 |
 |
I also support the addition of the multi-TeV-scale lepton colliders proposed by Chris.
Cecilia
On Aug 26, 2013, at 11:20 PM, Rick Van Kooten wrote:
Hi Chip.
I am reluctantly okay with the new wording as a compromise, and also support Chris' suggestion below of adding "(multi?)-TeV-scale lepton colliders" to make sure accelerator R&D and physics studies continue for these as well. That was a continuing problem with even the original text that your other frontier convenors were struggling with.
Regards,
Rick
On 8/26/13 9:26 PM, Christopher G. Tully wrote:
Dear Chip,
I fall into the group that would not be disappointed by the new
wording. I am in favor of making a more inclusive statement that
encompasses the bulk
of all studies I reviewed:
The Snowmass study called out in particular the promise of a 100 TeV
hadron collider and TeV-scale lepton colliders, giving a step in energy
with great potential for new physics discoveries. These opportunities
should be clarified through supported accelerator R&D and physics
studies for such machines over the next decade.
Best,
Chris
On Aug 26, 2013, at 8:57 PM, Raymond Brock <[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[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] <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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--
Rick Van Kooten \ Telephone: (812) 855-2650 FNAL: (630) 840-3859
Dept. of Physics \ HEP FAX: (812) 855-0440
Indiana University \ e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Swain Hall West 117 \ http://hep.physics.indiana.edu/~rickv/aboutme.html
Bloomington, IN 47405
########################################################################
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
Cecilia Gerber
+--------------------------------------------------------------+Professor Cecilia E. Gerber, Ph.D.Department of Physics UIC : (312) 996-2239Univ. of Illinois-Chicago FNAL: (630) 840-8295Chicago, IL 60607 E-mail: [log in to unmask]+--------------------------------------------------------------+
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