On 8/22/13 8:57 PM, Peskin, Michael E. wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I attach the most recent versions of the Snowmass Executive Summary and the
> EF 5-page summary.    We will discuss these in our meeting tomorrow.
>
> The Executive summary got somewhat rearranged.   The frontier conveners
> wanted the capabilities sections pulled out and merged into a common section.
> This means that the accelerator part of the LHC, ILC, and VLHC discussion
> occurs much later in the document.  But, please look it over.  I did insert
> language on the US leadership in high-field magnets.

   Regarding the current top-level executive summary, I would like to 
see the _unique_ capabilities of e+e- machines stressed, and as one example:

"They can reach sub-percent precision in the Higgs boson properties, 
allowing discoveries of percent-level deviations predicted in 
theoretical models."

to

"They can reach sub-percent precision in the Higgs boson properties in a 
unique, model-independent way, allowing discoveries of percent-level 
deviations predicted in theoretical models."

   This is just transferring some wording from the longer summary.  I 
believe that we are all agreed that an "all hadron" option, i.e., HL-LHC 
-> HE-LHC/VLHC would definitely be missing out on important physics and 
capabilities and we want to make that clear.

   Also a small suggestion: adding "at least", i.e.,:

"They can improve the precision of our knowledge of the $W$, $Z$, and 
top properties by at least an order of magnitude".

>
> As to the rest of the VLHC discussion, let's talk about it tomorrow.  The
> new particles group would like a stronger endorsement of VLHC in the executive
> summary.  I am rather cool to this, because the VLHC is not on the table
> now.  It would be good to get more opinions from the members of
> our group.

   There is no denying that a ~100 TeV VLHC brings a lot to the table 
(including likely the best place for Higgs self-coupling) and we should 
say this, but with the caveats that Graham clearly points out.  I do 
like Ashutosh's suggested wording encouraging a conceptual design report 
which is what would be needed to come to more solid conclusion.  We 
could preface his encouraging statement with "Although beyond the 
20-year timeline of this report, further investigations of the physics 
and technical issues would be opportune at this time..." (and indeed the 
same holds true for TLEP).

   Regards,
                 Rick


-- 
Rick Van Kooten  \ Telephone: (812) 855-2650  FNAL: (630) 840-3859
Dept. of Physics  \ HEP FAX:  (812) 855-0440
Indiana University \ e-mail:   [log in to unmask]
Swain Hall West 117 \ http://hep.physics.indiana.edu/~rickv/aboutme.html
Bloomington, IN 47405

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