Dear Michael and Chip,

Congratulations on this nice summary report.  I've been following the lengthy discussion, and I agree that this current version is an improvement in language, and I'm generally happy with the tone.

You mentioned that there is still time for comments, and I'm not sure how serious you were.  In any case, I have only (mostly) minor comments, mainly for clarity, on the version that you sent (not the one attached to this email but the one you sent after you hit "save") entitled EF_summary_10-15.pdf.  

1) The two-sentence introduction seems to be plain definitions, and is bland.  I won't suggest something (unless you want) since you are going to work with another wordsmith anyway (professional editor?).  But the intro doesn't draw the reader in until the second paragraph.  

2) line 94: The terminology "Future experiments on the Higgs should also improve our knowledge" seems to be uncommon usage.  Normally we would say "Future experiments should also improve our knowledge of the Higgs" or "Further measurements (at future experiments)…" or some such.  The current wording struck me as odd.

3) line 102: There is no transition sentence here, we just jump from Higgs to WZ without any preface or motivation referring to the fact that it is number 2 on the list (line 56), and no subsections to show the topic has been changed.  The sudden transition is surprising.  How about something referring back to your point in number 2, like "Aside from these direct studies of the Higgs and possible partners, precise measurements of the W and Z bosons are needed to test the theory.  The study of the W and Z bosons has two aspects: first, …"  (Or something like that, maybe your wordsmith can help.)

4) line 115: I believe interpretations should be plural

5) line 116-117: the sentence looks like it was edited improperly and doesn't make sense as-is.

6) line 199-120: this sentence doesn't parse very clearly, I had to read it twice.  Here I added a comma and a "if-then" phrase for clarity: "Collider experiments at higher energy are sensitive to the three-gauge-boson couplings, (comma) and for the first time, to non-standard four-boson interactions, *which would be* indicative of new interactions in vector boson scattering.

7) lines 126, 134: It seems to me transition sentences would be useful here, too.  I also think the top quark should come right after the W/Z discussion because in your outline on lines 54-59 you mention W, Z, top all in number 2), but here you've inserted QCD with no preface, and only move to top after that.

8) line 152: the paragraph is list-like, and could be helped by a transition word or two.  How about: "…with accuracies possible at the sub-percent level.  Meanwhile, the billions of top quarks produces at the high-luminosity LHC will allow…"

General remark:
I'm a little surprised that dark matter didn't play a bit bigger role in the summary toward the end.  It is mentioned in the introduction (lines 42-47) in a generic way but never fleshed out. It is mentioned in the new particles section but it seems in passing (moving on to a whole class of new particles). The next two mentions of it are in the context of a lepton collider being able to find signatures that might be missed at a proton collider, but there is little discussion of the capabilities of the LHC searches, nor of the impact it has had on the phase space, nor of the significance of this fact.  

The reason I think the significance of this potential at the Energy Frontier should be emphasized more is partly due to the overlap with the Cosmic Frontier here, but mainly because it is one of the Big Questions that any list of Big Questions would include, alongside the Higgs/hierarchy problem (which is heavily emphasized in the intro).  The fact that colliders can help to address this other very big question is a little washed out, in my reading of it.  If there is a way to add some statements emphasizing the importance of this, perhaps on page 5 in the new particle area or just in the final summary, this would make our summary even stronger, I believe.  

That's it-- overall I have to say-- very nice job, and thank you for all of your endless hours of work to get us here.

Cheers, Robin

On Oct 15, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Peskin, Michael E." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> Our discussion on Thursday and the followup email exchange was very productive.  I hope 
> that you have been receiving my emails with the successive changes.  Chip and I feel that those 
> people who objected to parts of the original version are happy with the current revision.
> 
> Chip and I decided that we have achieved sufficient convergence on the Energy Frontier reports to 
> send them up to the Snowmass conveners.  (Jon Rosner is very, very impatient to receive 
> these reports.)  Please find attached the versions of the two reports that were sent,
> and a listing of changes from yesterday.  Thanks to all of you for your help in getting these
> documents as correct as possible.
> 
> The process from here is the following:
> 
> 1.  The long report will be read by the professional editor hired by the DPF for the Snowmass
> proceedings.  I will meet with her next Monday to go over her style and wording suggestions.
> The report will also be read by "Reading Committee" of DPF officers.  They will also recommend
> wording changes for clarity.  Chip and I control which changes are implemented, and we will
> respect your opinions.
> 
> 2.  The short report will become part of the overall Snowmass summary document.  This will
> also be read by the professional editor and my the Reading Committee.  Jon Rosner has the 
> final say on what goes in the document, but we will try to preserve the current content as 
> best we can.
> 
> 3.  The timeline above means that there is still time for further corrections.  If you see more 
> typos or wrong numbers, send them to me and I will include those fixes in the revisions.
> The sooner the better.
> 
> 4.  It is time to complete the working group reports.  Please go into the final phase.  These
> must be done (final final final) by about October 25.
> 
> Thank you very much!!
> 
> 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/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ########################################################################
> 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