LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK Archives


SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK Archives

SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK Archives


SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK Home

SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK Home

SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK  April 2013

SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK April 2013

Subject:

question from the Capabilities group

From:

"Peskin, Michael E." <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

snowmass-electroweak Snowmass 2013 Electroweak study group <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:09:36 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (51 lines)

Dear Colleagues,

Last week, the accelerator physicists' group in Frontier Capabilities met to discuss 
lepton colliders.   The following question was raised, and your group should answer it.

For a long time, ILC has been contemplating a run at the Z pole with 10^34 luminosity 
("Giga-Z").   This would be able to improve most precision electroweak observables by 
about 1 decimal place.   This program is by now well documented.

The TLEP proposal includes a program at the Z with luminosity 10^36 ("Tera-Z").   TLEP is 
limited by the total amount of synchrotron radiation power that has to be carried 
off.   There is less synchrotron radiation per particle at lower energies, so higher 
beam currents are possible.

However, really getting 10^36 luminosity at the Z puts other constraints on the design.
The machine physicists remarked that TLEP is much easier to build for a program at 
250 GeV with 10^35 if one would back off to 10^35 also at the Z.

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.

However, these are just off-the-cuff remarks.  If someone is interested in doing a real 
analysis of this question for the Snowmass study, I encourage you.

Here is a reference on TLEP at the Z:

https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=222458
talk of Alain Blondel at the bottom of the page

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-ELECTROWEAK list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK&A=1

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2014
June 2014
October 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager

Privacy Notice, Security Notice and Terms of Use