This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
micromegas_startpage_freeze-in_andres_tchanelssimplemodels [2021/12/20 10:18] belanger |
micromegas_startpage_freeze-in_andres_tchanelssimplemodels [2021/12/22 14:49] (current) goudelis |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| **Andreas' SM single-generation-no-QCD-zero-temperature CalcHEP implementation** | **Andreas' SM single-generation-no-QCD-zero-temperature CalcHEP implementation** | ||
| - | {{ :smforuvbehaviournothermal.zip |}} | + | {{ :smforuvbehaviournothermal2.zip |}} |
| **Andreas' SM single-generation-no-QCD-T-dependent-vev CalcHEP implementation** | **Andreas' SM single-generation-no-QCD-T-dependent-vev CalcHEP implementation** | ||
| - | {{ :smforuvbehaviourt-dependentvev.zip |}} | + | {{ :smforuvbehaviourt-dependentvev2.zip |}} |
| + | |||
| + | **Andreas' SM single-generation-no-QCD-zero-temperature CalcHEP implementation** | ||
| + | {{ :SMforUVbehaviourNoThermalNoZ2.zip |}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Andreas' SM single-generation-no-QCD-T-dependent-vev CalcHEP implementation** | ||
| + | {{ :SMforUVbehaviourNoZ2.zip |}} | ||
| Line 81: | Line 87: | ||
| 3- We still have to decide on what to do in practice, the following solutions are proposed | 3- We still have to decide on what to do in practice, the following solutions are proposed | ||
| A) For processes that have a t-channel contribution, use tcut as defined in relation with the thermal mass. I think we all agree on how to implement tcut as well as how to implement the thermal mass - by default the SM thermal mass. Here what is not clear is how this will affect the s-channel contribution and/or interference. Andreas promised to do some more test on that point so let’s wait for his input. | A) For processes that have a t-channel contribution, use tcut as defined in relation with the thermal mass. I think we all agree on how to implement tcut as well as how to implement the thermal mass - by default the SM thermal mass. Here what is not clear is how this will affect the s-channel contribution and/or interference. Andreas promised to do some more test on that point so let’s wait for his input. | ||
| - | B) For processes with only a s-channel contribution, we should not use a cut (I am not sure everyone agrees on this). There are two opinions, a) not to put tcut on processes without t-channel (is there a practical disadvantage in implementing this in micromegas?) b) to treat the s-channel resonance as a decay process which should take care of the cut issue since the decay is not subject to tCut. The added advantage of solution b (which could be implemented irrespective of tcut) is that the calculation is faster. The disadvantage is that there is some uncertainty on how to cut the resonance 3 widths- 5 widths etc… Moreover solution b) from Sasha proposes to use tcut on everything but the s-channel. This raises some issues as was illustrated in the test I have done with only s-channel. I do not know what to think of this test but I thought it would be good to have a coherent answer to that as it might explain some issues in the problem about the interference s and t channel. | + | B) For processes with only a s-channel contribution, we should not use a cut (I am not sure everyone agrees on this). There are two opinions, a) not to put tcut on processes without t-channel (is there a practical disadvantage in implementing this in micromegas?) b) to treat the s-channel resonance as a decay process which should take care of the cut issue since the decay is not subject to tCut. The added advantage of solution b (which could be implemented irrespective of tcut) is that the calculation is faster. The disadvantage is that there is some uncertainty on how to cut the resonance 3 widths- 5 widths etc… Moreover solution b) from Sasha proposes to use tcut on everything but the decay. This raises some issues as was illustrated in the test I have done with only s-channel. I do not know what to think of this test but I thought it would be good to have a coherent answer to that as it might explain some issues in the problem about the interference s and t channel. |