Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science connection constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topological topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 16th 2018

    am starting some minimum here. Have been trying to read up on this topic. This will likely become huge towards beginning of next year

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeOct 16th 2018
    • (edited Oct 16th 2018)

    Huge for your work, or huge for external reasons, or no comment?

    Edit: oh, I guess there will some CERN announcement on certain results around then (and presumably hundreds of theory papers shortly afterwards proposing solutions :-P)

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 16th 2018

    Didn’t mean to be cryptic, sorry. Am writing from mostly offline family vacation.

    If the Run 2 data analysis of the B meson decay experiments at the LHC confirms the Run 1 data, which seems rather likely, it is apparently clear already that the further data will serve to push the statistical significance of the observed flavour anomaly, which currently is around 3 sigma (= heads up but let’s double-check) to well over 5 sigma (= discovery, call the press), which would make it the first detection of genuinely “new physics” at the LHC which the hep community is longing for so badly.

    Besides the new particle hiding here, it may be of interest for further development of the field that the effect comes not from the traditional direct detection scattering experiments, but from “precision measurement” of anomalies in comparatively low energy decays which reveal high energy particles in the form of “virtual” intermediate processes. This approach towards hep phenomenology (virtual high energy particles seen indirectly by precision measurement of low energy processes) may be the future of hep experiments beyond LHC.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 27th 2018

    added more references

    diff, v2, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 30th 2018

    added more references and explicit pointers to the statement of an effect at around 4σ4 \sigma confidence

    diff, v7, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 1st 2019

    added some graphics

    diff, v8, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeJan 1st 2019
    • (edited Jan 1st 2019)

    It doesn’t really matter, but apparently use of the HTML <center> tag is deprecated in HTML 5, so I replaced it with use of the new LaTeX centring syntax :-).

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 1st 2019

    I see, thanks.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 16th 2019

    added pointer on possible explanation via leptoquarks (here)

    diff, v13, current

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 20th 2019

    added pointer to this nice set of slides

    • Francesca Dordei, Lepton flavour universality at LHCb, August 2018 (cern:2634813, pdf)

    diff, v17, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 22nd 2019
    • (edited Jan 22nd 2019)

    added a bunch of further pointers.

    references by Andreas Crivellin stand out. In Crivellin 18, published one month ago (pos.sissa.it/321/269), the author speaks of “compelling evidence for New Physics” (p. 2)

    diff, v19, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 23rd 2019

    clarified the distinction between the claimed \gt 5 \sigma$ significance of all decay channels jointly, over that of each channel separately

    diff, v20, current

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 23rd 2019
    • (edited Jan 23rd 2019)

    added here the two tables by Lyons and Dorigo, kindly pointed out by David C., which argue that the detection-threshold for the significance of the flavour anomaly is at 3σ3 \sigma and hence a) much lower than the conventional 5σ5 \sigma and b) long exceeded by the experimental signal.

    diff, v21, current

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 23rd 2019

    added pointer to

    • Jacky Kumar, David London, New physics in bse +e b \to s e^+ e^-? (arXiv:1901.04516)

    from a few days ago.

    They now quote a statistical significance of up to 6σ6 \sigma, but I didn’t figure out where exactly they take that value from.

    diff, v22, current

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 23rd 2019
    • (edited Jan 23rd 2019)

    The recent arxiv:1901.04761 seems to see the significance at 5.8 sigma (though I admit I don’t know what that “pull”-terminology is saying, here and elsewhere?) and tries to explain it with a dark matter particle. Somehow.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2019
    • (edited Jan 25th 2019)

    Today’s arXiv:1901.08290 sees the anomaly at 4sigma and suggest to explain it by an “extended Higgs sector” and right-handed neutrinos.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2019

    and then there is today’s

    • Domagoj Leljak, Blazenka Melic, Monalisa Patra, On lepton flavour universality in semileptonic B cη c,J/ψB_c \to \eta_c, J/\psi decays (arXiv:1901.08368)

    I don’t understand yet really the point they are making, but they point to

    • Monika Blanke, Andreas Crivellin, Stefan de Boer, Teppei Kitahara, Marta Moscati, Ulrich Nierste, Ivan Nišandžić, Impact of polarization observables and B cτνB_c \to \tau \nu on new physics explanations of the bcτνb \to c \tau \nu anomaly (arXiv:1811.09603)

    which I had missed earlier. This has some informative graphics from p. 10 on

    diff, v25, current

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2019

    Today in arXiv:1901.06380 review of the flavour anomalies as seen by the BELLE experiment, at 3.78 sigma.

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2019

    Today’s arXiv:1901.10484 claims that if one assumes the putative leptoquark to respect certain residual abelian flavour symmetries of the Yukawa couplings (which apparently is plausible when asking for UV-completion of the model) then not only is the resulting fit to the flavour anomaly data “excellent” but also the remaining choices become very constrained, making the leptoquark explanation of the flavour anomalies “extremely predictive”.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2019

    also today:

    more analysis of the potential lpetoquark model for flavour anomalies;

    • Michael J. Baker, Javier Fuentes-Martin, Gino Isidori, Matthias König, High-pT Signatures in Vector-Leptoquark Models (arXiv:1901.10480)

    and a replacement from last month on how the same leptoquark that could explain the flavour anomalies might also explain the anomalies seen at the ANITA experiment:

    • Bhavesh Chauhan, Subhendra Mohanty, A common leptoquark solution of flavor and ANITA anomalies (arXiv:1812.00919)

    diff, v34, current

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2019

    and yet one more today: This article

    • Natascia Vignaroli, Seeking leptoquarks in the tt¯t \bar t plus missing energy channel at the high-luminosity LHC (arXiv:1808.10309)

    talks about possible direct detection of the leptoquarks motived by the flavour anomalies

    diff, v34, current

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2019
    • (edited Feb 5th 2019)

    today in

    • G. D’Ambrosio, A. M. Iyer, F. Piccinini, A.D. Polosa, Confronting BB anomalies with atomic physics (arXiv:1902.00893)

    more investigation of the possibility that the anomalies could be pointing to a Z’-boson

    diff, v36, current

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 7th 2019
    • (edited Feb 7th 2019)

    New measurements by LHCb reported today in (arXiv:1902.02092) for one of the decay channels. It concludes by saying the 2.8sigma discrepancy found earlier by ATLAS in this channel is confirmed, but “with higher precision”

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 7th 2019

    Ah, no, apparently that channel is not a flavour anomaly, but a pentaquark resonance (arXiv:1606.06999)

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2019

    added pointe to today’s

    • Srimoy Bhattacharya, Aritra Biswas, Zaineb Calcuttawala, Sunando Kumar Patra, An in-depth analysis of bc(s)b \to c(s) semileptonic observables with possible μτ\mu \to \tau mixing (arXiv:1902.02796)

    We thus conclude that the models IV and V, while still incapable of a satisfactory explanation of R(K *) LowR(K^\ast)_{Low}, is not only allowed by the plethora of flavor observables, but also is of high statistical significance, with quite a precise prediction for effective Wilson coefficients, providing a possible path-way for future model builders. High precision experiments inthe coming days will illuminate the map even further.

    diff, v40, current

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 14th 2019

    Today arXiv:1902.04900 sees the effect globally at 5.3 to 5.8 sigma.

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorAlizter
    • CommentTimeFeb 14th 2019

    @Urs what sigma was it before?

    • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 14th 2019

    Have a look at the entry: flavour+anomaly#StatisticalSignificance

    • CommentRowNumber29.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2019

    added pointer to today’s

    • P. Ko, Takaaki Nomura, Chaehyun Yu, bsμ +μ b \to s \mu^+ \mu^- anomalies and related phenomenology in U(1) B 3x μL μx τL τU(1)_{B_{3-x_\mu L_\mu - x_\tau L_\tau}} flavor gauge models (arXiv:1902.06107)

    with more on the hypothesis that it’s a Z’-boson causing the flavour anomalies

    diff, v42, current

    • CommentRowNumber30.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 6th 2019
    • (edited Mar 6th 2019)

    added pointer to today’s

    • Oscar Cata, Thomas Mannel, Linking lepton number violation with BB anomalies (arXiv:1903.01799)

    diff, v45, current

    • CommentRowNumber31.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 11th 2019
    • (edited Mar 11th 2019)

    for when the entry becomes editable again, the following should be added:

    today’s

    presents new measurement results on a polarization observable in B-meson decays, and finds disagreement with the standard model at 1.7 σ\sigma, on top of the global 4σ\sim 4 \sigma of the previous observables

  1. It should become editable some time this evening European time. Apologies for the continued inconvenience.

    • CommentRowNumber33.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 11th 2019

    All right, thanks a million!!

  2. Change <img> tags to imagefromfile blocks to make them render, and change a <br\> to use \linebreak.

    diff, v46, current

    • CommentRowNumber35.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 11th 2019
    • (edited Mar 11th 2019)

    Richard, thanks for looking into this.

