Dear Michael, Chip,

I am on-board with #8, 9,10.  The instrumental requirments 
and constraints play against the machine design. So it would 
be useful for all to have the cross-education.

Best regards,
Bill

On 5/25/13 2:39 PM, Peskin, Michael E. wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> In Energy Frontier, we have been trying to design sessions that we hope will
> be of general interest, to be organized at Minnesota in the parallel session
> days.   We have come up with a list of 10 sessions that we present below.
> Many of these would be organized in collaboration with other Frontiers or with
> input from other frontiers.  Thus, no speakers are listed yet, and we are open
> to changes in the program descriptions.
>
> Some of these topics (in particular, the first one) might be discussed in the panel
> discussions, but we feel that all of the topics below merit 2-4 hour sessions with talks
> that will present substantive material.
>
> We have received a 1-day program on underground facilities from Gil but (to my
> knowledge) no other specific proposals for the intermediate days at Snowmass.
> If we can accumulate a number of these lists, we can begin to allot time for the
> parallel session days.   Energy Frontier will also schedule meetings of our working
> groups, but we feel it is more important now to put together and announce a program
> of sessions of broad interest that will cross the Frontier boundaries.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Michael and Chip
>
>
> =========================================================
>
> Titles and Descriptions for Sessions of General Interest in Minnesota proposed by the Energy Frontier group:
>
>
> 1. Naturalness -- The strongest argument for new particles at the TeV scale is that they are needed to provide a "natural" explanation for electroweak symmetry breaking.  But some people are now saying that LHC exclusions or flavor bounds are inconsistent with naturalness.  What is the real situation?  To what extent have we excluded naturalness of the electroweak scale?  Is it possible to fully exclude naturalness by proposed experiments and, if so, how?  Is there an alternative to naturalness to estimate the scale of new physics?    (needs input from IF and CF)
>
> 2. Dark Matter -- Review the various approaches to dark matter particle detection,  including direct searches for new particles at colliders. Compare the advantages, disadvantages, and complementarity of the various methods. How does the sensitivity to models of new physics from astrophysical dark matter searches compare to that from direct searches at colliders?  Do the times scales for discovery match?  What can each method tell us about the quantum numbers and interactions of the dark matter particle? (needs to be organized with CF).
>
> 3. Lepton Flavor Violation -- what new physics models will be accessed by mu-e conversion, mu-> e gamma, and tau-> ell gamma experiments now being planned?  How does the sensitivity to these models compare to that from direct collider searches? Do the times scales for discovery match?  Are there collider observables sensitive to the neutrino mixing angles? (needs to be organized with IF)
>
> 4. Quark Mixing and Quark Flavor -- What new physics models will be accessed by future measurements of B, D, and K weak decays, either from improved precision or from new observables?  How does the sensitivity to these models compare to that from direct collider searches?  Do the times scales for discovery match?  Are there new sources of flavor mixing beyond the CKM angles that might show up either in low-energy or in high-energy measurements?   (needs to be organized with IF)
>
> 5. Future of the Higgs --  What are examples of models that predict deviations from the Standard Model in the Higgs couplings, and at what levels? How far have current measurements constrained this model space?  What is the interplay between Higgs coupling measurement and searches for new particles?  What should be the goal in precision Higgs measurement?
>
> 6. Future of the Top Quark -- To what extent have we tested the statement that the couplings of the top quark agree with the Standard Model?  What models of new physics predict variations in the top quark couplings that will be visible when we achieve a higher level of precision?  What is the interplay between measurement of top quark couplings and searches for new particles?  The top quark mass is an important parameter for many purposes; how accurately must it be measured, and how can that be accomplished?   (need input from IF)
>
> 7. Future of Precision Electroweak -- How will the precision tests of the electroweak interactions improve in the coming generation of experiments, both from improved measurements at high energy and from lower energy probes such as Moller scattering and Atomic Parity Violation? What are the achievable accuracies on mW, mZ, alpha, alpha_s, sin2thetaw, etc.?  What accuracies are needed to test predictions of new physics models?  What is the interplay of precision measurement with measurements of W boson scattering?  What is the interplay between precision electroweak measurements and precision Higgs boson measurements?
>
> 8. Instrumentation for High-Luminosity Hadron Colliders -- High energy hadron colliders face serious experimental problems, especially in event reconstruction in the presence of high pileup.  What new technologies are emerging to confront the problems of triggering, heavy flavor ID, and precision tracking and calorimetry in this environment.  How do the specifications of these technologies align with the requirements for physics measurements?  (needs to be organized with InstF)
>
> 9. Instrumentation for Future Lepton Colliders -- Future lepton colliders present a mixture of opportunities and challenges for particle experimentation.  At large angles, ILC offers a very low-background experimental environment, while linear colliders detectors at small angles and muon collider detectors must deal with very large background rates.  These features of future lepton colliders have spurred the development of new technologies, including, on the one hand, silicon detectors with minimal material and energy flow calorimetry at the level of single particle sensitivity and, on the other hand, trackers and calorimeters with nanosecond time windows.  What is the range of such future detector technologies, and how do the proposed solutions match the needs from the physics?    (needs to be organized with InstF)
>
> 10.  Beyond the Terascale  --  What are the most important elements of the case for hadron colliders at 30-100 TeV and lepton colliders at 3-10 TeV?   What sorts of particles or phenomena will we be searching for at such energies?  What are the requirements from the physics on collider parameters and on experimental design?   (needs to be organized with Capabilities, and with input from InstF)
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    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/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
William A. Barletta
Director, US Particle Accelerator School
Department of Physics Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Bldg. 26-537, 77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
617-253-6502

Coordinating Editor, Nuclear Instruments & Methods - A

Adjunct Professor
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy
University of California Los Angeles
4-166B Knudsen Hall, Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547

Visiting Professor
Faculty of Economics
University of Ljubljana
Kardeljeva ploscad 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

########################################################################
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