Print

Print
Hi Ashutosh, others,

we are working on muon collider and VLHC. Muon collider white paper, including Higgs factory and 3 TeV option, is in drafting stage with many accelerator, detectors and physics experts involved. VLHC efforts are also progressing while on a modest scale as there is substantial amount of documentation exist from past planning efforts which are mainly valid. We are adding a few specific VLHC studies, like SUSY high mass reach, for this summer.

Dmitri.

On 5/3/2013 7:59 AM, Ashutosh Kotwal wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> hi Chip, Michael, all,
Any chance of something like "far future options" to cover HELHC, VLHC, Muon Collider? 

If we are allowed to dream of an energy frontier machine in the US then muon collider and 100 TeV pp come to mind. Of these, muon collider as a Fermilab Site Filler is unique to the US. 

regards,
Ashutosh


On May 2, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Chip Brock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Minutes for the Energy Frontier conveners' meeting   May 2, 2013

Attending, at least: Rick, Yuri, LianTao, Sally, Michael S, Heather, Soeren, Ken, John, Kaustabh, Marina, Cecilia, Markus, Daniel, Chris, Ashutosh, Eric T, Chip, and Michael P.


1.  Chip reported on discussions with ATLAS and CMS.  The two collaborations are
now at least formally engaged with our Snowmass process.  They will contribute White
Papers to Snowmass. We will invited ATLAS and CMS to give plenary talks in Seattle.

2.  We discussed the program of the Seattle meeting.   Chip had sent a block diagram.  
Most of the time for the meeting is allotted to "parallel sessions", which is time to be
scheduled by the working groups.  Chip and Michael encourage the working groups not to
schedule all of their time for talks but rather to leave time for discussions, within
each working group, on how to respond to feedback on the report conclusions.

Plenary time is scheduled for
  Sunday:   Reports on the bulleted lists of preliminary conclusions of the working group reports.
  Monday:   Talks from ATLAS, CMS, ILC, and Instrumentation Frontier
  Tuesday:  Panel discussion  (format as in Brookhaven)  on "What should be the major conclusions
                  of the Energy Frontier report?"
  Wednesday:  20' summary from each working group:   What remains to be done?   End by noon.

 Comments on the schedule

     1.  It might be seen as odd that we are inviting ILC and not other "Higgs Factory"
           proposals.  The philosophy that Chip and Michael took is that large international
             organizations involved in energy frontier should be invited to give plenaries,
              but that we did not have time to invite someone for every proposal.  We
                will change "ILC" to "Linear Collider Board" and we will try to get the
                 chair, Sachio Komamiya.

      2.  No time was given for overlaps between EF and other frontiers.  This should be
              remedied.  Important overlap topics are dark matter and new particle contributions
                to rare processes.  We task the New Physics and Flavor conveners with  proposing
                some people to be invited to give these talks.  Chip and Michael will consult
                with the IF and CF conveners.  We propose to schedule these talks on Sunday or
                Monday afternoon, in the large auditorium but maybe in parallel with other
                  meetings.

3. Michael presented the renewed list of parallel sessions that we propose for Minnesota  
(repeated below).  Everyone should look at this so that we can complete this list in the
next few weeks.

4.  We discussed two of the questions that came to us from the Cosmic Frontier.  Some interesting
points were:

   Discussion of Higgs precision:

      Heather Logan and Chris Tully emphasized that precision Higgs physics has to be thought
         of in a broader context beyond the measurement of branching ratios. To make a
         comparison of SM theory to experiment at the sub-percent level,
             the Higgs mass must be known to better than 50 MeV
             mb and mc must be improved  (from lattice gauge theory?)
             mt and alphas must be improved
          It is a whole program;  the Higgs group will try to explain this and point out the
             contributions needed from different facilities.

   Discussion of upper limit on SUSY masses:

      It is a sharp question when to give up on SUSY, but the answer is not so sharp.  We
          discussed various routes to answering this question.


Thanks to all.   We will meet again next week.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

<seattle_v5.key.pdf>

Titles for Sessions of General Interest in Minnesota:


1. Dark Matter -- attempt a perspective including all detection methods including direct searches, and comparison of their reach (needs to be organized with CF).   Dark matter property measurements.

2. Lepton Flavor Violation -- what new physics models are accessed by mu-e conversion, mu-> e gamma, and tau-> ell gamma experiments now being planned? How are these compared to direct search capabilities? Can we see lepton flavor violation at colliders? (needs to be organized with IF)

3. Future of the Higgs -- To what extent have we already ruled out models of the Higgs field beyond the simple Standard Model. What are examples of models that require precision measurements at different levels? What should be the goal in precision Higgs measurement?

4. Instrumentation for High-Luminosity Hadron Colliders -- what are the emerging technologies for confronting the problems of triggering, heavy flavor ID, and precision measurement with high pileup? (needs to be organized with Inst. F.)

5. Future interplay of precision electroweak observables coming from collider experiments and from low-energy experiments (such as Moller scattering, APV, etc.)   What are the prospects for improving alpha_QED?  What are the achieveable accuracies on mt, mW, sin2theta, etc.   What accuracies are needed to explore for new physics?

6. Interplay of new physics direct searches with searches for proton decay and other baryon number violating processes.  

7. Interplay of new physics direct searches with measurements on K, D, and B weak decay processes.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Brock  *  University Distinguished Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Michigan State University
Biomedical Physical Sciences
567 WIlson Road, Room 3210
East Lansing, MI  48824
sent from: [log in to unmask]

cell: (517)927-5447
MSU office: (517)353-1693/884-5579
open fax: (517)355-6661
secure fax: (517)351-0688
Fermilab office: (630)840-2286
CERN Office: 32 2-B03 * 76-71756

Twitter: @chipbrock







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