    Let me just see if I understand where we are headed. Now it looks a little like I’ll have to incrementally rewrite parts of many nLab entries for them to work again. To be frank, that makes me feel a little overwhelmed. This affects many dozens of pages, I am afraid, and I don’t even know how to find all those affected.

    And there are more tags in use.

    For instance, just now I wanted to upload my slides to Equivariant Super Homotopy Theory (schreiber), for my talk tomorrow morning. But editing the entry does not work. There is an image there, which you just told me how to work around. But the parser actually complains about the div-tag, which maybe we don’t have a workaround for yet.

    I don’t have any insight into that sanitiser business, and I understand that you have good reasons not to build on that solution. But maybe just for the moment, so that we all have some time to take a step back and think about how to proceed with the security implementation, might it make sense to just implement the sanitiser, say as an intermediate hack? That would, I suppose, make the nnLab work and be secure for the time being, and give us time and leisure to make plans.

    What do you think?

  3. I will disable the stricter checking for the moment, so that you can upload your slides. Just a second, I’ll let you know when it’s done.

    • CommentRowNumber37.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeMar 11th 2019
    • (edited Mar 11th 2019)

    Now done, you should now be able to upload your slides. We still have the security level of #1 here in place. The new syntax still works.

  4. Let’s continue the discussion of #35 over at that thread.

    • CommentRowNumber39.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 11th 2019

    Excellent, thanks!!

    • CommentRowNumber40.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 13th 2019
    • (edited Mar 13th 2019)

    added pointer to today’s review

    and included a graphics from that article

    diff, v48, current

    • CommentRowNumber41.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2019

    added pointer to today’s

    • Anirban Biswas, Avirup Shaw, Reconciling dark matter, R K (*)R_{K^{(\ast)}} anomalies and (g2) μ(g-2)_\mu in an L μL τL_\mu-L_\tau scenario (arXiv:1903.08745)

    diff, v49, current

    • CommentRowNumber42.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2019

    On the off-chance that anyone else is taking any interest:

    Today at the main annual particle physics phenomenology meeting, Moriond 2019, they have the whole day reserved for talks about flavour anmalies, see the program here.

    Given the order of events, with the big CP-violation announcement yesterday, we might get to hear some substantial news…

    • CommentRowNumber43.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2019

    here is the first new announcement from today’s session

    confirming the anomaly in one of the channels, now with higher accuracy.

    diff, v50, current

    • CommentRowNumber44.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2019
    • (edited Mar 23rd 2019)

    two useful sets of review slides from yesterday’s flavour-anomaly day at Moriond:

    So it turns out that the LHCb collaboration has not yet released the bulk of their new dataset, but it’s announced for “later in 2019” – apparently they are carefully double checking something.

    diff, v51, current

    • CommentRowNumber45.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2019

    apparently they are carefully double checking something

    good to know they are being careful. No need for another 700GeV-inspired flood of papers on a statistical blip, or superliminal neutrino right now. But if it’s solid new physics,… woohoo!

    • CommentRowNumber46.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2019
    • (edited Mar 23rd 2019)

    The situation is completely different to these cases.

    The anomalies have been around for years, in various channels, in different experiments, with steadily increasing significance, with a well motivated theoretical explanation that, as these slides recall, gives a perfect fit to all of them.

    Years before the anomalies were seen, independent researchers gave their Bayesian threshold for detection of this effect to be 3sigma, due to absence of the look-elsewhere-effect (here). Now for about a year we have been at around 3sigma in each channel and at 4.14.1-sigma globally, this just confirmed yesterday with a small fraction of the new dataset.

    All this is completely different from the 750GeV bump, let alone the FTL silliness. I wish people would concentrate a bit more.

    • CommentRowNumber47.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2019

    Had had a wrong link in the first set of slides above (pointing to the measurement article instead of the survey slides), here is the corrected one:

    • CommentRowNumber48.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2019

    But of course all this is idle entertainment for us here – except for the takeaway message: Go learn some GUT.

    • CommentRowNumber49.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 25th 2019
    • (edited Mar 25th 2019)

    David, here is a CERN person making that point in #46:

    This result [[the flavour anomalies]] has been confirmed and confirmed over about four years now. In my book, people who complain that the LHC does not have any results or has no deviations from predictions typically are too lazy(or not good enough?) to work on this: not as easy as a diphoton peak, eh?!?

