at some point, the single most important thing becomes that we (Snowmass) must speak with one voice to the readers of Snowmass (HEP and non-HEP people)

if this alternate language will be signed by ALL and endorsed by all Snowmass conveners from all frontiers, so that they will stand by it, then it will do the job. 

We have to be careful and not have language that is judged TOO strong by other frontiers and they criticize it in private conversations. That is the typical "inward shooting" that will nix the chance of this moving up the chain. 

so, like the TV show says "is that the final answer" ( i.e. no further dilutions) then OK with me…

Ashutosh


On Aug 26, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Raymond Brock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

hi

Well, we are getting very serious push-back from some of the overall snowmass conveners regarding the 100 TeV language. After 3 days of arguing over this, I personally have little desire to go back into it, but it's looking like we're headed there. The authors of the executive summary are the snowmass conveners and there is reaction among them ranging from refusal to sign to serious concern.

I have have not vetted this note with Michael, but we're running out of time and I wanted to alert you to this and ask you to consider what the stakes are here. We can go on another two days of discussion and not get anything else done like Saturday and Sunday, or we can try to figure out what is the best alternative and what constitutes any real loss by toning down some of the enthusiasm.

The conveners do not know that I'm writing this as Michael and I have both insisted on the language that we settled on last night as representing your wishes. Michael has been especially strong on that. 

There has been alternative language suggested:

The Snowmass study called out in particular the promise of a 100 TeV hadron collider, giving a step in energy with great potential for new physics discoveries. This opportunity should be clarified through renewed accelerator R&D and physics studies for such a machine over the next decade.

It calls for renewed R&D. That's new and serves the major long range purpose suggested by Ashutosh. (To me, that was the most important thing.)

It does not make specific and apparently controversial claims about physics thresholds. That will be disappointing to some of you, but it is the sticking point for some. The sticking point for others was the presumption that this seems to put VLHC at a priority level that's ahead of other important and more mature facilities. We've talked about that ourselves.

Please think about this: 

o What does not happen with above alternative statement that you believe can only happen with the more aggressive one? 

This is between "you and me" but I hope you'll think about it. 

Thanks
Chip

---------------------------------------------------------------
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]

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








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