 |
 |
On Oct 10, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Peskin, Michael E." <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > minutes of the EF phone meeting 10/8 > > attending: Chip, Michael, Sally, Daniel, LianTao, Ashutosh, Cecilia, Reinhard, Markus, Andy White > > There are many items in these minutes that all of you need act on more or less immediately. Please read these minutes carefully. We summary the action items at the end. > > Our reports are overdue. We would like to send our reports to the Snowmass conveners on Tuesday, October 15. > > All line numbers refer to the 10-3 versions sent out last Friday. > > 1. From the group on the phone, and from the emails that we have received, you seem to be happy with the reports that we put together except for some specific points discussed below. Michael emphasized that, if you are not happy, you must speak up now. This is best done by sending email to snowmass-ef. Urgently, please. > > 2. Many of the people on the phone were uncomfortable with the language on likes 40-41 of the short report: "These puzzles imply that new particles with masses of the order of 1 TeV which resolve these questions will be found -- and will be accessible to existing and planned accelerators." They felt that "imply" was too strong and that the implication of 1 TeV rather than, say, 5 TeV was made in this sentence. what about replacing "…masses of the order of 1 TeV" by "...masses below about 10 TeV" just as an example, ATLAS studies have shown sensitivity to KK gluons -> ttbar in the 5 TeV range ------ as far as the word "imply" goes, it seems to me that "imply" has a built-in caveat that it is an implication on the basis of a certain logic. In this case, the logic is that nature will avoid too much fine tuning. The 10 TeV number would make the fine tuning about 0.01% and the logic is that this is very uncomfortable amount of fine tuning So, I think we are protected in the legalistic sense if we do use the word "imply" Also, to me, the scale of how "strong" the language is, is no longer set by the "strength" of "there must be some new physics to explain massive gauge bosons…" which worked very well for SSC and LHC motivation. I don't think we have to normalize to that any more. I think we have to normalize to the "strongest" language we could use for ANY new physics, in the post-Higgs discovery, post-theta13, post-Planck…etc… world we live in now. regards, Ashutosh ######################################################################## 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