 |
 |
Hi, I think we heard it at the town meeting in October from Dima and others. At Snowmass itself I didn't hear it so much, but then might not have been in the right place at the right time. Most of what I was aware of were discussions about TLEP or other e+e- circular leading to a future VLHC type machine (versus investing in an ILC at this time). Others may have had different experiences. Best, Robin On Aug 18, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Raymond Brock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Question: Did any of you hear any substantive suggestion that a VLHC should be the follow-on collider to LHC? I'm asking for a reason...the mention of ILC in this way is deemed as not representative of the whole community and as "there are also those who believe in that a 100 TeV proton machine should be next" (a quote from a prominent fellow). > > I personally don't think that 100% unanimity is required in order to emphasize one future program over others. But I'd really not heard this particular sentiment in any substantive way. > > best > Chip ######################################################################## 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