenges". To me, the discussion below also suggests a "grand challenge" in EWPO.
regards,
Ashutosh
On Apr 18, 2013, at 10:26 AM, Ayres Freitas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I second Sven's comments. I think going beyond GigaZ will be extremely challenging, both in terms the uncertainty of input parameters (mtop, alpha(mz), alpha_s), as well as higher-order calculations. Concerning the latter, we would need (at least) complete NNNLO, which is not completely inconceivable, but will require a hugh amount of effort, and I'm not sure if placing so much effort there is the best way to advance our field (and I am writing this as someone who at least partially makes a living from these calculations). See attachment for some more quantitative, but rough estimates of uncertainties from higher-order corrections that I made recently.
>
> Best,
> Ayres
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Sven Heinemeyer wrote:
>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>>> The question for you is, how much would the extra factor of 10 at the Z pole (or the
>>> extra factor of 100 beyond Giga-Z) buy you in terms of the physics? My quick impression
>>> is that it is not easy to convert the extra luminosity into physics. GF and MZ must be
>>> improved, and NNLO electroweak becomes relevant. The uncertainty in alpha(mZ) also
>>> needs improvement, and I do not see a way to do that.
>> When we make GigaZ predictions for sin2eff, MW etc. we already use
>> a very optimistic assumption on delta(Delta alpha_had) = 5 x 10^-5,
>> resulting in an uncertainty of 1.8 x 10^-5 in sin2eff, i.e. even
>> larger than the anticipated GigaZ uncertainty, see p. 7 of my talk
>> at the BNL meeting a few weeks back:
>> http://www.ifca.unican.es/users/heinemey/uni/talks/2013/SnowmassBNLEWPO.pdf
>>
>> On the next page I give an estimate of intrinsic uncertainties, i.e. due
>> to missing higher-order corrections. Also here in the future the
>> GigaZ result can be matched only "so-so", and even less so in the MSSM,
>> which is the *only* model so far in which these quantities have been evaluated to a precision roughly as in the SM, it is much worse in any other model.
>>
>> Of course in the future many things are possible. But our expectations
>> now (which are not wild guesses ;-) would not profit from another
>> factor of 10 improvement.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Sven
>>
>>
>> *******************************************************************************
>> Sven Heinemeyer (IFCA (CSIC-UC), Santander, Spain) > The future is not set!
>> phone: ++34/942/20-1536, fax: -0935 > There is NO FATE but
>> email: Sven.Heinemeyer(at)cern.ch > what we make for
>> WWW : sven-heinemeyer.de > ourselves!
>> skype: sven.heinemeyer > (Kyle Reese, T2)
>>
>> ########################################################################
>> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK list, click the following link:
>> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK&A=1
>>
>
> ########################################################################
> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
>
> To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK&A=1<therr.png>
########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK&A=1
|