Hi Urs,
you are right concerning the typo. As far as the
difference wrt you is that you were using the non-resonant model, while I
redid the calculations with the full hybrid.
As far as the long term is concerned we will discuss the developments
today, but I am afraid that w cannot just reinterpret the old result but
need to get a new one with a different approach (partial BF)
ciao
ric
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Urs Langenegger wrote:
>
> Hoi Ric,
>
> > Vub=(5.04+/-0.30(stat)+/-0.28(sys)+0.61-0.041(SF)+/-0.26(pert+1/mb^3))10^-3
>
> I presume that the 0.041 should be 0.41?
>
> Your central value is larger than what I had obtained when we first
> got the CBX, shown in
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/lwgate/VUB-RECOIL/archives/vub-recoil.200306/Author/article-21.html
>
> At that time the "default" central value was at 0.0213 (vub = 4.70),
> for CLEO's parameters I had obtained BRBR = 0.0231 (vub= 4.90).
>
> I think that this is a short-term fix. On a longer time-scale
> (summer?), I guess we'll using sl measurements with Neubert's
> calculations.
>
> Cheers,
> --U.
>
>
>
>
>
>
|