Folks, 

I do agree that VLHC received wide interest at Snowmass.   

However, it is also important to recognize that the time scales for ILC and VLHC are 
very different.  On the practical side, no one today is entertaining a proposal for a 
100 TeV pp collider.   On the physics side, we are just beginning the serious studies
of the capabilities of a 100 TeV collider.  Only a few results were shown at Snowmass
for the 33 TeV machine, and only one, I think, for the 100 TeV machine.   (There will
be more 100 TeV results in the final writeups.)

In the summaries, Chip and I put a statement about ILC into the highest level 
executive summary.  P5 will need to make a statement about ILC, so this input, which
is strictly limited to the physics case and does reflect a consensus at Snowmass, is needed.

There is a brief statement about the 100 TeV machine in the latest version of the 
Executive Summary, and a longer statement in the 5-page Energy Frontier summary.
These reflect our attitude that the 100 TeV is important, but the issue is getting 
ready for a proposal in 2020, not making a decision today.

If you would like it another way, please send some explicit language to this group.
And, please take into account that space in the highest level executive summary is
extremely limited.  We can make two points strongly -- which is what we tried to do --
or make many points of which none registers above background.

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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
From: Jianming Qian [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:24 AM
To: Yuri Gershtein
Cc: Markus A. Luty; Raymond Brock; Tom LeCompte; Peskin, Michael E.; snowmass-ef
Subject: Re: [SNOWMASS-EF] Snowmass summary and Phone meeting request

Hello all,

I'd like to echo Markus and Yuri's comments. I think the support for an eventual 100 TeV pp collider is very strong, certainly not less strong than a Higgs factory.

Cheers, Jianming



On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Yuri Gershtein <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

On Aug 19, 2013, at 1:07 PM, "Markus A. Luty" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

 I believe it is imperative that the high-level Snowmass summary include a statement that VLHC also represents an exciting possibility for the next step forward.

I strongly agree.
Even given different timescales for VLHC and ILC, the way Markus phrased it is right on.

-y


________________________________

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