tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post5809003283353937604..comments2024-01-08T09:37:04.406+01:00Comments on RÉSONAANCES: D0: 4 sigma like-sign dimuon anomaly!Jesterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-35821576942644158812011-08-16T00:42:27.651+01:002011-08-16T00:42:27.651+01:00LHCb has decided NOT to hold a press conference re...LHCb has decided NOT to hold a press conference regarding their result. The reason is that they are in complete agreement with the Standard Model and disagree with D0. Source is a friend on the experiment....this was learned last night.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-83132342635719068442011-07-13T10:33:08.495+01:002011-07-13T10:33:08.495+01:00"Like what? Like Z', W' charged Higgs..."Like what? Like Z', W' charged Higgs, KK gluons, or whatever; we would need more clues to guess the right answer."<br />Is http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2304 'clueish' enough ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-11952903178212810292011-07-13T08:29:57.389+01:002011-07-13T08:29:57.389+01:00CDF see an excess in Bs -> mu mu :
http://arxiv...CDF see an excess in Bs -> mu mu :<br />http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2304Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-68350735581268633192011-07-09T04:43:47.457+01:002011-07-09T04:43:47.457+01:00OK, I see this aspect was mentioned last year, in ...OK, I see this aspect was mentioned last year, in the original paper from D0. But still, it makes the observation all the more interesting.Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-33888644776198152552011-07-09T04:37:15.539+01:002011-07-09T04:37:15.539+01:00Ethan Siegel just suggested this might be responsi...Ethan Siegel just <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/07/is_this_where_the_matter_in_th.php" rel="nofollow">suggested</a> this might be responsible for cosmological baryon asymmetry!Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-52298594957674921672011-07-06T17:08:52.169+01:002011-07-06T17:08:52.169+01:00Hi, I agree that D0 has excluded the theory with 4...Hi, I agree that D0 has excluded the theory with 4 pb production of the 150 GeV bump. I guess that Jester agrees, too. It was kind of his point which was criticized by you - or another anonymous.<br /><br />Not sure what you mean by "CDF cannot rule out anything else". They have ruled out many things and they may still rule out additional ones before they're permanently abolished.<br /><br />One of the other bogus claims by CDF that D0 has excluded was the <a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/06/d0-rejects-cdfs-claim-on-top-antitop.html" rel="nofollow">claim about the top-antitop mass difference</a>. CDF had claimed that it was huge, something like 3.3 GeV, implying a giant CPT violation.<br /><br />D0 has returned physics back to Earth, claiming that it is at most 0.8 GeV with the same error. CPT is totally fine and CDF got another strike.Luboš Motlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-18841612910438272222011-07-04T19:16:53.417+01:002011-07-04T19:16:53.417+01:00@Lubos. Actually D0 ruled out the existence of a 4...@Lubos. Actually D0 ruled out the existence of a 4pb resonance with WH kinematics. They can't rule out anything else and they don't want to update the result with new data...<br />And people should really look and ask for the details especially to D0 that ha not released any at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-84291869782435838662011-07-02T18:53:43.954+01:002011-07-02T18:53:43.954+01:00You guys really have a lot of time.You guys really have a lot of time.VFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-85956877770826733592011-07-02T08:39:13.221+01:002011-07-02T08:39:13.221+01:00Dear Anonymous,
I didn't understand your cri...Dear Anonymous, <br /><br />I didn't understand your criticism of Jester's sentence. More precisely, it doesn't make any sense.<br /><br />Jester just wrote that D0 has ruled out the model with an extra 150 GeV Wjj bump suggested by the CDF analyses - despite the CDF claim that the significance was above 4 sigma. Do you dispute that these different results on the Wjj channel occurred?<br /><br />Jester just formulated it wittily because he's Jester, after all. He also suggests that the CDF and D0 roles may get exchanged because CDF may ultimately also say something about this asymmetry. There's no fundamental reason why it shouldn't be able to say anything.<br /><br />Your decision to discuss LHCb is nice and LHCb could also be relevant but it doesn't have to be. At any rate, none of your comments have shown any evidence that Jester's description was breathtakingly childish.<br /><br />I will omit universal comments on the respondents because they're a mixed bag, of course.<br /><br />Cheers, LMLuboš Motlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-5076442166568854632011-07-02T00:44:50.922+01:002011-07-02T00:44:50.922+01:00Some time ago LHCb promised to measure the differe...Some time ago LHCb promised to measure the difference of the a_fs^d and a_fs^s with 1fb-1, which obviously could clarify a lot. I added their PR plot at the bottom of the post. Not sure when will they deliver.Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-60214478223454432092011-07-01T21:28:04.162+01:002011-07-01T21:28:04.162+01:00The ignorance of this blog and its respondents is ...The ignorance of this blog and its respondents is breath-taking. (e.g, childish crap like this: "The CDF collaboration had an anomaly even larger than 4 sigma which did not stop D0 from ruthlessly shooting it down. The rules of the wild west suggest that CDF may attempt the same with the D0 pet anomaly, after which they all meet at the O.K. Corral.") In the case of the same-sign dimuons, CDF has looked for the excess and not been able to make a "definite" statement. Part of the problem (at least) is that D0's effect depends on a delicate background subtraction (sound familiar?) that CDF cannot so easily do. D0 can change the direction of its solenoidal magnetic field, and this is useful for reducing systematic uncertainties. CDF cannot do this. So...we may have to wait for LHCb to settle this. Be patient, children. And be responsible in what you say. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-41121893318113017282011-07-01T18:29:52.030+01:002011-07-01T18:29:52.030+01:00I remember seeing the D0 presentation last year. T...I remember seeing the D0 presentation last year. The difficulty with this measurement is that it is a very small asymmetry in a large signal that one wants to measure. So it is important to suppress backgrounds as much as possible, in particular also backgrounds that might be induced by an asymmetry of the D0 detector. <br /><br />One key ingredient of the D0 analysis was that they flip the D0 magnetic field every other day. Apparently this reduces machine background. Now as far as I understood, CDF either can't or didn't do such a flip. In that case they might not have enough sensitivity for this measurement, although I bet they are trying to do it. <br /><br />I'm not sure if LHCb is able to look for this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-62280993603737701992011-07-01T16:37:14.286+01:002011-07-01T16:37:14.286+01:00Hi Jester,
Apologies for contacting you this way....Hi Jester,<br /><br />Apologies for contacting you this way. I can't find a way to contact you either through here or your website. It says you are on the CERN directory but I can't find you there. <br /><br />I would like to contact you regarding a documentary my company are developing. I would be really grateful if you could pass on your email adress so I could tell you a bit more about the project. <br /><br />My email is HannahB AT filmsofrecord DOT com. Please feel free to delete this comment when you've read it!<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Hannah Boyd<br />Films of Record<br />6 Anglers Lane<br />London<br />NW5 3DGHannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17140097891036469111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-81828828529440236752011-07-01T14:00:40.219+01:002011-07-01T14:00:40.219+01:00D0 also gives the residual charge asymmetry that d...D0 also gives the residual charge asymmetry that does not depend on the interpretation in terms semileptonic B decays, see Eq 40. That one is also 4 sigma away. Not that I disagree about salis...Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-28201066516330230702011-07-01T13:31:46.501+01:002011-07-01T13:31:46.501+01:00The SM prediction depends crucially on the B semil...The SM prediction depends crucially on the B semileptonic form factors, which, if one talks purely theoretical predictions, are known only to an accuracy of few percent (that's being optimistic).<br /><br />Of course one can extract them from experimental data assuming pure SM in their analysis... Still, this kind of tiny effects in heavy meson physics require a larger than usual cum granum salis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-22064097192487822232011-07-01T13:26:26.175+01:002011-07-01T13:26:26.175+01:00CDF has been looking into it for at least a year n...CDF has been looking into it for at least a year now but I don't know how close to finishing they are.Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-82294952852918900412011-07-01T13:17:02.758+01:002011-07-01T13:17:02.758+01:00Since this has been around at the 3 sigma level fo...Since this has been around at the 3 sigma level for a year, why didn't CDF bother to look into this before?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-85726403633126283432011-07-01T12:15:57.962+01:002011-07-01T12:15:57.962+01:00Not directly. One is related to the quark sector, ...Not directly. One is related to the quark sector, the other to the lepton sector. In generic models CP violation in these two sectors depends on different parameters, unless you make some specific assumptions about unification.Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08947218566941608850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-57008535737226944492011-07-01T11:46:48.879+01:002011-07-01T11:46:48.879+01:00Is there any interaction between these results, an...Is there any interaction between these results, and the recent constraints on CP violation coming from measurements of the electron dipole moment?Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-4146226366083854182011-07-01T06:49:31.490+01:002011-07-01T06:49:31.490+01:00This is BS! CDF demands satisfaction!This is BS! <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDupoFh5Op0" rel="nofollow">CDF demands satisfaction</a>!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2846514233477399562.post-14482582593957903082011-07-01T06:42:57.238+01:002011-07-01T06:42:57.238+01:00Hurrah, new physics! Triality rules!Hurrah, new physics! Triality rules!Keahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652514294703722285noreply@blogger.com