On Oct 11, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Raymond Brock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi
> I too like what Markus has done. The broader argument in favor of TeV scale particles is the right one to make. I might make some few syntactical suggestions, but I'm missing something in the \emph lines. They say:
> 
> To summarize: \emph{Compelling ideas about fundamental physics predict new
> particles at the TeV energy scale that are potentially accessible to present and
> planned future accelerators. These experiments are the crucial tests of these ideas.
> Furthermore, if such particles are discovered, they can be studied in detail to 
> determine their properties, leading to the establishment of new fundamental laws of 
> nature.}
> 
> If there are new particles at the TeV scale predicted by these compelling ideas...then I would argue that it's more than just potentially that they're accessible at present and planned future accelerators. I understood the caution before, but the words were not so specific. I would say that if there are particles at the TeV scale...we'll find them.
> 
> What am I missing? What would make them be at the TeV scale...and yet still invisible at LHC, ILC, VLHC?
> 
> thanks
> Chip

exactly - i am also missing the need for the word "potentially" (is it participle or gerund ?)  as a caveat to "accessible"

As written, the word "potentially" implies a weakness of the experimental technique of detection, rather than a weakness of the theoretical argument in the prediction. 

I think Sally, Markus, Daniel etc were worried about the latter, but it reads more like the former. 

Ashutosh

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