 |
 |
Hi Eric, correct. If you cannot get to 350 GeV you indeed have a problem with mt. Only a threshold scan can give you delta mt = 0.1 GeV. But I am not sure what is anticipated as the final energy for TLEP... Cheers, Sven ________________________________________ From: Eric Torrence [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 18 April 2013 17:50 To: Sven Heinemeyer Cc: Michael Peskin; Michael Henry Schmitt; snowmass-electroweak; Raymond Brock Subject: Re: [SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK] question from the Capabilities group Hi Sven, Wouldn't you first run into the limit on m_top? With a TLEP machine you can't assume d m_top = 0.1 GeV since you don't have the energy reach to do a threshold scan. Wouldn't Z-pole running with this machine simply constrain the top mass to below 1 GeV? Regards, -Eric On Apr 17, 2013, at 11:36 PM, Sven Heinemeyer wrote: > Hi Michael, > >> The question for you is, how much would the extra factor of 10 at the Z pole (or the >> extra factor of 100 beyond Giga-Z) buy you in terms of the physics? My quick impression >> is that it is not easy to convert the extra luminosity into physics. GF and MZ must be >> improved, and NNLO electroweak becomes relevant. The uncertainty in alpha(mZ) also >> needs improvement, and I do not see a way to do that. >> > When we make GigaZ predictions for sin2eff, MW etc. we already use > a very optimistic assumption on delta(Delta alpha_had) = 5 x 10^-5, > resulting in an uncertainty of 1.8 x 10^-5 in sin2eff, i.e. even > larger than the anticipated GigaZ uncertainty, see p. 7 of my talk > at the BNL meeting a few weeks back: > http://www.ifca.unican.es/users/heinemey/uni/talks/2013/SnowmassBNLEWPO.pdf > > On the next page I give an estimate of intrinsic uncertainties, i.e. due > to missing higher-order corrections. Also here in the future the > GigaZ result can be matched only "so-so", and even less so in the MSSM, > which is the *only* model so far in which these quantities have been evaluated to a precision roughly as in the SM, it is much worse in any other model. > > Of course in the future many things are possible. But our expectations > now (which are not wild guesses ;-) would not profit from another > factor of 10 improvement. > > Cheers, > Sven > > > ******************************************************************************* > Sven Heinemeyer (IFCA (CSIC-UC), Santander, Spain) > The future is not set! > phone: ++34/942/20-1536, fax: -0935 > There is NO FATE but > email: Sven.Heinemeyer(at)cern.ch > what we make for > WWW : sven-heinemeyer.de > ourselves! > skype: sven.heinemeyer > (Kyle Reese, T2) > > ######################################################################## > Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list > > To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK list, click the following link: > https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK&A=1 ######################################################################## Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK list, click the following link: https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK&A=1