So, yesterday’s announcement by the UTfit collaboration is not the only new potential signal of new physics.
This paper came out a few days ago, and they seem to see an excess in to leptons + missing pt. This significance is 3.8 sigma, which is comparable to the UTfit difference, although in a totally different process.
The is the lightest bound state of , one charm, and one anti strange quark. This is an unstable state, and likes to annihilate into a virtual boson, which likes to decay into a lepton and a neutrino. So, if were seeing more leptons and missing pt than expected coming from decays, maybe its because they have some other intermediate decay channel, like a charged Higgs, or something totally weird like a half-quark/half-lepton thing called a leptoquark. This can’t say what were seeing, only that its probably not SM like. 3.8 sigma is big, but when combining results between lots of experiments, its not as easy as averaging. there’s room for mistakes.
How does this relate to yesterday’s UTfit paper? They were looking at lots of processes and doing a global fit to a fundamental parameter, so the message isn’t as clear (to me) as “new particle/coupling, but many of those processes are dominated by something called a penguin diagram These types of diagrams are likely candidates for new physics, with the line replaced with a new boson, or the quark loop replaced with new fermions. This is basically why people build dedicated machines to make mesons. So far though, the factories have measured everything relating to their sector 60 ways to Sunday, but have just discovered that the SM works really really ridiculously well in describing our world.
I don’t know about you, but I’m stoked.
Addendum: I just got a reply from a friend at D0, and his statement is that the D0 measurement was only limited by statistics. Since they should have double the luminosity anylized by the summer conferences, either they will be able to verify the UTfit with an individual experiment, or wash it off as an unchecked systematic. Since the UTfit paper doesn’t use any B-factory data, I’ve been asking folks what they can measure at B-factories to test this, but I haven’t gotten any serious suggestions yet. Looks like lots of the UTfit people are members of BaBar, though, so they’re no doubt planning this as we speak.