 |
 |
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