 |
 |
Hi Chip, I am fine with the language that you proposed. To have a consensus is more important. Liantao On Aug 26, 2013, at 7:57 PM, Raymond Brock 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 > 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