 |
 |
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 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. 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