 |
 |
In a word, yes. I agree completely with Michael's proposal. Thank you *very* much. 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 12:28 PM, Peskin, Michael E. < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Markus, > > The VLHC phrasing is tricky, for the reasons that Chip has explained. > We put in "benchmarks" to make the physics point clearer, and I think that > your new language improves on that. I still do not like "unprecedented"; > that is just saying that we want the highest possible energy. Is the > following acceptable > > The Snowmass study called out in particular the promise of a 100 TeV > hadron collider, giving a step in energy whose potential for new physics > associated with electroweak symmetry breaking, naturalness, and dark matter > 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. > > > 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: [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]] On > Behalf Of Markus A. Luty [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 11:45 AM > To: Raymond Brock > Cc: Ashutosh Kotwal; Graham W. Wilson; snowmass-ef > Subject: Re: [SNOWMASS-EF] new version > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > 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