Puzzling asymmetries in B decays hint at deviations from the Standard Model

May 28, 2012 by Antonella Del Rosso

(Phys.org) -- In a recently published paper, the LHCb Collaboration has reported on a possible deviation from the Standard Model. Theorists are now working to calculate precisely this effect and to evaluate the implications that such unexpected result could have on the established theory.

The is able to predict the of with high precision. In most cases, experimentalists confirm the value predicted by and the figure is added to the official publications. However, this time, things seem to have taken a different route.

Studying data collected in 2011, the LHCb Collaboration found that in a specific decay – a B particle transforming into a K particle plus two charged muons (B -> Kμ-μ+) – the branching ratio of the neutral B in the corresponding decay (i.e. B0 -> K0μ-μ+) is different from that of the positively charged B (i.e. B+ -> K+μ-μ+). Such an “isospin asymmetry” between the decays of differently charged B particles was not expected, as theory predicts the corresponding value to be very close to zero.  “There had been hints of such an effect from previous experiments (CDF, Belle and BaBar), which agree with the new higher-precision result from LHCb,” explains Pierluigi Campana, LHCb Spokesperson. “This result has been made possible by the strong and continuous support from the LHC operations team for the LHCb physics program.”

Theorists are now busy in calculating the exact figure that we should expect for this specific asymmetry. If theory confirms the deviation, this new experimental result could open the way to further investigations of possible new physics in B decays.

Read more details on the LHCb website and the LHCb scientific paper.

Explore further: Neutron tomography technique reveals phase fractions of crystalline materials in 3-dimensions

Related Stories

LHCb experiment squeezes the space for expected new physics

Mar 06, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Results presented by the LHCb collaboration this evening at the annual ‘Rencontres de Moriond’ conference, held this year in La Thuile, Italy, have put one of the most stringent limits to date on ...

Large Hadron Collider achieves 2011 data milestone

Jun 19, 2011

Today at around 10:50 CEST, the amount of data accumulated by Large Hadron Collider experiments ATLAS and CMS clicked over from 0.999 to 1 inverse femtobarn, signalling an important milestone in the experiments' ...

Recommended for you

50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet installed at Fermilab

Jul 31, 2014

One year ago, the 50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet arrived at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois after traveling 3,200 miles over land and sea from Long Island, ...

User comments : 34

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

thuber
5 / 5 (8) May 28, 2012
This is the sort of result that makes studying physics worthwhile. Congratulations to the research team!
OldBlackCrow
5 / 5 (3) May 28, 2012
I love deviations... it's just so much more interesting.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.8 / 5 (10) May 28, 2012
Clearly all of physics is wrong and we now will have to contend with the possibility that Mars is really a moon of the earth and that the sun is a ball of hot cheese that rotates around Jupiter.

All this sciency stuff is clearly nonsense stories told by so called scientists who are out to milk the public of their last dime.

I done read that on da Drudge Report.
Terriva
4.3 / 5 (6) May 28, 2012
Clearly all of physics is wrong
Less politicizing, provocations and more factual comments would be desirable. The increasing frequency of sociological and economical articles has caused, the PhysOrg discussions are full of twaddlers, who have no idea about technical subjects, but they still feel the necessity to comment every article here just by habit, because they're bored.

Golden rule of matter-of facts discussions: "If you don't know what to say, don't say it here".
MandoZink
5 / 5 (7) May 28, 2012
Good to hear about discoveries which compel us to improve our models. It just kills me when these articles are interpreted by idiots who say this implies science is wrong. Good science just gets better.

At least this involves bottom quarks, which aren't in normal matter (as far as I know). I won't have to worry about unpredicted decay occurring in my home.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (2) May 28, 2012
Talking about the Standard model, for someone who familiar would found that it is rather a mathematical theory, in which it is difficult to understand how the theory works! In other ways, if we could know its physical mechanism (something as one below) than maybe we could get some advantage for dealing with it.

http://www.vacuum...mid=9=en
Shootist
5 / 5 (4) May 28, 2012

I done read that on da Drudge Report.


You read? Astounding.
dub1
1.6 / 5 (7) May 28, 2012
Something is not right here. My guess is the physicists will fold to keep their grants. Eventually just siding with...
simplicio
4.3 / 5 (7) May 28, 2012
Something is not right here. My guess is the physicists will fold to keep their grants. Eventually just siding with...

