 |
 |
Hi Michael, I understand the point about the timelines, but I think if we are talking about "consensus" points, I think it became fairly clear at Snowmass that it's almost inconceivable that we can get complete understanding of the higgs / DM / EWSB without building something like VLHC, and we should state that we recognize that such machine is necessary in the future. -y On Aug 20, 2013, at 2:26 PM, "Peskin, Michael E." <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Folks, > > I do agree that VLHC received wide interest at Snowmass. > > However, it is also important to recognize that the time scales for ILC and VLHC are > very different. On the practical side, no one today is entertaining a proposal for a > 100 TeV pp collider. On the physics side, we are just beginning the serious studies > of the capabilities of a 100 TeV collider. Only a few results were shown at Snowmass > for the 33 TeV machine, and only one, I think, for the 100 TeV machine. (There will > be more 100 TeV results in the final writeups.) > > In the summaries, Chip and I put a statement about ILC into the highest level > executive summary. P5 will need to make a statement about ILC, so this input, which > is strictly limited to the physics case and does reflect a consensus at Snowmass, is needed. > > There is a brief statement about the 100 TeV machine in the latest version of the > Executive Summary, and a longer statement in the 5-page Energy Frontier summary. > These reflect our attitude that the 100 TeV is important, but the issue is getting > ready for a proposal in 2020, not making a decision today. > > If you would like it another way, please send some explicit language to this group. > And, please take into account that space in the highest level executive summary is > extremely limited. We can make two points strongly -- which is what we tried to do -- > or make many points of which none registers above background. > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Michael E. Peskin [log in to unmask] > HEP Theory Group, MS 81 ------- > SLAC National Accelerator Lab. phone: 1-(650)-926-3250 > 2575 Sand Hill Road fax: 1-(650)-926-2525 > Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA www.slac.stanford.edu/~mpeskin/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ________________________________________ > From: Jianming Qian [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:24 AM > To: Yuri Gershtein > Cc: Markus A. Luty; Raymond Brock; Tom LeCompte; Peskin, Michael E.; snowmass-ef > Subject: Re: [SNOWMASS-EF] Snowmass summary and Phone meeting request > > Hello all, > > I'd like to echo Markus and Yuri's comments. I think the support for an eventual 100 TeV pp collider is very strong, certainly not less strong than a Higgs factory. > > Cheers, Jianming > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Yuri Gershtein <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2013, at 1:07 PM, "Markus A. Luty" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > I believe it is imperative that the high-level Snowmass summary include a statement that VLHC also represents an exciting possibility for the next step forward. > > I strongly agree. > Even given different timescales for VLHC and ILC, the way Markus phrased it is right on. > > -y > > > ________________________________ > > 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 > -------------------------- Prof. Yuri Gershtein [log in to unmask] http://physics.rutgers.edu/~gershtein (732)445-5500 x1794 W316 Serin Building Department of Physics and Astronomy 136 Frelinghuysen Rd Rutgers University Piscataway, NJ 08854 ######################################################################## 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