Block FWCOEF

From Wiki Les Houches 09

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Full WC's or NP part only?)
Line 8: Line 8:
Hi, I am wondering if we should allow for separate blocks for the "New Physics" and "SM" parts of the Wilson Coefficients. Cheers [[User:Slavich|Pietro]] 17:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am wondering if we should allow for separate blocks for the "New Physics" and "SM" parts of the Wilson Coefficients. Cheers [[User:Slavich|Pietro]] 17:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
Hi Pietro, This is the approach that Aoife and I use in our code and it has worked well. It gives us more discretion to treat the NP contribution to the Wilson coefficients differently than the SM in for example the evolution code. It also means that all tools can use the same version of the SM as a reference point. If we don't do this, we should at least define how one should be extracted from the other (C_i = C_i^SM + C_i^NP at MW for example). Cheers, Will. [[User:Wreece|Wreece]] 11:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:34, 29 June 2009

Back to Main Page

I think in the final write-up of the proposal it will be very good to give in the Appendix a translation of the basis of Wilson coefficients used in the FLSHA to the other commonly used basis. This will maybe encourage the other authors of the flavour programs to more easily adopt the FSLHA, even if they use another basis. Muehlleitner, 13:23, June 25, 2009.

Hi Margarete please read my comment on the four-tildes signature. Cheers Pietro 13:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Full WC's or NP part only?

Hi, I am wondering if we should allow for separate blocks for the "New Physics" and "SM" parts of the Wilson Coefficients. Cheers Pietro 17:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pietro, This is the approach that Aoife and I use in our code and it has worked well. It gives us more discretion to treat the NP contribution to the Wilson coefficients differently than the SM in for example the evolution code. It also means that all tools can use the same version of the SM as a reference point. If we don't do this, we should at least define how one should be extracted from the other (C_i = C_i^SM + C_i^NP at MW for example). Cheers, Will. Wreece 11:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools