 |
 |
I thank you and Michael for fighting for this. I think that the previous language more accurately reflects the situation, but this is a community exercise. If the new language is acceptable to all the conveners, then I am fine with it. If this facilitates renewed interest and study of a 100 TeV machine, that will be a major success of this Snowmass. Markus Luty ============================================ Physics Department University of California, Davis One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Phone: +1 530 554 1280 Skype: markus_luty On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Francis John Petriello < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Chip, > > My vote is for the new language that you have proposed in your email. I > think it sufficiently makes the case for renewed focus on a 100 TeV > machine, and to me nothing is lost in removing the previous comments about > physics thresholds. > > Best, > Frank > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]] on > behalf of Christopher G. Tully [[log in to unmask]] > *Sent:* Monday, August 26, 2013 8:26 PM > *To:* Raymond Brock > *Cc:* snowmass-ef > *Subject:* Re: [SNOWMASS-EF] 100 TeV > > Dear Chip, > I fall into the group that would not be disappointed by the new > wording. I am in favor of making a more inclusive statement that > encompasses the bulk > of all studies I reviewed: > > The Snowmass study called out in particular the promise of a 100 TeV > hadron collider and TeV-scale lepton colliders, giving a step in energy > with great potential for new physics discoveries. These opportunities > should be clarified through supported accelerator R&D and physics studies > for such machines over the next decade. > > Best, > Chris > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Raymond Brock <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > hi > > Well, we are getting very serious push-back from some of the overall > snowmass conveners regarding the 100 TeV language. After 3 days of arguing > over this, I personally have little desire to go back into it, but it's > looking like we're headed there. The authors of the executive summary are > the snowmass conveners and there is reaction among them ranging from > refusal to sign to serious concern. > > I have have not vetted this note with Michael, but we're running out of > time and I wanted to alert you to this and ask you to consider what the > stakes are here. We can go on another two days of discussion and not get > anything else done like Saturday and Sunday, or we can try to figure out > what is the best alternative and what constitutes any real loss by toning > down some of the enthusiasm. > > The conveners do not know that I'm writing this as Michael and I have > both insisted on the language that we settled on last night as representing > your wishes. Michael has been especially strong on that. > > There has been alternative language suggested: > > The Snowmass study called out in particular the promise of a 100 TeV > hadron collider, giving a step in energy with great potential for > new physics discoveries. This opportunity should be clarified through > renewed accelerator R&D and physics studies for such a machine over > the next decade. > > It calls for renewed R&D. That's new and serves the major long range > purpose suggested by Ashutosh. (To me, that was the most important thing.) > > It does not make specific and apparently controversial claims about > physics thresholds. That will be disappointing to some of you, but it is > the sticking point for some. The sticking point for others was the > presumption that this seems to put VLHC at a priority level that's ahead of > other important and more mature facilities. We've talked about that > ourselves. > > Please think about this: > > o What does not happen with above alternative statement that you believe > can only happen with the more aggressive one? > > This is between "you and me" but I hope you'll think about it. > > Thanks > Chip > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > 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 > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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