High Energy Particle Physics


Lepton Flavour Non-Universality from the Scale-Symmetric Theory

Authors: Sylwester Kornowski

In recent years, LHCb has found hints of deviations from the Standard-Model (SM) predictions that point new physics (NP). The lepton flavour universality is violated when comparing rates of decays of B mesons into excited kaon and lepton-antilepton pair with different flavours. Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we calculated the ratio of such decay rates when there appears a pair of muons or electron-positron pair. In the low-squared-q region (0.045 < qq < 1.1 GeV^2/c^4)), we obtained ratio = 0.6603 and in the central-squared-q region (qq > 1.1), we obtained ratio = 0.6850. The SST results are consistent with the central values obtained in the LHCb experiments 0.660 and 0.685 respectively. We can compare the LHCb and SST results with the SM predictions that give values close to unity. The SM results are inconsistent with the LHCb data having a statistical significance of 2.2 - 2.5 sigma. We showed that the decrease from about 1 in SM to 0.6603 in SST follows from different structure of muon and electron and from creation of additional electron-positron pair near bare muon, whereas the increase in SST from 0.6603 to 0.6850 is a result of the weak interactions of a pair of muons with nucleon at q higher than some threshold energy equal to 1.05 or 1.06 GeV/c^2 i.e. the squared q should be higher than about 1.1. We do not need a heavy Z’ boson or leptoquarks to explain the deviations from SM - we need a lacking part of SM i.e. we need the SST which is the NP.

Comments: 7 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2017-04-27 05:13:57

Unique-IP document downloads: 25 times

Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus