Vub measurement using recoil of fully reconstructed Bs


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Oliver Buchmueller <[log in to unmask]>
05 Jul 2002 23:31:05 -0700 (PDT)Fri, 05 Jul 2002 23:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
TEXT/PLAIN (48 lines)

On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Daniele del Re wrote:

> > >
> > >  Bch for Q1 seems to be pretty bad. Looking at the chisquare and at the
> > > plots Q0 seems to be better.
> >
> > Please stop making this biased and baseless statements. Both (Q0 and
> > have chi**2/ndf>2.0 (correct?!) and hence both yielding Pchi**2=0 to very
> > good approximation.
> > The word "better" makes no sense in this context ... both do not fulfill
> > the chi**2 fit hypotheses and apparently by looking at the plots both
> > suffer from the same problem! Therefore, if your errors are correct both
> > (Q0 and Q1) indicate that there might be also a problem in BCH
> > ... another one .. just to much for my tast!
> Please, stop giving this useless contribution to the analysis. If you
> have some ideas tell us. If you want to help please do it.
> I remind you that most of the problems here can affect also your analysis.

Well, if you consider "useless" that I have pointed you more than once to
the chi**2 problem in your fit distribution ... so be it. However, as also
pointed out several times(!) ... looking at our fit distribution for
P*=1.0 GeV you will see that there is no such problem ... thats also
true when we changed the cut in the missing mass  from 1.0 GeV**2 to 0.5
GeV**2 ... you just could have tried to reproduce it ... but for the
summer conf. it is unfortuntely to late now.

> I hope that in the future your moment analysis and your vub analysis can
> be done with more cooperation.

Of course, thats what I am hoping for too ... but please keep in mind
that this is not a "one way street"!

>  Cheers,
>  Daniele