 |
 |
Hi Michael, all, At the UCI meeting on BSM benchmarks, Markus Luty lead a very interesting and fruitful discussion in this spirit. We went through a list of potential scenarios, along the lines of: if Nature is like X, and we see Y at the LHC14 and don't see Z, what experiments/facilities do we need? He's working on writing it up. Daniel On Mar 15, 2013, at 11:42 AM, Peskin, Michael E. wrote: > Kirill, > > You wrote: > >> However, I want to say that I believe, quite strongly, that we *must* >> have a serious conversation about something similar to >> the point 5, ideally instead of the panel discussion ... > > Thank you for bringing this issue to us very explicitly. > > Our hope was that the subgroup conveners would enunciate broad themes > for each area that justify accelerator-based experiments not only technically > but also at a gut level. The technical work is, in some sense, the raw > material for that discussion. > > These should fit into the broad questions that Chip and I enunciated back > at the Fermilab meeting: > > 1. Where is the physics beyond the Standard Model? What are our > best ideas based on new information, especially from LHC ? > > 2. What is the physics case that motivates the LHC high-luminosity > upgrade? > > 3. Is there a physics case for a lepton collider Higgs factory? > > 4. Is there a case today for experiments at higher energy beyond LHC, e.g. 3 TeV > lepton colliders or 30-100 TeV hadron colliders? > > We need to argue these things out technically, but also we need to articulate > the importance of our goals to the broadest scientific audience. Chip and > I are looking to the group conveners to bring not only the correct answers > but also the themes on which we will explain and argue for these answers. > > In planning the panel discussion at the BNL meeting, Chip and I wanted to encourage > people at the meeting to think about optimistic scenarios in which the next > stage in exploration beyond the Standard Model would involve additional discoveries. > > However, maybe this is too specific. You would like to discuss the broad themes > and the best answer to the broad questions at a more general level. > > I would like to hear the opinions of the whole convener group on this point. > We will save time to discuss it on Monday. > > Thank you, > > 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: Kirill Melnikov [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:59 PM > To: Peskin, Michael E. > Subject: Re: [SNOWMASS-EF] Energy Frontier conveners phone meeting - correct message > > Michael, > > I will not be able to participate in the phone discussion, I will be on > the road. > > However, I want to say that I believe, quite strongly, that we *must* > have a serious conversation about something similar to > the point 5, ideally instead of the panel discussion ``what if someone's > favorite model is discovered'' or even the status of BSM > (I think discussing these things is not very useful, quite frankly). > > I believe we should discuss a reasonable set of broad and general > arguments that 1) can be turned into a strategy and 2) justify funding > for hep, without feeling > uneasy about these arguments at the first place ( I do feel uneasy > arguing that improving the measurement of a parameter x to a precision > y is > an absolutely crucial thing to do for figuring out how fundamental > physics works and I think this is not an argument that will be > received warmly; > by insisting on it, we may risk to loose credibility ). > > Most of the BNL meeting will be spent in extremely detailed discussions, > it seems to me and I am afraid it will not help us figure out the best > strategy > for the field by the summer. > > I think that having a frank high-level conversation about this issue > with leading hep-ph and hep-th figures will be very helpful. > > Best regards, > > Kirill > > > > On 03/14/2013 10:43 PM, Peskin, Michael E. wrote: >> Folks, >> >> [please ignore the previous manifestly incorrect message] >> >> According to the Doodle poll, the best time for us to have a >> phone meeting is actually Monday -- this Monday (!), March 18. >> >> The meeting will be at 10 am PDT, 1 pm EDT; convert to Geneva >> time if you need to. >> >> The meeting will be by phone using ReadyTalk. Here are the coordinates: >> >> Toll-free number: 1-866-740-1260 >> access code: 7740224 (and # key) >> International toll-free numbers at: http://www.readytalk.com/intl >> >> >> Here is a preliminary agenda for the meeting: (1.5 hours, I hope.) >> >> 1. Status of the simulation frameworks, and who will talk about this >> at Brookhaven? >> >> 2. Status of the BSM benchmarks. These need to be ready by >> Brookhaven. >> >> 3. Activities of each working group at Brookhaven: Everyone ready? >> Are there people or groups who need further encouragement >> to attend? >> >> 4. Another task from Chip and Michael to you: Challenges. >> >> 5. Question of Big Picture at Brookhaven. Chip and I would like to >> explain how we plan to use the Panel Discussion time at >> Brookhaven. It has been suggested (by others) that we >> use this time or another time for discussions of the Big Picture >> of BSM in the light of LHC and other current results. What do >> you think about discussions of this issue at Brookhaven, >> and how should we conduct those discussions? >> >> 6. (If we are not exhausted) First discussion of what we >> want to accomplish at the Minneapolis meeting, and >> what group meetings we need to have scheduled. >> >> Thank you! >> >> 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 > ######################################################################## 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