There’s a huge mix of topics in this week’s post, from flavor physics and violations of lepton universality, to CMB balloon experiments, to black hole images. Enjoy the read!
#1 2103.11769: Test of lepton universality in beauty-quark decays by the LHCb collaboration
Lepton universality (LU) is a feature of the Standard Model (SM) such that its charged leptons (electrons, muons, and tau leptons) all share the same interaction strengths. LU is an accidental symmetry, much like the perhaps better known baryon and lepton number symmetries. In fact, many extensions of the SM which aim to address its (few) shortcomings predict that LU will be broken. One way to search for new physics involved with violations of LU is to look at hadron decays. One example involves decays of the charged beauty hadron B+ into the charged kaon K+. At its very basic, the key process allowing for this decay is the \bar{b}->\bar{s} transition, i.e. an anti-beauty (or anti-bottom) to anti-strange quark transition. This decay, while highly suppressed and extremely rare, can still proceed, with a branching fraction of ~10^-6. Importantly, this decay is of interest for tests of LU as it involves the emission of two charged leptons: B+ -> K+ l+ l-, with l- and l+ the charged lepton and anti-lepton. The name of the game is then to compare the relative branching ratios of this process for different leptons l, and to see whether it differs from the SM expectation. For example, comparing B+ -> K+ mu+ mu- vs B+ -> K+ e+ e-. The nice thing of taking the ratio is that it essentially “cancels” complications due to QCD effects, as they affect both muons and electrons in the same way. In reality it turns out that it’s even better to consider double ratios of branching fractions, i.e. considering the ratio of the branching fractions for the above processes relative to a closely related process, but involving the J/ψ particle as well. This is a technicality which helps overcome challenges related to modelling precisely the different electron and muon reconstruction efficiencies, but at the end of the day one is really just asking whether the B+ decay products are preferentially of the muon or electron family, relative to the SM prediction.
The LHCb detector at CERN found evidence of deviations from the SM prediction, which are argued to be statistically significant at the 3.1σ level. In other words, this is tentative evidence for LU violation in beauty-quark decays. I should specify, for those who are maybe not close to the subject, that such “flavor anomalies” have a long history, and this is certainly not the first evidence in this sense (just check the arXiv for titles involving R_K, R_K*, or similar). What new physics could explain this, if it is indeed not a fluke? One example could be leptoquarks, color-triplet bosons (i.e. essentially they transform under the fundamental representation of the SU(3) strong force gauge symmetry) carrying both lepton and baryon numbers. Other examples include, but are not limited to new Z’ bosons (i.e. additional heavy neutral bosons - this I think is disfavored), extra fermions or scalars (with large Yukawa couplings) which mediate new physics at 1-loop level, and of course more exotic examples such as SUSY, extended Higgs sectors, extra dimensions, and so on. I have no doubts there will be lots of ambulance chasing activity following this announcement - if you are interested, you can use this link to follow the show. I will follow it…at a distance. The model-building activity may or may not be affected by another exciting upcoming announcement from Fermilab concerning the Muon g-2 experiment (which relates to another long-standing anomaly in the field), which will take place on April 7 as announced here.
#2 2103.13334: A Constraint on Primordial B-Modes from the First Flight of the SPIDER Balloon-Borne Telescope by the SPIDER collaboration
When we think about experiments designed to measure the CMB, we usually think of satellites (Planck, WMAP, COBE) and telescopes in the middle of the desert (ACT, SO, PolarBear) or in Antarctica (SPT). Of course there’s not all there is. Balloons are another possibility in this sense. Why would anyone want to do that? Well, there are a few advantages with ballooning compared to other probes - for instance, access to larger angular scales, and wider frequency windows. Looking towards the future, this can be seen as good exercise on the path towards NASA’s Super Ballooning Program, the “ballooning promised land”. As far as locations go, Antarctica is well suited for CMB ballooning in that it offers continuous solar power (of course in the summer, i.e. when it’s winter up in the Northern Hemisphere) and long flight times. These advantages come, however, at the price of narrow launch windows, difficulties in the recovery of the payload (it could land in remote regions, as this one did), and of course the fact that you need to bring a whole team to Antarctica made of real people who can’t just leave when they please.
