Hi all,
Chiming in late as I've just returned from an email-free vacation...
Two points:
(1) I think it's true that the VLHC concept has considerable support ... in the sense that a large fraction of the community would be excited to build and operate such a machine. But that's like asking Lockheed if they would be excited to build a new super-plane. It's what we like to do.
The harder question is whether it's well-motivated compared to other expensive (non-EF or non-HEP) science projects. Clearly many LHC discoveries would provide compelling motivation for a higher-energy machine, but such a discovery has not yet materialized. We've tried to take a hard look in our NP report at the case in which _nothing new_ is seen at the LHC; you can judge for yourself how well we've done, but it's clearly a more slippery argument.
(2) I've seen and heard some comments about "US leadership". This is probably just semantics, but the implications trouble me, because:
(i) "US" is ill defined: is it work done by US citizens? Or profs at US institutions? Or at US facilities? Or with US-built parts?
(ii) "leadership" is somewhat pejorative to the rest of the community. Isn't it enough that we work towards "continued US strength" rather than trying to make sure we have our elbows in front of our colleagues in other communities?
(iii) Why is "US leadership" so important in such an international community with poorly-defined fuzzy borders? Is such nationalism just used cynically to sell the project to Congress, or is there a real argument to be made that it's critical that we are #1?
Cheers,
Daniel
On Aug 20, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Peskin, Michael E. 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
>
> ########################################################################
> 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
|