    • CommentRowNumber50.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 25th 2019

    added today’s preprints, all refining the previous EFT models in light of the new data:

    • Marcel Algueró, Bernat Capdevila, Andreas Crivellin, Sébastien Descotes-Genon, Pere Masjuan, Joaquim Matias, Javier Virto, Addendum: “Patterns of New Physics in bs + b \to s \ell^+ \ell^- transitions in the light of recent data” (arXiv:1903.09578)

    • Ashutosh Kumar Alok, Amol Dighe, Shireen Gangal, Dinesh Kumar, Continuing search for new physics in bμssb \to \mu s s decays: two operators at a time (arXiv:1903.09617)

    • Marco Ciuchini, António M. Coutinho, Marco Fedele, Enrico Franco, Ayan Paul, Luca Silvestrini, Mauro Valli, New Physics in bs + b \to s \ell^+ \ell^- confronts new data on Lepton Universality (arXiv:1903.09632)

    diff, v53, current

    • CommentRowNumber51.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMar 25th 2019

    Thanks for the updates :-)

    I meant in my slightly jokey comment above that it’s better they do the serious analysis now, rather than release some un-analysed statistical blip into the wild (not the well-observed effects you point out) and let the arXiv explode with every theory under the sun. Or, they have something very promising, and they are being careful. I’m not claiming these flavour anomalies are not real! I meant that if there’s even more interesting unexpected stuff in the data, that would be awesome.

    • CommentRowNumber52.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 25th 2019

    Right, I know, but your “…no need for another…” suggested that it’s the same old nonsense, repeated. Curiously, it’s the exact opposite here: too little attention on solid data instead of too much attention on feeble data. The ways of the physics community at large is mysterious these days. Luckily, now I have a CERN expert on record agreeing with me on that :-)

    • CommentRowNumber53.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMar 25th 2019

    Also, I think given the discussions about future particle collider projects, unwise grandstanding is not what we need, but sober and solid results.

    • CommentRowNumber54.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 25th 2019
    • (edited Mar 25th 2019)

    You see, now you sound again as if we are still talking past each other: The curious thing about that inane debate about the next collider is that the flavour anomalies have largely not even been considered in this discussion, while they are one of the few actual data points on which a sensible such discussion would be based.

    Something really strange is going on. The smug brainlessness of those who make their name but as bloggers is infecting the intellectual senses of a generation of otherwise clever researchers.

    • CommentRowNumber55.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMar 25th 2019

    The ’unwise grandstanding’ applies to putative yet-unmade half-baked claims (I mean, really half-baked) based on a perceived need to come up with something flashy in a hurry, using the latest data. The ’sober and solid results’ are the kinds of things you are talking about. I really am agreeing with you on this!

    • CommentRowNumber56.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 25th 2019
    • (edited Mar 25th 2019)

    All right!

    On the other hand, Adam Falkowski just points out that there was one other measurement result presented at Moriond last week, which sees the statistical significance go down a fair bit, from 3.83.8 to 3.13.1, see slide 9 in Caria 19. Of course, this shouldn’t happen as more data comes in, if there is a true signal. So maybe it will all go away, after all…

    • CommentRowNumber57.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2019
    • (edited Mar 26th 2019)

    Yeah, and now here is somebody hinting that they have upcoming refined lattice QCD computations which will make the flavour anomalies disappear (here).

    • CommentRowNumber58.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2019

    added pointer to today’s preprints:


    • Jason Aebischer, Wolfgang Altmannshofer, Diego Guadagnoli, Meril Reboud, Peter Stangl, David M. Straub, B-decay discrepancies after Moriond 2019 (arXiv:1903.10434)

    • Alakabha Datta, Jacky Kumar, David London, The BB Anomalies and New Physics in bse +e b \to s e^+ e^- (arXiv:1903.10086)

    • Ashutosh Kumar Alok, Dinesh Kumar, Suman Kumbhakar, S Uma Sankar, Impact of D *D^\ast polarization measurement on solutions to R DR D *R_D - R_{D^\ast} anomalies (arXiv:1903.10486)

    diff, v55, current

    • CommentRowNumber59.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2019

    added today’s new measurement results:

    diff, v57, current

    • CommentRowNumber60.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2019

    added pointer to this review talk from earlier today.

