On Apr 24, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Jens Erler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Ashutosh,
> 
> yes, people talk about this (and there are some results), and in the very long run it should be possible to do this


thats good to know


> competitively.  One also needs the physical charm mass for the charm threshold,
> but this can be done on the lattice, as well.  In the moment the lattice approach is not precise enough,
> and one caveat is that it is unclear when and how to trust the error.  There are
> vigorous discussions between different lattice groups using different fermion definitions.
> Also, they would have to make it a priority (in effort and CPU), which from our perspective it certainly would be,
> but from my experience they may well think other simulations are more important.



I would put it to them as follows: what is the point of  developing a precise lattice formulation for 40 years if one precise prediction which is important cannot be obtained from it? 


regards,
Ashutosh


> Regards,
> Jens
> 
> 
> On Apr 24, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Ashutosh Kotwal wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Apr 19, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Jens Erler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I also see alpha_s less of a concern.  The alpha_s value from the Z-lineshape has
>>> currently a negligible theory error, so it is especially here that I would expect great
>>> improvement.  If one then also gets alpha_s to per mille precision from event shapes,
>>> one would even gain another independent EW observable to very high precision.
>>> But one needs a plausible avenue to credibly improve Delta alpha (M_Z)
>> 
>> 
>> what about computing Delta alpha (MZ) using lattice QCD for the non-perturbative hadronic loops?
>> 
>> regards,
>> Ashutosh

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK&A=1