HI Markus,
Michael can chime in, but what I took away was that 100 was indeed a benchmark number, whereas before it was just a no-content, toss-off designation for "VLHC". That's what made it interesting I thought. Why not 80? Why not 33? Well, because 100 has shown up to be interesting and the others, notsomuch.
Otherwise, it's a statement about HE that can and has been made at any point in time. And that's exactly what I don't want to try to defend to HEPAP since it's almost explicitly what Siegrist said he didn't want to see: "Snowmass says that more energy is what we really want." In that sense, why not 200 TeV?
That's why the "per se" clause. It allows us to say _explicitly_ that we're not just doing the standard "more energy" but something different. That, I can defend.
So your suggested change is really just about equivalent to what we sent yesterday, but without the per se clause and with 'unprecedented' added back in... My problem with "unprecedented" is the why not 150TeV, or 200TeV. They too would be unprecedented.
Calling someone out meant exactly the same thing in my youth. But now Webster says: "to summon into action" which is indeed the thing!
best
Chip
On Aug 25, 2013, at 2:45 PM, "Markus A. Luty" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
wrote:
Chip, I really appreciate the work that you and Michael are doing. But I really do think that the current version reads much less strongly than the previous one. The key phrase "seems to reach benchmarks suggested by dark matter and naturalness" is not clear to me and I think sounds weak. It is not clear that "benchmarks" means physics ideas (like WIMPs and naturalness) as opposed to say some arbitrary "benchmark" model.
Here is a proposal:
The Snowmass study called out in particular the promise of a 100 TeV hadron collider, which has unprecedented reach for new physics associated with electroweak symmetry breaking, naturalness, and dark matter that seems to reach important physics benchmarks for these ideas. Our conclusions call for renewed accelerator R&D and physics studies for such a machine over the next decade.
I do not much like "called out" either, because it is also not clear what it means. (Where I grew up, "calling out" someone meant you wanted to fight them.) But this is a much smaller thing. I would prefer something like "The Snowmass study showed increased interest in..." or something to that effect.
Markus Luty
============================================
Physics Department
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
Phone: +1 530 554 1280
Skype: markus_luty
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Raymond Brock <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi Markus,
Of course it should. Here's the evolution over the last few days:
Friday meeting:
The Snowmass study considered many other options for high-energy colliders that might be realized over a longer term. These included linear and circular e+e- colliders, muon colliders, and photon colliders. A longer term 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. Further investigations of the physics and technical issues would be opportune at this time, leading to conceptual and technical design reports.
After Friday meeting:
The Snowmass study considered many other options for high-energy colliders that might be realized over a longer term. These included higher energy linear colliders, circular e+e- colliders, muon colliders, and photon colliders. The study called out in particular the potential of a 100 TeV hadron collider for the exploration of electroweak symmetry breaking and dark matter and recommended more concerted work on its design and its physics capability.
Saturday response:
The Snowmass study considered many other options for high-energy colliders that might be realized over a longer term. These included higher energy linear colliders, circular e+e- colliders, muon colliders, and photon colliders and all merit continued study. The Snowmass study called out in particular the potential of a 100 TeV hadron collider. While higher energy per se is always an advantage, this threshold seems to reach benchmarks suggested by questions about dark matter and naturalness. Our conclusions call for renewed accelerator R&D and physics studies for such a machine over the next decade.
The question for me is what does the best job of being taken seriously. What the Friday language does, I decided, is say that we're urging consideration of every accelerator conceived - we always want more energy. And that we're putting the hardest one - politically hardest - at a level that's very far up there after 9 days of consideration: "with great promise" "unprecedented potential reach" "leading to conceptual and technical design reports." ….
This puts it ahead of the muon collider, which is still a long way from CDR and TDR and suggests to me a reversal of their relative priorities.
I do not believe that the "Saturday response" is "weakened yet again." On the contrary, I think it does what needs to be done and that is point out what was learned at Snowmass - because of your talk, primarily - that a high energy collider by itself is not what's of interest, but that the particular threshold of 100 Tev-ish is better than 33 TeV it's better than maybe 50 or 80…that 100 is qualitatively different. That's a fresh insight. It also calls, not for a TDR, but renewed R&D and physics studies which maybe there's the horsepower to do. Remember, again, there's not enough horsepower to do even muon collider studies at a level commensurate with its interest and technical promise.
