I agree with this!
Marina
marina artuso
Professor of Physics
Syracuse University
201 Physics Building
Syracuse NY 13244
[log in to unmask]



On Aug 20, 2013, at 6:16 PM, "James D. Olsen" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>  
> On the point about timelines, while concepts like the VLHC are in the ‘far future’, what is in the ‘here and now’ is the R&D on the technology that will enable that vision.  As we heard at Snowmass, much of this know-how exists in the USofA, and I think we have an opportunity here to inspire the next generation of accelerator and magnet physicists.  As Michael points out, this is touched upon in the latest draft of the high-level executive summary, but I think we could make this point even stronger simply by noting the importance and leadership of the US community in this area.
>  
> Best,
> Jim
>  
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yuri Gershtein
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 5:22 PM
> To: Peskin, Michael E.
> Cc: Raymond Brock; Jianming Qian; Markus A. Luty; Tom LeCompte; snowmass-ef
> Subject: Re: [SNOWMASS-EF] VLHC in the snowmass summary
>  
> Hi Michael,
>  
> I understand the point about the timelines, but I think if we are talking about
> "consensus" points, I think it became fairly clear at Snowmass that it's almost 
> inconceivable that we can get complete understanding of the higgs / DM / EWSB
> without building something like VLHC, and we should state that we recognize that 
> such machine is necessary in the future.
>  
> -y
>  
> On Aug 20, 2013, at 2:26 PM, "Peskin, Michael E." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>  
> --------------------------
> Prof. Yuri Gershtein
> [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
> 

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