Skip to content

Luca Stanco: a comment on Rubbia’s talk

March 2, 2015

(I received the following comment from an esteemed colleague who will only attend the conference from tomorrow onwards, and who followed the works through the blog).

Hi Tommaso,
great stenographic exercise and very valuable summary!

Today I am not attending the Conference but I was intrigued by Rubbia’s statement, as reported by you, about the correlation between precision tests on Higgs and new discoveries. The examples for top and Higgs predictions are brought them up. That looks wrong to me.

Besides the esteem that precision measurements for the Higgs are necessary, its correlation to future programs seems rather weak. I will consider the Rubbia’s example and remind about some historical aspects somebody may have forgotten (or never known !).

Electroweak predictions started their way up from the EPS conference of 1993 in Marseille. The major result of that Conference  was the first reliable measurements of NLO for Electroweak interactions from the 4 LEP experiments. It was really astonishing the confirmation of the NLO-EW theoretical computations with the measurements performed at LEP ! From that time people started to think seriously to top and Higgs predictions.

However, the Tevatron was already on its way and in 2 years it would have discovered the top (even if LEP people were pretending  they had already predicted it from EW fits of their results – I seem to remember the prediction was about 160+-20 GeV) Also LHC was already approved in 1994, even if at early stages (it would take 18 more years to discover the Higgs).

Then ? either the Tevatron or LHC were already on their way up. Everybody agreed that we needed them. Now, the situation looks to me rather different.

There is no sensible prediction beside the Higgs (but the obsolete – ? – SuperWorld). We do not really know, and no hint, not by any means, about Physics Beyond the Standard Model that can be touched via accelerators.

My conclusion would be not to invest in something we do know what would be useful for. Muon collider seems a pretty exercise valuable to pursue for future experimental investigation, but, for the time being, forget  to fund it for BSM searches.

Best, Luca

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: