#79 closed feature_request (fixed)
consistent electroweak schemes in input parameters
| Reported by: | Juergen Reuter | Owned by: | Juergen Reuter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | P3 | Milestone: | |
| Component: | configure | Version: | 2.0.0beta |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | input parameters |
| Cc: |
Description
In WHIZARD1 inside the include files the W mass was adjusted in order to have a consistent electroweak input scheme. For WHIZARD 2 nothing like that has been implemented yet.Am I right, Wolfgang?
Change History (5)
comment:1 Changed 15 years ago by
| Type: | defect → feature_request |
|---|
comment:2 Changed 15 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 15 years ago by
| Owner: | changed from ALL to Juergen Reuter |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → assigned |
I am going to check this. Comparing parameters with W1 and W2. Using the CATPISS tests. As the numerics work out there, in principle, there should not be a problem with this.
comment:4 Changed 15 years ago by
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | assigned → closed |
There is only a problem when reading in an SLHA input file. ANd even then only if the SMINPUTS block is filled. In that case one has to switch from the SLHA scheme of GF, MZ, alpha to the WHIZARD scheme GF,MZ,MW. The same calculation as in the include files of WHIZARD 1 is done in the SLHA interface of WHIZARD 2. Closing the ticket.
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
This was important only for SUSY models, where an inconsistent input from an SLHA input file could happen. Maybe this ticket is void.