Hi Markus et al.,
First, I very much enjoyed your talk in Minneapolis - it was inspiring.
This VLHC wording may indeed prove, after significant further
study, to be a correct scientific
appraisal - but I believe that juxtaposing VLHC as effectively a
possible alternative to ILC is potentially
very damaging. VLHC clearly does not address the physics that the ILC
would do.
VLHC also does not realistically fit into the 20 year time scale of the
study in terms of doing science.
It seems to me to be a bit of an over-reach and technically, fiscally,
politically and scientifically premature.
I would suggest sticking with the current language. I appreciate that
you have tried to address these concerns
in your suggested wording - but the realities are that a mixed message
may be less eventual science not
more eventual science.
I remember in the mid 90's when decisions on the next hadron collider
were in progress (now 20 years ago),
that there was a great premium on our overall community to unanimously
support the next machine being
a hadron collider, despite some of us (like me) thinking that e+e-
offered the best eventual science program.
At that time we all did hold the party line. I think at this stage, it
is clear that the ILC energy scale has a magnificent
physics program. We need to make sure that this real possibility for a
complementary scientific
approach in our lifetime is nurtured. This has been under development
for 25 years and has a very well established
scientific case and a technically ready, engineered and costed design.
Japan appears poised to bid to host
this in the near future, and I and many colleagues in the US want to
participate.
Even though I went to all the Snowmass "all-hands" sessions with an
emphasis on energy frontier within
the constraints of parallel sessions, I did not get the sense that VLHC
got that much traction.
If it did, I am sure that our "intensity and cosmic" frontier colleagues
did not really notice - I did not.
What are the arguments that I am missing that change the conclusions of
Snowmass 2001?
I think that the revised executive summary is appropriate and it
reflects accurately the scientific prospects
and maturity of the projects that really are on the table.
I have been working on a real complementary facility to LHC since 1995 -
and remember my
idealism and enthusiasm for these new ideas. I'm afraid that
realistically all these things take a long time
to actually realise. We seem to have a real window of opportunity in the
next year or two to really get
the ILC scientific facility started.
I would say that a further future interesting possibility that builds on
the LHC approach is a VLHC.
What is the right energy scale for such a "last big machine" is not
obvious - especially prior to LHC14 data and
real understanding of the realities of costs and magnet R&D. The 2001
study suggested 200 TeV (233 km ...)
as an ultimate goal, not 100 TeV. If a rich new physics spectrum is
unveiled at LHC14, it is not at all clear
that a VLHC is an appropriate machine to dissect this physics. This
would point towards understanding
this spectrum with an energetic e+e- collider - which already is the
machine of choice for
comprehensive Higgs studies.
I also think it is wrong to classify ILC as "continuing" the LHC physics
program. - it digs deeper with
a more precise, accurate, and complementary instrument. I also have
some suggestions for improved language
on ILC which I'll send in a separate mail.
I think the physics we know today demands a high energy e+e- collider to
complement LHC.
ILC is the machine we know we can build today and has the best
experimental conditions.
We have dreams of eventually exploring much, much higher energy scales
with VLHC - whether
this promises to be significantly more than a very exciting fishing
expedition
still remains to be seen, and we do not yet have a good understanding of
how high we can realistically reach.
regards
Graham
P.S. The site selection in Japan for the bid to host ILC in Japan was
just announced.
It is the northern site which has significant scope for
extendability beyond 1 TeV.
On 8/22/2013 6:22 PM, Markus A. Luty wrote:
> Here is a specific proposal for language on the VLHC to be included in
> the executive summary after the paragraph on ILC. We have already
> discussed it in the NP group, and we feel that it reflects the
> high-level conclusions of our part of the report.
>
> A complementary option with great promise is a 100 TeV hadron collider,
> which has unprecedented potential reach for new physics associated with
> electroweak symmetry breaking, naturalness, and dark matter.
> However, physics studies and technical design are at an early stage,
> so this cannot be
> considered an option in the near term.
>
> Markus Luty
>
> ============================================
> Physics Department
> University of California, Davis
> One Shields Avenue
> Davis, CA 95616
>
> Phone: +1 530 554 1280
> Skype: markus_luty
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:18 PM, marina artuso <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> I agree with this!
> Marina
> marina artuso
> Professor of Physics
> Syracuse University
> 201 Physics Building
> Syracuse NY 13244
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> On Aug 20, 2013, at 6:16 PM, "James D. Olsen"
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On the point about timelines, while concepts like the VLHC are
> in the ‘far future’, what is in the ‘here and now’ is the R&D on
> the technology that will enable that vision. As we heard at
> Snowmass, much of this know-how exists in the USofA, and I think
> we have an opportunity here to inspire the next generation of
> accelerator and magnet physicists. As Michael points out, this is
> touched upon in the latest draft of the high-level executive
> summary, but I think we could make this point even stronger simply
> by noting the importance and leadership of the US community in
> this area.
> >
> > Best,
> > Jim
> >
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Yuri Gershtein
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 5:22 PM
> > To: Peskin, Michael E.
> > Cc: Raymond Brock; Jianming Qian; Markus A. Luty; Tom LeCompte;
> snowmass-ef
> > Subject: Re: [SNOWMASS-EF] VLHC in the snowmass summary
> >
> > 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] <mailto:[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]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > HEP Theory Group, MS 81 -------
> > SLAC National Accelerator Lab. phone: 1-(650)-926-3250
> <tel:1-%28650%29-926-3250>
> > 2575 Sand Hill Road fax: 1-(650)-926-2525
> <tel:1-%28650%29-926-2525>
> > Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA www.slac.stanford.edu/~mpeskin/
> <http://www.slac.stanford.edu/%7Empeskin/>
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Jianming Qian [[log in to unmask] <mailto:[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]><mailto:[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]><mailto:[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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > http://physics.rutgers.edu/~gershtein
> <http://physics.rutgers.edu/%7Egershtein>
> > (732)445-5500 x1794 <tel:%28732%29445-5500%20x1794>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > 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
