 |
 |
multi-TeV scale" might be nice because it gives muon collider R&D a little boost.. Ashutosh On Aug 27, 2013, at 12:20 AM, Rick Van Kooten <[log in to unmask]> 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 ######################################################################## 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