Fermilab
Long Range Planning Committee
Physics Subcommittee
Meeting Minutes
April 30, 2003
We convened the first meeting of the "Physics Landscape
Committee"Present were: Appel, Butler, Carena, Eichten, Parke, Hill
There was a concensus that there would be value added to the
lab if such a
committee had a more general and long term scope of maintaining and updating the Physics Case for HEP at
FNAL (and sister fields) beyond the immediate needs of the Fermilab Long Range Planning
Committee (FLRP). However,
we should focus now on the FLRP Physics Case document, envisioned to be a succinct
statement of the Physics Landscape in relationship to the Lab in the time frame
2010-2020, with an eye to identifying key targets of opportunity.
The issue of broadening the membership of the committee was
discussed. It
is felt that it is imperative that any inhouse dubiousness about the FLRP process be diffused.
This requires an all-inclusive approach. It is also felt that there exists an optimal size for
a committee in order to generate a focused document. There are roughly 3 ways to proceed:
(1) Audit, in committee, the ideas
brought in from outsiders on an invited or requested (by the outsider) basis. This allows the
committee to cross-examine
the presenter, which may be optimal for us and them.
(2) Have some people sit on the
committee for a few sessions, but not necessarily participate in the ongoing or writing
activities.
(3) Include more membership,
particularly of experimentalists.
It was felt that people should be identified in all of these
categories.
We turned to the problem of a Work Plan for the FLRP
document.
The Physics Landscape committee should address off-main path
of HEP potential
physics targets, and conjoin with theory issues. The "flavor channels" appear to be
potentially optimally available to the Fermilab program: Kaons, Charm, B's, Neutrinos, Muons, Taus. What about "forward
Physics" (audit Mike Albrow)?
Begin by emphasizing FNAL committment to LHC (and to
eventual LC somewhere).
LHC will happen, and it will ramp up fairly quickly (manpower issues?) It must be recognized that physics
from LC is likely
not to begin before 2015-17. (SLAC GIGA-Z plan? SC Linear Proton Driver here?)
Plethora of new results from LHC is likely, and will
stimulate the field in new ways. Can we anticipate them?
Approach will be to assume LHC
discovery scenarios. There are evidently 4 logical possibilities:
(1) SUSY, ... several subscenarios,
SUGRA, GM, etc.
(2) Xtra Dims, ... neutrino
implications?
(3) New Strong Dynamics, several
possibilities, eg, TC2, "Little Higgs"
(4) Just the Std Model Higgs, nothing
else.!?
Ask "what experiment in the context of flavor, or
other, physics channels would you most like to do next?" Eg, if gauge mediated
SUSY, what does it say about Kaons? Neutrinos? etc? Note that this also begs LC and VLHC in many instances...how to
place emphasis? We are certainly looking for flavor channel sensitivity, but don't want to squeeze wine from a stone..
I asked Marcela to begin to think about SUSY sub-scenarios
for this. What
and where is the best literature? E.g., Buras has written much about this for K's and nu's. Uli Nierste
was suggested as a key reference. We know that the flavor problem is severe in the SUSY
and NSD scenarios.
(e.g., What if LHC finds the strange squark at 500 GeV and the down squark at 1000
GeV? Impossible!? )
I asked Stephen to think about the neutrino logic tree, and
to give us a short summary
in the next meeting.
We'll continue discussions amongst ourselves informally.
-C. Hill
Back to
Long Range Planning Working Groups
Last update 08/13/03