tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post4964807840107859960..comments2024-01-08T09:37:04.406+01:00Comments on RÉSONAANCES: LHCb has evidence of new physics! Maybe.Jesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-61048231542482959612011-11-16T20:42:00.983+01:002011-11-16T20:42:00.983+01:00The article by M. Golden and B. Grinstein cited by...The article by M. Golden and B. Grinstein cited by ben-hqet appears to be <a href="http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/1989/pub/Pub-89-048-T.pdf" rel="nofollow">this one</a>.Chris Austinhttp://chrisaustin.info/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-25935100606742046972011-11-16T03:21:14.454+01:002011-11-16T03:21:14.454+01:00There is a SM explanation of this: it was written ...There is a SM explanation of this: it was written in 1989; see Phys Lett B 222(1989)501. In it we (yes, this is self-serving, I am a co-author) discuss D0 -> K+K- and D0 -> Pi+pi- and state that in the absence of large SU(3) breaking one should expect large CP violation in these modes! Alas, we were cowards and followed this statement with a caveat that "This is of course very unlikely; the preferred explanation ... is that SU(3) violating effects are large in this decay."Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05595765185416321663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-17672942655712335152011-11-16T00:27:45.463+01:002011-11-16T00:27:45.463+01:00Well, whether you get 4.8 or 5.2 sigma is subject ...Well, whether you get 4.8 or 5.2 sigma is subject to statistical fluctuations as well.<br />If the effect is real and as large as the presented value, the analysis of the full 2011 dataset should get somewhere close to 5 sigma and 2012 data will surpass this without problems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-11816713305953391352011-11-15T22:41:07.826+01:002011-11-15T22:41:07.826+01:00Jester, sorry for being a pedantic smart ass: &quo...Jester, sorry for being a pedantic smart ass: "analyzing the full data set will shrink the error by at least Sqrt[2]" should be ...by at most Sqrt[2]. Adding stat and sys errors quadratically I get an expected significance of about 4.5 sigma. Just short of the magic 3.5*Sqrt[2]=5.Federiconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-60665925370123956562011-11-15T20:09:42.803+01:002011-11-15T20:09:42.803+01:00Anon-1, no I wasn't there. Anon-2, I don't...Anon-1, no I wasn't there. Anon-2, I don't ignore these papers, and I won't be shocked if those hints will be upgraded to evidence one day. But, regardless, I have an impression there is some cherry picking there.Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-38758112586285407232011-11-15T18:52:31.422+01:002011-11-15T18:52:31.422+01:00Jester, were you at the LHCb workshop, where this ...Jester, were you at the LHCb workshop, where this new measurement was apparently first unveiled?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-28714923178512203692011-11-15T17:53:01.414+01:002011-11-15T17:53:01.414+01:00Jester, now that you have revealed your phobia of ...Jester, now that you have revealed your phobia of flavor physics some previously puzzling things become more understandable..<br /><br />But I'm curious about the psychological effect of this episode on you. Does it make your more or less inclined to continue to ignore the existence of previous indications of new flavor physics discussed e.g. <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1102.3917" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1104.2117" rel="nofollow">here</a>?anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-73504954057721299512011-11-15T17:18:17.215+01:002011-11-15T17:18:17.215+01:00Thank you for such a clearly worded explanation. I...Thank you for such a clearly worded explanation. It's been a long time since my undergraduate degree ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-56051256741621724142011-11-15T10:02:28.162+01:002011-11-15T10:02:28.162+01:00oh great. what an excellent opportunity for lattic...oh great. what an excellent opportunity for lattice QCD.chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-49101609745509449172011-11-15T09:57:39.115+01:002011-11-15T09:57:39.115+01:00P. I'll kick your ass for provocation.P. I'll kick your ass for provocation.Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-50495782697199203762011-11-15T06:51:05.095+01:002011-11-15T06:51:05.095+01:00Ptrslv2 and anyone interested can find a more det...Ptrslv2 and anyone interested can find a more detailed<br />summary about direct CP breaking in TGD Universe at <a href="http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2011/11/anomalous-direct-cp-breaking-in-d-dbar.html" rel="nofollow">my blog</a>.matpitka@luukku.comhttp://tgd.wippiespace.com/public_html/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-16933471207765619382011-11-15T02:48:05.363+01:002011-11-15T02:48:05.363+01:00where is matti pitkanen's TGD explanation? ;-)...where is matti pitkanen's TGD explanation? ;-)Ptrslv72https://www.blogger.com/profile/14690101048852091469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-39498140327855437742011-11-15T02:47:57.818+01:002011-11-15T02:47:57.818+01:00Jester, LHCb check that the indirect