Block FOBS
From Wiki Les Houches 09
(Difference between revisions)
(New page: An alternative proposal (which might be unpractical, see below) would be to use the same format as for the DECAY tables in the SLHA1, i.e. a line with the PDG code of the parent particle ...) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | [http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/LesHouches09Wiki/index.php/Flavor_Les_Houches_Accord#Block_Flavor_observables Back to Main Page] | ||
+ | |||
An alternative proposal (which might be unpractical, see below) would be to use the same format as for the DECAY tables in the SLHA1, i.e. a line with | An alternative proposal (which might be unpractical, see below) would be to use the same format as for the DECAY tables in the SLHA1, i.e. a line with | ||
the PDG code of the parent particle and its total width (or lifetime) and a series of lines with the number of daughters, the PDG codes of the | the PDG code of the parent particle and its total width (or lifetime) and a series of lines with the number of daughters, the PDG codes of the | ||
daughters, the identifier of the observable (e.g. BR) and the observable itself. This option would have the advantage of not requiring an arbitrary label for each different process. On the other hand, it would not be applicable to non-decay observables such as e.g. B-Bbar oscillations. [[User:Slavich|slavich]] 09:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC) | daughters, the identifier of the observable (e.g. BR) and the observable itself. This option would have the advantage of not requiring an arbitrary label for each different process. On the other hand, it would not be applicable to non-decay observables such as e.g. B-Bbar oscillations. [[User:Slavich|slavich]] 09:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:45, 25 June 2009
An alternative proposal (which might be unpractical, see below) would be to use the same format as for the DECAY tables in the SLHA1, i.e. a line with the PDG code of the parent particle and its total width (or lifetime) and a series of lines with the number of daughters, the PDG codes of the daughters, the identifier of the observable (e.g. BR) and the observable itself. This option would have the advantage of not requiring an arbitrary label for each different process. On the other hand, it would not be applicable to non-decay observables such as e.g. B-Bbar oscillations. slavich 09:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)