It leaves out EWSB, I agree, and that could go back in.
So I'd like to argue that the "Saturday response" - which took Michael and me almost another whole day to hammer out! - is prudent and states what was in fact fresh on this subject out of snowmass.
You're talking to a VLHC guy. With Uli Baur I co-organized the 2001 snowmass VLHC group. Then I was appointed by the DG and the Fermilab director with Paris Sphicas, Uli, and Chris Hill to organize every-other-year workshops on VLHC. We did one and then it fizzled for lack of interest at the top and the "bottom." Actually, it led in part to Bill Foster's loud resignation as he was a large part of it. So I'm in your camp and pleased at the renewed interest, but I'm leery of going too far beyond what was newly understood in Minn.
best
Chip
On Aug 25, 2013, at 12:45 AM, Markus A. Luty <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I am disappointed that the VLHC wording seems to have been weakened yet again. It is my understanding that the executive summary is supposed to reflect the conclusions of the working group reports. I felt that the previous version did but this one does not. The previous version was extensively discussed during the phone meeting, and seemed to have unanimous support. I request that the previous wording be reinstated.
Markus
On Saturday, August 24, 2013, Ashutosh Kotwal wrote:
On Aug 24, 2013, at 6:15 PM, "Graham W. Wilson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Chip, Michael and Ashutosh,
>
> This looks reasonably OK within the confines of what has so far been discussed, but I do
> worry that not everybody will read it in the same informed spirit as Ashutosh. I do agree with points a and b.
hi Graham,
What we can do is lay out the logic in the longer part of the Summary in a little more detail so that people will read it in the informed spirit.
> I would however counsel against the explicit mention of accelerator R&D. The earlier wording about
> "more concerted work on its design and physics capability" seems to me to strike the right tone.
that would be OK too… but presumably accelerator R&D is referring to high field magnet R&D, which is a US strength we should not let go of…
> We should also all realize that current US accelerator R&D is already funding
> LARP, high-field magnets, MAP, but has cut back/zeroed out high-gradient
> super-conducting RF (ILC) and put on life-support other parts of the ILC R&D program.
> Getting the best science out of ILC will need US accelerator development efforts.
well, are you thinking that we should choose one or the other between SRF and high-field magnets? I think that would be way too restrictive.
or are you saying we should mention something about ILC accelerator R&D also?
regards,
Ashutosh
> regards
> 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
--
Markus Luty
============================================
Physics Department
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
Phone: +1 530 554 1280<tel:%2B1%20530%20554%201280>
Skype: markus_luty
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Brock * University Distinguished Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Michigan State University
Biomedical Physical Sciences
567 WIlson Road, Room 3210
East Lansing, MI 48824
sent from: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
cell: (517)927-5447<tel:%28517%29927-5447>
MSU office: (517)353-1693/884-5579
open fax: (517)355-6661<tel:%28517%29355-6661>
secure fax: (517)351-0688<tel:%28517%29351-0688>
Fermilab office: (630)840-2286<tel:%28630%29840-2286>
CERN Office: 32 2-B03 * 76-71756
Twitter: @chipbrock
Home: http://www.pa.msu.edu/~brock/
ISP220: http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/ISP220/
ISP213H: http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2007spring/ISP213H/
Facebook: http://msu.facebook.com/profile.php?id=2312233
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Brock * University Distinguished Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Michigan State University
Biomedical Physical Sciences
567 WIlson Road, Room 3210
East Lansing, MI 48824
sent from: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
cell: (517)927-5447
MSU office: (517)353-1693/884-5579
open fax: (517)355-6661
secure fax: (517)351-0688
Fermilab office: (630)840-2286
CERN Office: 32 2-B03 * 76-71756
Twitter: @chipbrock
Home: http://www.pa.msu.edu/~brock/
ISP220: http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/ISP220/
ISP213H: http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2007spring/ISP213H/
Facebook: http://msu.facebook.com/profile.php?id=2312233
########################################################################
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