SPIDER is a long duration balloon-borne experiment whose goal is to measure the polarization of the CMB on degree angular scales, over one-tenth of the sky, to unprecedented precision (I believe the nominal goal was to set a 99% CL upper limit on the tensor-to-scalar ratio r<0.03 in the absence of foregrounds - there’s your spherical cow). On January 1, 2015, the SPIDER ~3000 kg payload successfully launched from the NASA/NSF Long-Duration Balloon facility near McMurdo Station, Antarctica, to complete a 17-day Antarctic flight at an average altitude of 35 km (I mean, how hard can that be, right? :) ). In the picture below, you can see the SPIDER payload a couple of hours before its launch. It then “touched down” (crashed?) in the remote region of Ellsworth Land, far in West Antarctica. Since then, the SPIDER team has been busy analyzing their data, and finally released their results in this paper. The main result everyone was looking for is of course the one in the second-to-last line of the abstract: r<0.11 (Feldman-Cousins construction, this is basically a frequentist approach) or r<0.19 (Bayesian construction), at 95% CL. Of course, on these angular scales, SPIDER observed polarized Galactic dust emission at high signal-to-noise. The previous limits were obtained assuming that the Planck-derived template accurately captures the dust morphology. A subsequent launch of SPIDER is planned, with the goal of improving the characterization of foreground emission, through the deployment of three new 280 GHz receivers, whose data which will complement Planck’s 217 and 353 GHz data.
Credits: Jón Guðmundsson
On the personal anecdote side, it’s not an exaggeration to say that I have been waiting for this paper to come out for…nearly 6 years! One of my 2 long-term PhD office mates, Adri Duivenvoorden (now a postdoc at Princeton, and whose last name I still haven’t learned to pronounce properly - nobody who I know and isn’t Dutch has), has based an important chunk of his PhD thesis, and for that matter endless hours of coding, on the analysis of SPIDER. Needless to say that I and many others have always tried to get out info on when this paper would have been released, what the limit on r would be, and so on, but to no avail - if not learning the true meaning of “poker face”. At some point I have to admit some of us did suspect it was taking so long because they might have had a detection - in which case you wouldn’t want to rush your paper, BICEP2 docet. But the truth is simply that the analysis of CMB data is incredibly complex and takes an enormous amount of time to complete properly. Jón Guðmundsson has a nice Antarctica blog describing his winter (actually summer) stay in 2014-2015. Even if you can’t read Icelandic, you can still enjoy the many stunningly beautiful pictures he posted - from my side I particularly love the penguins!
#3 2103.13163: From a locality-principle for new physics to image features of regular spinning black holes with disks by Astrid Eichhorn and Aaron Held
Since the exciting announcement, almost 2 years ago now, of the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) having succeeded in imaging the shadow of the supermassive black hole (BH) M87*, a significant body of work (including from myself) has gone into studying whether this shadow could be used to test fundamental physics, and in particular deviations from the Kerr metric. With many caveats, the answer is “In principle yes”. In this sense, two broad approaches have been adopted:
1) consider a parametrization of the metric coefficients which encode parametric deviations from their Kerr counterparts. This is not tied to any specific fundamental physics model in a strict sense, but rather can parametrize many (and no?) models at the same time.
2) start from a well-motivated fundamental physics model, and compute the shadows of BHs in your theory, then compare these to the EHT image, usually in an idealized setting.
Is there some middle ground which mixes the best of these two approaches? One can formulate a set of new physics principles, well rooted into fundamental physics, which one demands a rotating BH should satisfy. One can then explore the idealized shape of the shadow boundary of these BHs, the photon rings (labelled by the integer n, where for n->infinity one recovers the shadow boundary), and possibly include an analytical model of the accretion disk surrounding the BH, so that one can obtain EHT-like images to be compared against the true image.
This is what Eichhorn and Held do in this week’s paper. They build a class of regular (i.e. singularity-free) BH spacetimes, which recover the Newtonian limit in the proper regime, and wherein the deviations from the Kerr metric set in beyond critical values of the local curvature invariants. This is essentially a locality requirement, whose motivation one may argue for or against. To me it looks reasonable. They then study the shadow boundary, photon rings, and intensity images of such BHs, as would be seen by an EHT-like array. The deviations from Kerr are characterized by a spacetime-dependent mass function M(r, χ), which can in principle be probed by EHT-like observations. The new physics encoded in M(r, χ) leads to a host of interesting features, including (but not limited to) large asymmetries at non-face-on inclinations, cusps and dents, and signatures in the separation of neighboring photon rings. Given the latest announcement of the accretion flow around M87* having been imaged in polarization, I wonder if one could search for these types of signatures there too. This would of course require making assumptions on whethe new physics affects the dynamics of the accreting matter, in other words whether General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamic simulation codes will have to be modified, and if so in what way. In any case, this paper is the first to robustly develop a phenomenological theory-rooted approach towards the study of BH shadows which is somewhere between the two approaches I discussed earlier - I do believe this will be a path worth pursuing, which is why I very much enjoyed reading this paper.