Dear All,
Good to hear. The current draft only mentions statistical error
though. Systematics
on the interpretation may not be dominant but if one is talking about 8%
statistical
then it appears as if it should be considered.
regards
Graham
On 8/23/2013 12:10 PM, Sally Dawson wrote:
> Also, by the time we have a VLHC, the theory prediction will certainly
> by known to greater than 30%. We have
> the technology now to do this.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Christopher G. Tully
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Graham,
> The 8% precision on the Higgs self-coupling from VLHC comes
> from white paper submitted
> by Wei-Ming Yao and this analysis reproduces the results for
> HL-LHC and extends the analysis
> to HE-LHC and VLHC. Jianming is away, but knows the status of the
> documentation for that
> analysis (which I gather you have not seen).
> It is true that there is another potential source for higher
> precision on the Higgs self-coupling.
> The 6 TeV muon collider has the potential to achieve 2% and if
> this white paper contribution
> arrives in time with the full background simulation, then we will
> revise that conclusion point.
> Best,
> Chris
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2013, at 12:11 PM, Graham W. Wilson <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> > Hi Rick,
> >
> > I haven't followed the hadron collider Higgs self-coupling
> discussion in detail, but from a quick reading of the
> > draft Higgs report and relevant papers (I couldn't find ref 69),
> it seems clear that double-Higgs production statistics
> > is likely to be a strength of VLHC. But how much this translates
> into a Higgs self coupling measurement
> > and in particular a model-independent measurement of the Higgs
> self-coupling when there is a 30% error on
> > the theoretical cross-section and many different non HHH
> coupling contributions to final states with HH is not clear at all.
> > So I don't think your "likely the best place for Higgs
> self-coupling" is supported by the current documentation.
> >
> > regards
> > Graham
> >
> > On 8/23/2013 9:45 AM, Rick Van Kooten wrote:
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Graham W. Wilson
> > Associate Professor
> > Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
> > University of Kansas
> > Lawrence, KS 66045
> > Office Tel. 785-864-5231
> > Web: http://heplx3.phsx.ku.edu/~graham/
> <http://heplx3.phsx.ku.edu/%7Egraham/>
> >
> >
> ########################################################################
> > 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
>
>
--
Graham W. Wilson
Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045
Office Tel. 785-864-5231
Web: http://heplx3.phsx.ku.edu/~graham/
########################################################################
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
