Deviation from Standard Model observed at LHCb (B->K* mu mu)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the recent observations of deviations from the Standard Model in the decay process ##B^0 \to K* \mu \mu## as studied by the LHCb experiment. Participants explore the implications of these findings, including potential new physics, statistical fluctuations, and theoretical interpretations, while considering the impact of additional data from subsequent years.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note a significant deviation (3.7 sigma) in the angular distribution variable P'5, although they express uncertainty about its interpretation and the potential for it to be a statistical fluctuation.
  • Others mention that the total probability of the deviation being a random fluctuation is estimated at 0.5% (2.8 sigma), suggesting that further data could clarify the situation.
  • One participant highlights that the recent measurement of ##B_{s} \to \phi \mu \mu## shows a branching ratio that is half of the Standard Model prediction, indicating possible connections to new physics operators.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the uncertainties in theoretical predictions, particularly those related to form factor calculations, which are noted to not follow a Gaussian distribution.
  • A quote attributed to Sir Arthur Eddington expresses skepticism about experimental results until they are confirmed by theoretical predictions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of intrigue and skepticism regarding the findings, with no consensus on whether the deviations indicate new physics or are simply statistical anomalies. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the analysis is based on 2011 data, with expectations that 2012 data will significantly increase the statistics. There are also discussions about the limitations of current theoretical predictions and the potential impact of uncertainties on the observed results.

Messages
37,436
Reaction score
14,288
As usual, the interpretation is still unclear, but I think it is an interesting effect.

LHCb studied the angular distributions in the decay ##B^0 \to K* \mu \mu## and presented the result at EPS2013. In one variable (called P'5) in two bins, a large deviation was found (3.7 sigma in one bin).
As many variables and bins were studied, the probability of a random fluctuation is larger than this significance suggests - LHCb gives the total probability as .5% (2.8 sigma).
The analysis was based on 2011 data only, 2012 data will increase the statistics by more than a factor of 3.

LHCb talk
Theory interpretation (based on LHCb results)
phys.org newsMy guess: theory error (as with ##\Delta A_{CP}##), or maybe a statistical fluctuation, or some measurement error. With the full LHCb dataset (and CMS, if they can measure it as well), the measurement will become much cleaner.
New physics would be the most amazing explanation, of course.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Remember that ##B_{s} \to \phi \mu \mu## has also been recently measured, and while the angular observables are "consistent" with the SM the branching ratio is measured to be half of the SM prediction. (1305.2168)
This obviously depends on the same NP operators as well as the ## \hat{O}_{7,9,10}'## opposite chirality operators. And again, the effect of any new contribution must be to lessen the width, meaning some large interference must be in play or some internal contribution that lessens the Wilson coeffs.

Hopefully it doesn't just go away with more statistics, though 2.8##\sigma## isn't all that large yet.
 
"The uncertainties on these predictions originating from the form factor calculations are typically of the order of 20{30%."
As we know, theory uncertainties do not follow a Gaussian distribution.
Still an interesting difference, I did not see that.
 
"I won’t believe this experiment until it is confirmed by theory!" -- Sir Arthur Eddington
 
Here was something,

[44] arXiv:1308.1959 [pdf, other]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
13K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K