On 8/22/13 8:57 PM, Peskin, Michael E. wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I attach the most recent versions of the Snowmass Executive Summary and the
> EF 5-page summary. We will discuss these in our meeting tomorrow.
>
> The Executive summary got somewhat rearranged. The frontier conveners
> wanted the capabilities sections pulled out and merged into a common section.
> This means that the accelerator part of the LHC, ILC, and VLHC discussion
> occurs much later in the document. But, please look it over. I did insert
> language on the US leadership in high-field magnets.
Regarding the current top-level executive summary, I would like to
see the _unique_ capabilities of e+e- machines stressed, and as one example:
"They can reach sub-percent precision in the Higgs boson properties,
allowing discoveries of percent-level deviations predicted in
theoretical models."
to
"They can reach sub-percent precision in the Higgs boson properties in a
unique, model-independent way, allowing discoveries of percent-level
deviations predicted in theoretical models."
This is just transferring some wording from the longer summary. I
believe that we are all agreed that an "all hadron" option, i.e., HL-LHC
-> HE-LHC/VLHC would definitely be missing out on important physics and
capabilities and we want to make that clear.
Also a small suggestion: adding "at least", i.e.,:
"They can improve the precision of our knowledge of the $W$, $Z$, and
top properties by at least an order of magnitude".
>
> As to the rest of the VLHC discussion, let's talk about it tomorrow. The
> new particles group would like a stronger endorsement of VLHC in the executive
> summary. I am rather cool to this, because the VLHC is not on the table
> now. It would be good to get more opinions from the members of
> our group.
There is no denying that a ~100 TeV VLHC brings a lot to the table
(including likely the best place for Higgs self-coupling) and we should
say this, but with the caveats that Graham clearly points out. I do
like Ashutosh's suggested wording encouraging a conceptual design report
which is what would be needed to come to more solid conclusion. We
could preface his encouraging statement with "Although beyond the
20-year timeline of this report, further investigations of the physics
and technical issues would be opportune at this time..." (and indeed the
same holds true for TLEP).
Regards,
Rick
--
Rick Van Kooten \ Telephone: (812) 855-2650 FNAL: (630) 840-3859
Dept. of Physics \ HEP FAX: (812) 855-0440
Indiana University \ e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Swain Hall West 117 \ http://hep.physics.indiana.edu/~rickv/aboutme.html
Bloomington, IN 47405
########################################################################
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