That is not how science works.
dub1
1.8 / 5 (5) May 29, 2012
@simplicio, My ideal scientist died before I was born.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (10) May 29, 2012
Clearly, VD was being sarcastic in anticipation of the inevitable follow on by the likes of dub1. We all get sick of the anti-science crowd who hang around this site spouting religion and Fox News. VD just forgets to make it clear enough he is aiming his (sometimes not too funny) wit at the Luddites on the site.
Origin
1 / 5 (8) May 29, 2012
IMO most of physicists would welcomes these anomalies instead, because they provide them perspective of further research and salaries. They just avoid the research of cold fusion and similar stuffs, because they would face the lost of jobs in another areas - but I think, most of them would research it with the same interest, like any other area of physics. The problem is, whole contemporary science, physics in particular is salary driven. The current overemployment in physics and lack of grant money doesn't tolerate any mistake, so that the physicists tend to publish only positive results and they avoid all controversies obstinately.

The controversy with said anomalies is connected with CPT-parity violation, which can be derived with various extensions of Standard Model, but these extensions tend to violate another postulates of Standard Model. In addition, these violations tend to disappear at even higher energy densities, which makes their experimental confirmation difficult.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) May 29, 2012
Talking about the Standard model, for someone who familiar would found that it is rather a mathematical theory, in which it is difficult to understand how the theory works! In other ways, if we could know its physical mechanism (something as one below)

Well, if we had an understanding of why the standard model works then THAT would be the new standard model, now, wouldn't it (And it would have the same problem: we wouldn't know WHY that exactly would b the way things work)?

Science progresse ever deeper into understanding how stuff intrrelates. But no matter how deep we progress the 'why' never goes away (which isn't a real problem. Science is not, at heart, concerned with 'why' but with 'how'...which is a subtle difference)

...unless there is a level where 'why' (causality) no longer makes sense. Quantum mechanics already does away with causation in favor of correlation - so the cessation of 'why' may well be a real possibility.
Origin
1 / 5 (8) May 29, 2012
Usually, when some subtle effect manifests itself only slightly at the average energy density scale, then the increasing of energy density helps it to manifest more clearly. The parity violations are restricted to quite narrow area of mass/energy density scale, so that construction of more powerful colliders will not help its experimental confirmation a lot. The increasing of energy density just increases the noise/signal ratio. I've a rough geometric explanation of this effect.

In dense aether model the human observers represent large, but limited random fluctuation of infinite random environment. These two random areas overlap in hyperdimensional fractal area, which represents the human brain. The boundaries of this fractal area are fuzzy as well - from this follows the existence of two areas at the dimensional scale, when the reality will appear low-dimensional and regular.
Origin
1 / 5 (7) May 29, 2012
If we would travel along dimensional scale from smallest to largest objects observable, we cannot miss the fact, the smallest observable objects are as fuzzy, as the largest objects observable in our Universe. At the average dimensional scale the observable reality appears complex and fractal. The existence of regular spherical objects is limited to the dimensional scale of atoms/atom nuclei and large objects mostly composed of atoms/atom nuclei (the dense stars). The rest of Universe appears irregular and difficult to handle with formal math.

http://www.aether...cale.gif

This insight defines four areas, where the CP-parity violation should manifest more clearly. If we would get outside of these areas, the Universe will appear too regular, or too random for to recognize symmetry violation. This explains, why the increasing of energy density during experiments will not help the better detection of these asymmetries.

MarkyMark
5 / 5 (1) May 29, 2012
@simplicio, My ideal scientist died before I was born.

Grigori Rasputin was NOT a Scientist!
Origin
1 / 5 (3) May 29, 2012
But no matter how deep we progress the 'why' never goes away (which isn't a real problem. Science is not, at heart, concerned with 'why' but with 'how'...which is a subtle difference)
At the case of B-decay the single experimental observation would be enough for answering of HOW this decay occurs. The true reason for development of formal models is the answering of WHY question, i.e. the explanation, why the outcome of experiment is such as we observe. Without answering of WHY questions whole physics would shrink into botanic or "stamp collection". We actually don't need any theory for answering of HOW questions - the experiments provide most reliable answer of it.
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 29, 2012
For answering of HOW question the simple regression of experimental data would be enough. For answering of WHY questions you'll need a deeper theory, based on certain logics, which is independent on the experimental results, and which provides its falsification in such way. The numeric regression enables no falsification - it always fits the experimental data because it's being based on them completely.

