tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post7220476980000953859..comments2024-01-08T09:37:04.406+01:00Comments on RÉSONAANCES: Update on CP violation in charmJesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-13716129293748450102011-12-13T02:04:11.739+01:002011-12-13T02:04:11.739+01:00Sorry, could not post the rumors earlier without p...Sorry, could not post the rumors earlier without putting my agents in danger. You know what they do to experimentalists caught spying for theorists :-)Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-71514296742775804982011-12-12T09:16:01.420+01:002011-12-12T09:16:01.420+01:00Okay, that does it, I wanna talk to the manager.Okay, that does it, I wanna talk to the manager.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-24426139225149044992011-12-10T19:04:31.096+01:002011-12-10T19:04:31.096+01:00I've been waiting for half an hour at this cas...I've been waiting for half an hour at this cashier and still no service? What part of the sentence I want my Higgs rumor and I want it now don't you understand?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-35161162772341949192011-12-06T20:28:23.444+01:002011-12-06T20:28:23.444+01:00Hello. I'm here for the Higgs rumors. Should...Hello. I'm here for the Higgs rumors. Should I wait on this couch over here?Physicalisthttp://physicalism.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-56008139628402747022011-12-05T20:54:51.441+01:002011-12-05T20:54:51.441+01:00What? No Higgs rumours? What's wrong with you,...What? No Higgs rumours? What's wrong with you, man, continue like this and you'll start writing about science in a while.tulpoeidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-22137276799235236652011-12-04T11:00:53.983+01:002011-12-04T11:00:53.983+01:00hi Jester,
Just a quick botanical comment: the (1...hi Jester,<br /><br />Just a quick botanical comment: the (1 GeV/m_quark) counting rule for the expansion mainly applies to quarks exchanged in the Delta F=2 box diagram. Those are up-type for B and K mixing, and down-type for D mixing. After using unitarity to eliminate the lightest quark, one gets the standard Delta F=2 dimension six operators entering B_B and B_K by assuming that both 1 GeV/m_t and 1 GeV/m_c are small. As you mention, the latter one is tricky --- what with sizeable NLO OPE corrections to the mixing, especially if external momenta are O(m_K) and not O(m_B).<br /><br />In the case of D mixing, unfortunately, there's an s quark in the box: game over. Working with the full (Delta F=1)^2 structure is mandatory, and computations of low-energy QCD contributions are hence much tougher.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-65466985367092199772011-12-03T20:51:38.975+01:002011-12-03T20:51:38.975+01:00Right, you can explain the result with new light p...Right, you can explain the result with new light particles, at 1 TeV or below, and it's perhaps much more natural this way. 10 TeV would be the scale of completely generic CP-violating new physics. I quoted that number mainly to compare to the suppression scale in D-meson mixing, which is much larger.Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-52807965946709451192011-12-03T20:14:32.061+01:002011-12-03T20:14:32.061+01:00Well, the CP-violating operators almost certainly ...Well, the CP-violating operators almost certainly have purely numerical coefficients much smaller than one in front of them - like the CKM-matrix angle - so the real mass scale responsible for this stuff may be much smaller than 10 TeV, right?Luboš Motlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-79928116952763103302011-12-03T18:56:34.955+01:002011-12-03T18:56:34.955+01:00What does take a knock is first-order old physics ...What does take a knock is first-order old physics (FOOP). The search for power-series solutions goes back to Gustav Mie and p-adic arithmetic, but got under way as a trend with chaos theory, so for many observers this is non-linear or fractal physics.Orwinhttp://www.seri-worldwide.org/id591.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-81417555276837043542011-12-03T16:42:39.101+01:002011-12-03T16:42:39.101+01:00For the sake of debating, I'd say No, and here...For the sake of debating, I'd say No, and here is perhaps part of the problem: a research topic on new techiques is probably less glamourous that on new particles; a hard task with less reward. <br /><br />Of course, you can always try the AdS/CFT-QFT trick: perhaps they going to be, at the end, a calculational technique, but they sell themselves as based in NP, so they get some of the NP glamour.Alejandro Riverohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16181521111080562335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-30522944278331653652011-12-03T04:59:53.585+01:002011-12-03T04:59:53.585+01:00I think it will come down to one's definition ...I think it will come down to one's definition of New Physics. If we one day compute it using SM ideas, but with new twistor techniques, is that New Physics or not? I would say yes, but it's debatable.Keahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652514294703722285noreply@blogger.com