contribution ...Jester, LHCb check that the indirect contribution cancels, as you say, but the point is that the same <i>theoretical parameters</i> can be responsible for both CP types.Keahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652514294703722285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-74516483879557685552011-11-15T01:28:47.369+01:002011-11-15T01:28:47.369+01:00I was lucky to be at ground zeroI was lucky to be at ground zeroJesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-68350697090368352092011-11-15T00:51:09.110+01:002011-11-15T00:51:09.110+01:00most importantly, you beat your fellow bloggers wi...most importantly, you beat your fellow bloggers with this news ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-39241733818172337422011-11-14T23:17:24.347+01:002011-11-14T23:17:24.347+01:00Quite amusing that 0904.1545 seems to have taken i...Quite amusing that 0904.1545 seems to have taken inspiration for the title from hep-ph/0703204, with the appropriate replacement MSSM -> LHT.<br /><br />All these papers focus on CPV in mixing though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-59913167704227931412011-11-14T22:40:35.164+01:002011-11-14T22:40:35.164+01:00There is an old paper that predicts SM asymmetries...There is an old paper that predicts SM asymmetries in these channels to be more than an order of magnitude smaller. This asymmetry is notoriously difficult to predict. I usually quote 0.1% as an upper bound for SM predictions in individual channels. WHat they see is close to it, but it's also bigger. Who knows...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-80300135626164817922011-11-14T21:38:00.298+01:002011-11-14T21:38:00.298+01:00This paper does a good job discussing the effect o...This paper does a good job discussing the effect of a fourth generation on D0-D0 mixing:<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.4565Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-42556085784187087452011-11-14T21:26:26.559+01:002011-11-14T21:26:26.559+01:000904.1545 has only 3 lines about the D decays to K...0904.1545 has only 3 lines about the D decays to KK and pi-pi. They say the effect would be driven by the mixing phase (as far as I understand, the indirect contribution cancels out in the asymmetry difference).Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-18942820042834376822011-11-14T21:23:26.738+01:002011-11-14T21:23:26.738+01:00IIRC, this SM4 paper from this past June also offe...IIRC, <a href="http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1104/1104.2117v3.pdf" rel="nofollow">this SM4 paper from this past June</a> also offers a theoretical fix.Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-73975787079129739802011-11-14T21:22:38.471+01:002011-11-14T21:22:38.471+01:00I agree with Jester. 0904.1545 is about CP violati...I agree with Jester. 0904.1545 is about CP violation in D0 - D0bar mixing predicted by the Littlest Higgs with T-parity. I doubt that LHT dynamics can generate significant CP violation in a decay, that occurs at the tree level in the SM and is only singly Cabibbo-suppressed...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-85125984204051499982011-11-14T21:21:34.194+01:002011-11-14T21:21:34.194+01:00Couldn't this effect be due to the existence o...Couldn't this effect be due to the existence of a fourth generation of quarks?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-87879945996173075162011-11-14T21:16:55.708+01:002011-11-14T21:16:55.708+01:00Anon, yes I know this one, but doesn't it rath...Anon, yes I know this one, but doesn't it rather predict large CP violation in *mixing*?Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-21829500305132330642011-11-14T21:12:16.530+01:002011-11-14T21:12:16.530+01:00I wonder how tightly the running of the strong for...I wonder how tightly the running of the strong force coupling constant in that equation is determined at that energy level? <br /><br />If the strong force coupling constant fell off at higher energies more slowly than expected (the standard expectation is proportional to 1/ln(E^2/(strong force decay width)^2)) and this wasn't too tightly constrained by other experiments, wouldn't it be possible to explain the excess in the CP violation without introducing another CP violating phase in the CKM matrix? For example, what if the running of the strong force coupling constant was really proportional to the SM term minus (k/ln(E^2)/(strong force decay width)^2)^3 for a suitable constant k (perhaps the full expression would be some sort of infinite series with terms of alternating signs).<br /><br />I would think that D-meson decays at LHCb should start to be at energy levels that are starting to exceed well calibrated runnings of the strong force coupling constant from Tevatron, et al. And, tweaking the beta function of running of the the strong force coupling constant would seem like a more subtle tweak than the addition of a new CP violating phase parameter if it would work.Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-65256993840297775652011-11-14T21:00:22.124+01:002011-11-14T21:00:22.124+01:00Speak for yourself, Jester.Speak for yourself, Jester.Keahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652514294703722285noreply@blogger.com