    • Sebastien Descotes-Genon, B-physics anomalies, fluctuations and patterns:a status report, talk at ALPS2019 (web, pdf)

    The first comprehensive account of the results presented at Moriond2019 that I have seen, taking into account the new measurements both from LHCb and from Belle

    diff, v59, current

    • CommentRowNumber61.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 23rd 2019

    also added pointer to this from last Thursday, which I had missed:

    • A. Arbey, T. Hurth, F. Mahmoudi, D. Martinez Santos, S. Neshatpour, Update on the bsb \to s anomalies (arXiv:1904.08399)

    diff, v60, current

    • CommentRowNumber62.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 26th 2019

    added pointer to

    • Debjyoti Bardhan, Diptimoy Ghosh, B-meson charged current anomalies: the post-Moriond status (arXiv:1904.10432)

    from earlier this week. Curiously, the latest measurements of R DR_D by the Belle collaboration is still cited only via Caria’s talk slides for Moriond2019 (reference [1] in the article). I gather the trust in preliminary announcements of these collaborations is already the same as that in their official publication. Interesting.

    diff, v61, current

    • CommentRowNumber63.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 26th 2019

    I have expanded and updated the bit on the Moriond19 results. Now it reads as follows:


    This situation was confirmed with the completed measurements presented at Moriond 2019, which showed (Straub 19, Allanach 19) smaller discrepancy but also with smaller uncertainty, thus keeping the statistical significance essentially unaffected. On the other hand, Caria 19, slide 9 reported an as yet unpublished measurement by the Belle collaboration by which the previous statistical significance of 3.8σ3.8 \sigma in the R DR_D sector would decrease to 3.1σ3.1 \sigma. Comprehensive assessments of the situation after Moriond 2019 are given in AHMSN 19, Descotes-Genon 19, Bardhan-Ghosh 19 and agree that the flavour anomalies have been confirmed:

    It appears the reason is that, given the amount of independent measurements (~180!) a smaller deviation because of new physics is easier to accommodate than a large one. Thus the new measurements actually fit better with new physics.

    (Axel Maas, reporting from ALPS2019 tweet, 23 Apr 2019)

    diff, v62, current

    • CommentRowNumber64.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2019

    added pointer to today’s

    • Han Yan, Ya-Dong Yang, Xing-Bo Yuan, Phenomenology of bcτν¯b \to c \tau \bar \nu decays in a scalar leptoquark model (arXiv:1905.01795)

    diff, v63, current

    • CommentRowNumber65.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2019
    • (edited May 10th 2019)

    added pointer to today’s articles:

    • Pouya Asadi, David Shih, Maximizing the Impact of New Physics in bcτνb \to c \tau \nu Anomalies, (arXiv:1905.03311)

    • J. E. Chavez-Saab, Marxil Sánchez, Genaro Toledo, R D *R_{D^\ast} or R D πR_{D_\pi}: closing the theoretical gap? (arXiv:1905.03394)

    • Suman Kumbhakar, Ashutosh Kumar Alok, Dinesh Kumar, S Uma Sankar, Resolving R DR_D and R D *R_{D^\ast} anomalies (arXiv:1905.03513)

    diff, v64, current

    • CommentRowNumber66.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime7 days ago

    added pointer to today’s

    • Jyoti Saini, Dinesh Kumar, Shireen Gangal, S. B. Dasm, Probing signatures of beyond standard model physics through B s *μ +μ B_s^\ast \to \mu^+ \mu^- decay (arXiv:1905.03933)

    and

    • Alakabha Datta, Divya Sachdeva, John Waite, A unified explanation of bsμ =μ b \to s\mu^= \mu^- anomalies, neutrino masses and BπKB \to \pi K puzzle (arXiv:1905.04046)

    diff, v65, current

    • CommentRowNumber67.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime5 days ago

    added pointer to today’s

    and included its slide 6 into the section “Outlook” (here)

    diff, v66, current

    • CommentRowNumber68.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime5 days ago
    • (edited 5 days ago)

    added pointer to today’s

    • Julian Heeck, Daniele Teresi, Pati-Salam and lepton universality in B decays (arXiv:1905.05211)

    and its precursor

    • Julian Heeck, Daniele Teresi, Pati-Salam explanations of the B-meson anomalies, JHEP 12 (2018) 103 (arXiv:1808.07492)

    which take serious the implication that the flavour anomalies point, via them pointing to leptoquarks, to GUT models

    diff, v67, current

    • CommentRowNumber69.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime4 days ago

    added pointer to today’s

    diff, v68, current

    • CommentRowNumber70.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime2 days ago

    added pointer to today’s

    • Oleg Popov, Michael A. Schmidt, Graham White, R 2R_2 as a single leptoquark solution to R D (*)R_{D^{(\ast)}} and R K (*)R_{K^{(\ast)}} (arXiv:1905.06339)

    diff, v69, current

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)