Folks: Here are some notes from today's phone meeting: attending: Brock, Peskin, Luty, Wang, LeCompte, Kotwal, van Kooten, White, Raubenheimer, Prebys, Gerber, Prell, Narain, Padhi, Gritsan, Artuso, Agashe, Hatakeyama, Huston, Papucci, Schwienhorst, Qian, Erbacher, Wackeroth, Campbell --------------------------------------------------------------------- Action items: **** a. Suggestions of challenges -- see # 4 below b. Your responsibilities for the Brookhaven meeting -- #6 below ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 0. The Energy Frontier facilities list is finalized. It provides a canonical list of future accelerators and a suggested luminosity sample for each. We discourage people from exploring the physics for other parameter sets. 1. We are making progress toward a canonical Snowmass fast-simulation framework for hadron colliders. We have agreed on: a common Snowmass detector, with, in each element, parameters equal to the better of ATLAS and CMS DELPHES 3 pileup inclusion as implemented by DELPHES 3 a group including Ashtosh Kotwal, Sergei Chekanov, Mina Narain, and Sanjay Padhi are finishing this and comparing to ATLAS and CMS simulation results We agree that this must be finished to roll out at Brookhaven. LHC background samples are now being generated as LHE events. They will be run through this framework and the results stored for public download, probably at Nebraska. Fast simulation frameworks exist for lepton colliders, and background samples are also available. We need speakers to present this at Brookhaven 40-45 min for hadrons, 15-20 minutes for leptons. Chip and Michael will grap potential speakers for these slots. 2. We discussed benchmark models. Studies of reach for particular signatures are best done using simplified models or effective operator formalism. However, Michael P. was concerned that, to compare across probes and to make contact with other frontiers, we need complete BSM models with precisely specified parameters from which implications can be calculated. The NP group has put a number of complete SUSY models on their wiki site. Kaustubh A. has created two useful Randall-Sundrum parameter points with heavy resonances, top quark partners, and composite Higgs/ composite top phenomenology. These models should also be completely documented on the NP wiki site before Brookhaven. In general, the set of "canonical" full-model benchmarks should be finalized before Brookhaven. 3. We quickly reviewed the status of each of the six working groups. 4. We discussed the "Challenges" exercise that you saw in your email yesterday. Chip and Michael put this forward as an exercise to put forward a narrative around possible discoveries in the next 5 years and their implications for the longer-term program. The reception of this idea was cool. People were concerned that we were giving too much attention to temporary 2 sigma deviations in the current data. Markus L. pointed out that the working groups are already considering scenarios like this. The question is which to use as examples for prominent discussion in our report. We welcome suggestions from all of you as to what possible anomalies/discoveries should be singled out for extended, illustrative discussion in our reports. *** Send us your suggestions in the next week. We will raise this question to larger audience at Brookhaven, but this will start the list. 5. We discussed "Big Picture" issues for Energy Frontier, particularly in the context of the content of the panel discussion that we had scheduled for Thursday afternoon at Brookhaven. There are many Big Picture issues, and probably we should schedule a separate EF conveners' meeting, after Brookhaven, devoted to talking through those issues in an organized way. One question that we kept coming back to, relevant to the panel discussion, was the following: Our goal, as the Energy Frontier conveners, is to articulate the physics motivation for energy frontier experiments as strongly and effectively as possible, both for presentation to the rest of HEP and to groups outside of HEP. Yet we are confused about the right strategy and the right points to emphasize. Brookhaven might be a good place to try out our arguments. In the panel discussion, 6 people can give their best 10 minute discussions, and we can schedule another 30 minutes of critique and contributions from the floor. If you are burning to be a speaker in this session, please let us know. 6. Action items for the next two weeks: **** 1. You are responsible for posting the scheduled talks in your sessions on the Brookhaven agenda page. For joint meetings of working groups, the first group listed has the responsibility. **** 2. Bring out the troops! Registration at the Brookhaven meeting is now at 110, there is room for more. Much homework will be given at the meeting, so this will be a good opportunity for people to come and get involved. Thanks, 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