Hi Graham,
    The 8% precision on the Higgs self-coupling from VLHC comes from white paper submitted
by Wei-Ming Yao and this analysis reproduces the results for HL-LHC and extends the analysis
to HE-LHC and VLHC.  Jianming is away, but knows the status of the documentation for that
analysis (which I gather you have not seen).
It is true that there is another potential source for higher precision on the Higgs self-coupling.
The 6 TeV muon collider has the potential to achieve 2% and if this white paper contribution
arrives in time with the full background simulation, then we will revise that conclusion point.
Best,
Chris


On Aug 23, 2013, at 12:11 PM, Graham W. Wilson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Rick,
> 
>     I haven't followed the hadron collider Higgs self-coupling discussion in detail, but from a quick reading of the
> draft Higgs report and relevant papers (I couldn't find ref 69), it seems clear that double-Higgs production statistics
> is likely to be a strength of VLHC. But how much this translates into a Higgs self coupling measurement
> and in particular a model-independent measurement of the Higgs self-coupling when there is a 30% error on
> the theoretical cross-section and many different non HHH coupling contributions to final states with HH is not clear at all.
> So I don't think your "likely the best place for Higgs self-coupling" is supported by the current documentation.
> 
>      regards
>            Graham
> 
> On 8/23/2013 9:45 AM, Rick Van Kooten wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Graham W. Wilson
> Associate Professor
> Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
> University of Kansas
> Lawrence, KS 66045
> Office Tel.   785-864-5231
> Web: http://heplx3.phsx.ku.edu/~graham/
> 
> ########################################################################
> 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