 |
 |
Hi, I also see alpha_s less of a concern. The alpha_s value from the Z-lineshape has currently a negligible theory error, so it is especially here that I would expect great improvement. If one then also gets alpha_s to per mille precision from event shapes, one would even gain another independent EW observable to very high precision. But one needs a plausible avenue to credibly improve Delta alpha (M_Z). Jens On Apr 19, 2013, at 4:51 AM, "Peskin, Michael E." <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Folks, > > I am confused by this thread. > > The main barrier to improvement of alphas is the fact that it is difficult to disentangle perturbative and nonperturbative contributions to event shapes in e+e-. The nonperturbative contributions fall off as 1/Q, so a substantial moment arm in Q is needed. Currently what is done is to compare Z > data with PEP/PETRA data, although the latter is taken with detectors that are now two generations old. > > If TLEP is built, it will be possible to get high-statistics samples of e+e- event shapes in the same, modern detector at 91 GeV, 250 GeV, and 350 GeV. Then it should be possible to fit out the 1/Q terms and reach per mil precision in alphas. Probably it is worth bringing in an alphas expert (e.g. Iain Stewart at MIT) to quantify this. > > Need I add that, if ILC is built in Japan, we can carry out this program even sooner and extend it to even higher energies? > > 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/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ________________________________________ > From: Ashutosh Kotwal [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 12:48 AM > To: Michael Schmitt > Cc: Sven Heinemeyer; Peskin, Michael E.; snowmass-electroweak; [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK] question from the Capabilities group > > On Apr 18, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Michael Schmitt <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I believe Sven is right. As you say, it is hard to see how to improve alpha_S >> without a dedicated facility/program and no such thing is planned as far as >> I know. > > > it would be interesting to think about alpha_S measurement at GigaZ and TeraZ using event shapes etc. and how statistics and systematics play into that. > > Ashutosh > > ######################################################################## > 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