As we can see, the fundamental requirement of Popper's methodology of science, i.e. the falsifiability actually not only enables the answering of WHY questions in science - it even requires it for the sake of falsifiability of theories. The theory which provides the description of experimental data only is merely a regression and it cannot be falsified.
Origin
1 / 5 (4) May 29, 2012
no matter how deep we progress the 'why' never goes away
It depends on the epoch of human understanding. We can compare it to the spreading of ripples at the water surface after the splash. At first the ripples are chaotic and with increasing distance they change into regular circles, which can be described mathematically. The finding of formal model would therefore enable us to predict their future spreading and this is why the physics of the last century was so effective in description of nature with formal models.

But when the spreading of ripples continues even more, then it becomes chaotic again and the regular circles will vanish in the density fluctuations of underwater. The formal approach will not remain effective anymore due the intrinsic complexity of this behaviour - for further prediction of this behaviour we would need to switch into intuitive approach again. It means, we should understand, what actually happens there - not just to rely on validity of formal math.
Origin
1 / 5 (4) May 29, 2012
If you would follow the dispersion of surface ripples carefully, you can recognize, at the sufficient distance the regular rings will change into mixture of solitons, which behave like colliding particles: the spreading of surface ripples will switch from time dependent wave equation into "aetheric model" based on particle packing geometry, which can be described with root vectors of exceptional Lie groups (hypersphere packing). Simply because all energetic wave do behave rather like colliding particles, than waves which do penetrate mutually like ghost. This insight explains, why the dense aether model can be applied to the most distant perspective of Universe better, than the existing formal models.

http://www.aether...tons.gif
antialias_physorg
not rated yet May 29, 2012
For answering of WHY questions you'll need a deeper theory,

As explained: If you have a 'deeper theory' then you are back to square one. Because then you can ask "why (insert name of deeper theory) ?". It's a bit like finding a cause for the Big Bang. sure it would be nice to know - but it doesn't solve the problem of 'why'. It just moves it to a larger context (i.e. "why universe plus (insert cause for Big Bang)?").

The numeric regression enables no falsification
The predictions based thereon do. That's the point (and one your per crank theories fail at so miserably - they make no predictions)

The formal approach will not remain effective anymore due the intrinsic complexity of this behaviour

That really depends on whether stuff becomes more complex or not. Currently the trend seems to be that laws can be stated very elegantly/simply. Whether that will change in the future is something we don't know.
Origin
1 / 5 (6) May 29, 2012
In dense aether theory all "WHY" questions boil down to the answer: "because the observable reality is random". The random state is even more general than zero or whatever else particular state and it's considered eternal. The red shift and the appearance of Universe at the distance correspond the appearance of water surface, which is being observed with its surface ripples which do scatter at distance. There is no beginning, just the observational limit, similar to the visibility scope of landscape under haze.

Actually, the implicitness of all questions about universe origin (each beginning brings the new question about the origin of beginning) points to the infiniteness of Universe too. Until we are forced to admit, every question about beginning of Universe can bring another questions about origin of this beginning, then we are forced to assume, the Universe is eternal and infinite. These two approaches are equivalent at the semantic level.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) May 29, 2012
In dense aether theory all "WHY" questions boil down to the answer: "because the observable reality is random".

Which is a statement that contains no information at all. It is also provably false. We can have information about events (if everything were purely random then we could not have information as per the definition of information).

AWT makes therefore no predictions and is utterly useless/pointless. Just like saying "everything is due to unicorn poo or (insert your favorite deity here)". It's a tautology you're riding here. Your entire worldview is based on a statement no more meaningful than "blue is blue". Congratulations.
Don't think anyone will pat you on the back for this 'profound' realization, though.

