Search found 822 matches
- 25. Feb 2020, 20:11
- Forum: Model implementation in SARAH
- Topic: Question concerning scalar mixing
- Replies: 4
- Views: 5635
Re: Question concerning scalar mixing
Hi Björn, 1) since P0 is real, you get the same for conj[P0] and P0 as it should be 2) the rotation is defined in a way that you have P0_i = Z_ij^* S_j for some gauge eingestate S 3) SARAH doesn't know by its own that Z is real, i.e. it assumed that it is complex. In principle, there are two possibl...
- 9. Feb 2020, 20:09
- Forum: Model implementation in SARAH
- Topic: Question concerning scalar mixing
- Replies: 4
- Views: 5635
Re: Question concerning scalar mixing
Hi Björn,
You don't use conj[PO] in your conjugated vertex, ie I don't expect any change in the corresponding mixing matrix. The question is: is PO and the rotation matrix real in general?
Cheers
Florian
You don't use conj[PO] in your conjugated vertex, ie I don't expect any change in the corresponding mixing matrix. The question is: is PO and the rotation matrix real in general?
Cheers
Florian
- 9. Feb 2020, 20:06
- Forum: Model implementation in SARAH
- Topic: Can one set Dependence to zero?
- Replies: 1
- Views: 3373
Re: Can one set Dependence to zero?
Hi,
I think not.
It's also dangerous: in general, you have this triangle for the gauge coughing matrix just at one scale.
Cheers
Florian
I think not.
It's also dangerous: in general, you have this triangle for the gauge coughing matrix just at one scale.
Cheers
Florian
- 15. Jan 2020, 21:22
- Forum: SPheno, FlavorKit
- Topic: Unphysical Goldstone bosons in SPheno
- Replies: 2
- Views: 4461
Re: Unphysical Goldstone bosons in SPheno
Hi,
non-physical states which should be ignored in the SPheno output must have PDG-Nr 0
Cheers,
Florian
non-physical states which should be ignored in the SPheno output must have PDG-Nr 0
Cheers,
Florian
- 15. Jan 2020, 21:20
- Forum: SPheno, FlavorKit
- Topic: Rank mismatch error
- Replies: 1
- Views: 3587
Re: Rank mismatch error
HI,
Fortran doesn't like Arrays of dimension (1,1), because they are just a scalar at the end. Thus, instead of a rotation matrix, a single phase is sufficient. Check for instance the models with vector-like quarks how to define phases instead of rotation matrices for particles.
Cheers,
Florian
Fortran doesn't like Arrays of dimension (1,1), because they are just a scalar at the end. Thus, instead of a rotation matrix, a single phase is sufficient. Check for instance the models with vector-like quarks how to define phases instead of rotation matrices for particles.
Cheers,
Florian
- 15. Jan 2020, 21:18
- Forum: SPheno, FlavorKit
- Topic: Problem solving the EW tadpole equations using Mu and TanBeta
- Replies: 4
- Views: 4966
Re: Problem solving the EW tadpole equations using Mu and TanBeta
Hi, there are some issues with solving the tadpoles with respect to TanBeta: - Steve Martin only considers tree-level in his primer. Of course, you need to include loops at some point - The SUSY Yukawas are a function of measured quark masses and TanBeta. Thus, solving the tadpoles with respect to T...
- 15. Jan 2020, 21:11
- Forum: Model implementation in SARAH
- Topic: Majorana Like mass term for a doublet a fermion
- Replies: 1
- Views: 3096
Re: Majorana Like mass term for a doublet a fermion
Hi,
M Delta[lef1,lef2] F.F
is forbidden by hypercharge conservation, isn't it?
Cheers,
Florian
M Delta[lef1,lef2] F.F
is forbidden by hypercharge conservation, isn't it?
Cheers,
Florian
- 15. Jan 2020, 21:09
- Forum: Model implementation in SARAH
- Topic: SM,"DiracSpinor::missing: For the following Weyl spinors are no Dirac spinors defined: {dL,uL,eL,vL,dR,uR,eR}"
- Replies: 2
- Views: 3915
Re: SM,"DiracSpinor::missing: For the following Weyl spinors are no Dirac spinors defined: {dL,uL,eL,vL,dR,uR,eR}"
Hi,
even if this message might be there because of some reason, it shouldn't play a role because it refers most likely to the gauge eigenstates. As long as you are interested in the eigenstates after EWSB and if there is no warning for that set, you should be able to proceed.
Cheers,
Florian
even if this message might be there because of some reason, it shouldn't play a role because it refers most likely to the gauge eigenstates. As long as you are interested in the eigenstates after EWSB and if there is no warning for that set, you should be able to proceed.
Cheers,
Florian
- 15. Oct 2019, 19:26
- Forum: Bug reports
- Topic: Confusing output of FermionQ
- Replies: 2
- Views: 4183
Re: Confusing output of FermionQ
Hi Alex, I guess, somewhere in between. Without checking (because I don't have Mathematica anymore): make sure that SA`CurrentStates is set correct at this stage (i.e. EWSB). It is usually set when calling other functions to perform some calculations, but just after running Start is might be GaugeES...
- 9. Oct 2019, 21:58
- Forum: SPheno, FlavorKit
- Topic: Problem with low scale input files
- Replies: 1
- Views: 3541
Re: Problem with low scale input files
hi,
did you check if the input files contains reasonable numbers for all entries or just zeros at placeholders?
Cheeers,
Florian
did you check if the input files contains reasonable numbers for all entries or just zeros at placeholders?
Cheeers,
Florian