<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Needle in a haystack</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/10/needle-in-a-haystack/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/10/needle-in-a-haystack/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on work and life from particle physicists from around the world.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:29:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anna Phan</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/10/needle-in-a-haystack/#comment-69044</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna Phan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 May 2012 14:42:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22351#comment-69044</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi,

Thanks for taking an interest! Yes, the measured branching ratio [(2.4 ± 0.6 (stat) ± 0.2 (syst))×10−8] is compatible with the Standard Model prediction [(1.96 ± 0.21)×10−8]. I would have made a point of it if it wasn&#039;t!

Cheers,
Anna]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>Thanks for taking an interest! Yes, the measured branching ratio [(2.4 ± 0.6 (stat) ± 0.2 (syst))×10−8] is compatible with the Standard Model prediction [(1.96 ± 0.21)×10−8]. I would have made a point of it if it wasn&#8217;t!</p>
<p>Cheers,<br />
Anna</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anna Phan</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/10/needle-in-a-haystack/#comment-69043</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna Phan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 May 2012 14:40:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22351#comment-69043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi,

Thanks for noticing that the Feynman diagram didn&#039;t match the text. I&#039;ve changed everything to be B-.

Cheers,
Anna]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>Thanks for noticing that the Feynman diagram didn&#8217;t match the text. I&#8217;ve changed everything to be B-.</p>
<p>Cheers,<br />
Anna</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Prokop</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/10/needle-in-a-haystack/#comment-68930</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Prokop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 May 2012 01:50:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22351#comment-68930</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Anna,

  With regard to the B+ decay, should not the B+ consist of an UP quark and an anti B quark to give a charge of + 1. I enjoy your Blog.

Thanks]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Anna,</p>
<p>  With regard to the B+ decay, should not the B+ consist of an UP quark and an anti B quark to give a charge of + 1. I enjoy your Blog.</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nikola Nikolov</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/10/needle-in-a-haystack/#comment-68812</link>
		<dc:creator>Nikola Nikolov</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 15:52:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22351#comment-68812</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is the rate of that decay compatible with the SM prediction?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is the rate of that decay compatible with the SM prediction?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anna Phan</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/10/needle-in-a-haystack/#comment-68768</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna Phan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 07:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22351#comment-68768</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, you are right, the intermediate quark can also be an up quark. However, this transition is just as unlikely as the other two.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, you are right, the intermediate quark can also be an up quark. However, this transition is just as unlikely as the other two.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xezlec</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/10/needle-in-a-haystack/#comment-68730</link>
		<dc:creator>Xezlec</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 00:50:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22351#comment-68730</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Neat.  But why does the intermediate quark have to be a top or a charm?  Why not up?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Neat.  But why does the intermediate quark have to be a top or a charm?  Why not up?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aidan Randle-Conde</title>
		<link>http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2012/05/10/needle-in-a-haystack/#comment-68700</link>
		<dc:creator>Aidan Randle-Conde</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 18:50:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/?p=22351#comment-68700</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hey Anna, as a BaBarian and a B-physics enthusiast I just want to say that this in amazing result!  To see a branching fraction that is of the order of 10^-8 means that LHCb is well and truly past the reach of the B factories.  I can&#039;t wait to see what else LHCb has to offer.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Anna, as a BaBarian and a B-physics enthusiast I just want to say that this in amazing result!  To see a branching fraction that is of the order of 10^-8 means that LHCb is well and truly past the reach of the B factories.  I can&#8217;t wait to see what else LHCb has to offer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
