Print

Print
Hi Chip,
    The energy for the pp collider came about in an interesting way.  It was set roughly by 350 GeV for e+e- circular and then
the sweet spot for ~15T magnets to get 100 TeV.  I agree with Sheldon that there was great support for having an order of 
magnitude higher energy scale as the new mark for the highest energy frontier for pp.  From Chip's EF summary, I think many
people remarked at the claim that a 100 TeV pp machine could rule out the entire WIMP dark matter hypothesis up to the
relic density.  If that claim holds up (including the indirect components), then 100 TeV would give closure to the question of 
whether dark matter (as a single component WIMP entity) can be produced with colliders, but then one
has to look at energy what is needed to cover discovery over the full mass range as well.  I think that one can say that the 
synergy between direct and collider-produced dark matter searches continues up to the VLHC energy scale - not to
mention the 1/10000 fine tuning that would come with the Higgs.
Best,
Chris


On Aug 18, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Sheldon Stone <[log in to unmask]>
 wrote:

Hi
  I did hear from others that VLEP followed by a high energy ~100 TeV machine would be a good path for our field.
It would be really something if that were done in the US rather than at CERN, but I am not naive enough to suppose that
the DOE will come up with the initiative to fight for the additional 1 billion over 10 years that the VLEP would take. (I am not in favor of canceling any current projects, CD0 or greater.)

sincerely
sheldon

On Aug 18, 2013, at 1:23 PM, Robin Erbacher wrote:

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



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