Block FOBS

From Wiki Les Houches 09

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Current revision (10:35, 25 June 2009) (view source)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
-
[http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/LesHouches09Wiki/index.php/Flavor_Les_Houches_Accord#Block_Flavor_observables Back to Main Page]
+
[http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/LesHouches09Wiki/index.php/Flavour_Les_Houches_Accord#Block_Flavour_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)

Current revision

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 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)

Personal tools