I think it is not hyperbole to remove "potentially". All I meant is that
there is no guarantee of a discovery because 1 TeV might be 3 TeV or 5 TeV,
and it makes a difference for experiments.
Markus Luty
============================================
Physics Department
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
Phone: +1 530 554 1280
Skype: markus_luty
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Ashutosh Kotwal <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> i see, interesting ! I guess this angle could be small enough in principle
> to make this H undetectable to everybody - and it would still decay on
> cosmic time scales so that its not dark matter either. so its truly
> undetectable.
>
> But would such a model solve any of the SM puzzles which motivate us to
> solve them in the first place?
>
> Ashutosh
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Sally Dawson <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> It's easy to construct models where a 1 TeV Higgs wouldn't be seen at the
> LHC
> because its couplings to ordinary matter are too small. Take the Higgs
> singlet
> model: The couplings of the SM Higgs go like cos^2 of an angle, the
> couplings
> of the heavier Higgs go like sin^2 of the same angle.
>
> I believe we need to emphasize the importance of exploring the TeV scale.
> No matter what we see or don't see, we've learned something.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Raymond Brock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>> I too like what Markus has done. The broader argument in favor of TeV
>> scale particles is the right one to make. I might make some few syntactical
>> suggestions, but I'm missing something in the \emph lines. They say:
>>
>> To summarize: \emph{Compelling ideas about fundamental physics predict
>> new
>> particles at the TeV energy scale that are potentially accessible to
>> present and
>> planned future accelerators. These experiments are the crucial tests of
>> these ideas.
>> Furthermore, if such particles are discovered, they can be studied in
>> detail to
>> determine their properties, leading to the establishment of new
>> fundamental laws of
>> nature.}
>>
>> If there are new particles at the TeV scale predicted by these
>> compelling ideas...then I would argue that it's more than just potentially
>> that they're accessible at present and planned future accelerators. I
>> understood the caution before, but the words were not so specific. I would
>> say that if there are particles at the TeV scale...we'll find them.
>>
>> What am I missing? What would make them be at the TeV scale...and yet
>> still invisible at LHC, ILC, VLHC?
>>
>> thanks
>> Chip
>>
>>
>> On Oct 11, 2013, at 1:57 AM, Markus A. Luty <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The first installment of my homework: here is my suggestion for what is
>> now lines 31-41 of the 5-page summary. It is longer than what is there now,
>> but I think these may be the most important lines in the document.
>>
>> The discovery of the Higgs particle establishes that the masses of
>> elementary
>> particles arise dominantly from interactions with the Higgs field that is
>> turned
>> on throughout the universe. We now have for the first time in the history
>> of
>> particle physics a theory all of whose ingredients have been
>> experimentally
>> verified, and that can be consistently extrapolated to energy scales many
>> orders
>> of magnitude above the energy scale of collider experiments. This historic
>> achievement is not an end, but a beginning, because the standard model of
>> particle physics leaves many fundamental questions unanswered. In the
>> tradition
>> of bold theoretical ideas such as the Higgs mechanism (recognized by this
>> years'
>> Nobel prize) particle physicists have proposed compelling ideas that
>> address
>> these important questions, and that have their crucial test at the TeV
>> scale:
>>
>> * The fact that the observed Higgs particle is a scalar particle makes it
>> very
>> difficult to understand why its mass scale is smaller than much-larger
>> fundamental mass scales such as the Planck scale. Addressing this problem
>> requires significant additional structure: either supersymmetry (an
>> extension of
>> Einstein's spacetime symmetry), Higgs compositeness, or extra dimensions
>> of
>> space. All of these ideas predict a rich spectrum of particles at the TeV
>> mass scale,
>> typically including a larger Higgs sector.
>>
>> * The standard model does not account for the dark matter that makes up
>> most of
>> the matter of the universe. A stable particle at the Higgs mass scale
>> with weak
>> interactions with ordinary matter (a WIMP) is one of the simplest and
>> compelling
>> theories of dark matter. If dark matter is a WIMP it may be possible to
>> study
>> dark matter under controlled laboratory conditions in collider
>> experiments.
>>
>> To summarize: \emph{Compelling ideas about fundamental physics predict new
>> particles at the TeV energy scale that are potentially accessible to
>> present and
>> planned future accelerators. These experiments are the crucial tests of
>> these ideas.
>> Furthermore, if such particles are discovered, they can be studied in
>> detail to
>> determine their properties, leading to the establishment of new
>> fundamental laws of
>> nature.}
>>
>> The past successes of particle physics clearly call for us to continue
>> and extend a three-pronged program of research in collider experiments:
>>
>> First, we must study the Higgs boson itself in as much detail as possible,
>> searching for signs of a larger Higgs sector and the effects of new heavy
>> particles.
>>
>> Second, we must search for small deviations in the standard model
>> predictions
>> for the couplings of the Higgs, W, Z, and top quark from new particles.
>>
>> Finally, we must directly search for new particles with TeV masses that
>> can
>> address important problems in fundamental physics.
>>
>> Markus Luty
>>
>> ============================================
>> Physics Department
>> University of California, Davis
>> One Shields Avenue
>> Davis, CA 95616
>>
>> Phone: +1 530 554 1280
>> Skype: markus_luty
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Ashutosh Kotwal <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> Vidyo personal room: http://goo.gl/AgiDJ4
>> 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
>
>
>
########################################################################
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
