Hi Chip, I did not speak up at the meeting, but I would like to say that the Monday plenary talks are not representative of an open discussion on future direction of the energy frontier. There have been a number of recent developments to the Snowmass Higgs studies including some from TLEP and the mu collider. Probably the thing to do is to insert a talk after the ILC that is called "Energy Frontier machines" and emphasizes incrementally more the options that were not talked about in the separate talks from Atlas, CMS, and ILC. This would allow these groups to wave the flag (which no one wants to deny them) and at the same time avoids alienating a group fraction of the EF community. Imagine the 4th talk was called "Or Even Better" - then this would be equally unfair - some balance is needed here. Best, Chris On May 2, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Chip Brock <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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 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]<mailto:[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/<http://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]<mailto:[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 Home: http://www.pa.msu.edu/~brock/ ISP220: http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/ISP220/ ISP213H: http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2007spring/ISP213H/ Facebook: http://msu.facebook.com/profile.php?id=2312233 ________________________________ 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> ######################################################################## 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