I really urge you to read up on information and how it is fundamental to scientific theories. I think there are some very basic concepts you haven't grasped:
http://en.wikiped...n_theory
Origin
1 / 5 (4) May 29, 2012
Which is a statement that contains no information at all.
The randomness is not structureless, it has its rudimentary geometry too. http://www.newsci...dom.html

For example, the randomness must support Gaussian distribution (it doesn't like extremes) and is has fractal character (randomness of clouds) and unparticle geometry. And the randomness of density fluctuations inside of gas (which is serving as a physical model of randomness in AWT) has many other constrains.
AWT makes therefore no predictions
It indeed does, when the above aspects of randomness are taken into account. For example, the scattering of ripples at the water surface is indeed random, but it provides a bunch of analogies with the observable Universe. These analogies are still qualitative only, but the formal theories (like string theory or quantum gravity) aren't better due their huge landscape of solutions, when it comes to hard numbers.
Origin
1 / 5 (4) May 29, 2012
In general, the people tend to consider the randomness more egalitarian than it really is.

Which of these two pictures (1, 2) illustrates really random distribution of points? Most of people will label more uniform picture as a more random and vice-versa.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 29, 2012
So let's hear it: Make one prediction that AWT makes and that the standard model doesn't (i.e. where it makes a different predition). Propose a test that can be done to distinguish between the two predicted results.
Origin
1 / 5 (6) May 29, 2012
For example, in Standard Model the photons and neutrinos are massless, in AWT the photons are of positive and neutrinos of imaginary rest mass, until their energy is not bellow the energy of CMBR photons. Bellow this limit the photons are tachyons and the neutrinos are of positive rest mass.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (1) May 29, 2012
Science progresse ever deeper into understanding how stuff intrrelates. But no matter how deep we progress the 'why' never goes away (which isn't a real problem. Science is not, at heart, concerned with 'why' but with 'how'...which is a subtle difference)


Due to emergence, the 'why' of causality may stop. Say, in anthropically selected inflationary multiverses. See the interesting discussion on arxiv between Susskind, Bousso and Vilenkin. Susskind shows how an inflationary universe is effectively past-eternal. [ http://arxiv.org/...89v1.pdf ] With anthropic selection an environment is consistent without having to bother about the pathway of the past.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (1) May 29, 2012
...unless there is a level where 'why' (causality) no longer makes sense. Quantum mechanics already does away with causation in favor of correlation - so the cessation of 'why' may well be a real possibility.


QM does not do away with causality but adds structure to it. Observers already disagrees over local order of events in special relativity to keep physics the same. With QM they now also have to disagree with the global standard cosmology clock set by expansion until their decoherence happens.

aether


Aether was rejected by Michelson-Morley experiments already 1890. [ http://en.wikiped...s_aether ] Keep up or crank out!
Terriva
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2012
Maxwell's theory is based on dense aether model (transverse waves of dense fluid) and it predicts the Lorentz invariance easily (Lorentz 1893). Instead of it, the Michelson-Morley experiments disproved the existence of longitudinal waves in sparse aether, which couldn't mediate the light waves anyway (so it cannot serve as a "luminferous" aether). It means, the aether model is still in the game, because physicists missed the fact, it can mediate both longitudinal, both transverse waves (after all, like every other particle environment). In dense aether model the longitudinal waves are gravitational waves, which are superluminal and which are manifesting itself like CMBR noise.
kaasinees
not rated yet May 29, 2012
Observations are always abstract.
That is why abstract models fit observations.
But as soon as you look deeper the information changes.
The abstract model needs to be updated to fit the new observations.
The evolution of technology.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet May 30, 2012
QM does not do away with causality but adds structure to it.

Not entirely sure what you mean here. As far as I know QM only deals in probabilities (probability density amplitudes) and not in certitudes. There are no more "if this then that" cases - with the notable exception of entanglement - in QM.

(*and entanglement is also not a case of causality since it does not constitute an information transfer, which is a necessity for the concept of causality. However, that one is a very subtle point on how information is defined.)
Origin
1.5 / 5 (2) May 30, 2012
As far as I know QM only deals in probabilities (probability density amplitudes) and not in certitudes.
Probabilistic interpretation of QM is traditional, but certainly incomplete. You probably missed many PO articles dedicated to this topic.

http://phys.org/n...ity.html

BTW You're linked in the discussion bellow too, so you definitely should know about it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) May 30, 2012
Probabilistic interpretation of QM is traditional, but certainly incomplete. You probably missed many PO articles dedicated to this topic.

Erm. You probably didn't understand the article you just linked to. That the wavefunction describes reality does not mean it is not a probabilistic. Nature IS probabilistic - not deterministic, so the wavefunction may well be a good description.