Danny van Dyk

That's an interesting paper, going beyond what Sophie and Dave did with Camila in 2022 (application to the SMEFT).

Congratulations!

There is still a chance that I win the lottery and retire early! 😁

Ditto for me.

Cheers Thorsten!

Oh man. Are there slides? Is there a recording?

That was fast! Thank you @inspirehep.net !

1. Do you think it is correct to say SpaceX competes with NASA? NASA is a non-profit organisation.
2. NASA's mission has always used expertise from aerospatial industry. Fletcher co-founded (what became) Aerojet General Corp; Myers worked for Rockwell; Griffin was president of Orbital Sciences.

As I said, do not know of this person in sufficient detail to form an opinion either way. What you write seems quite relevant to the job, though!

Cannot say if he's an excellent choice, due to lack of information. But this claim seems very off. Isaacman purchased at least two spaceflights from SpaceX. If we go by that, is no former NASA administrator in a pickle who had purchased from SpaceX before? That's a very weird argument...

~90%, yes. In the summer of 2022, due to draughts, there was not enough cooling water available to run the nuclear power stations. The ability to use solar power as an alternative in such a situation is not a bad one, isn't it?

Long awaited: LHCb has seen discrepancies for years in the angular distributions of B→Kμμ signatures (so in transitions of bottom to strange quarks) that definitely do not agree with the prediction. #CMSPaper 1360 now confirms the LHCb measurements https://buff.ly/3OnJSHe

Thank you Freya!

Hah, fun retro-arXiv link indeed. I had not yet seen an arXiv entry that cannot generate a PDF file anymore!

Will have a look at the PRD paper on Monday 😀

Is there a theoretical justification for searching for a top (jet) + single gluon (jet)? That seems a bit weird, since both top and gluon are colour-charged but in different representations.

A symlink is a "special" file that contains the path to the target file. When you move the target, the symlink breaks. When you move a symlink with a relative target, the symlink breaks.

A hardlink is a second (third, ...) name of a target. When you move/delete the target, the hardlink still works.

Does anybody know if InspireHEP is going to allow Bluesky handles anytime soon? If not, whom should one contact?

@pkoppenburg.bsky.social Do you maybe have a shortcut to the InspireHEP people?

New social media network. Who dis?

OK, attempting to combine this very naively (assuming that the systematical and statistical uncertainties can be combined to a statistically meaningful uncertainty as sums of squares), I get:
τ(B₀) = 1.5112 ± 0.0027 with a p value of ~25% (χ² = 12.4715 for 10 d.o.f.).

Is there a p value for the combination?

We plan to expand this type of analysis to other measurements. So we already contacted
Alexander Lenz and his team of #subatomicheroes in Siegen, to see if we can join efforts!

The blue results are closer to the SM than the orange ones, but neither truly includes the SM point. The green ellipses arise from the usage of the inclusive nonleptonic decay width. As you can see, for some WET parameters the inclusive measurements are already very constraining!

The 2-particle results were already known, and he finds agreement with the literature. But the full set of 3-particle results for arbitrary WET contributions is new!

The 2-particle results were already known, and he finds agreement with the literature. But the full set of 3-particle results for arbitrary WET contributions is new!

This does not change the overall picture, and the tensions persist. He expanded his calculation to also cover all possible contributions by heavy beyond the Standard Model (SM) physics (i.e., in the so-called Weak Effective Theory = WET).

As part of his PhD thesis. Stefan investigated this tension from two points of view. First, he repeated the calculation to NLO αₛ for 2-particle and LO for the 3-particle terms. He finds full agreement with the literature for the former, and a missing prefactor for the latter.

The tension in a nutshell: these clean predictions seem to work excellently for ratios of the decay frequencies, but not for the decay frequencies themselves. The experimental measurements are lower than the predictions by a whopping 20% to 30%.

Theory predictions for these decays, based on "collinear factorization", are expected to be very "clean", i.e., in a double expansion in terms of αₛ and the inverse b quark mass, the leading terms can be computed with controllable uncertainty.

Towards a Global Analysis of the $b\to c\bar{u} q$ Puzzle We study the nonleptonic decays $\bar{B}_s^0 \to D_s^{(*)+} π^-$ and $\bar{B}^0 \to D^{(*)+} K^-$ within the Weak Effective Theory (WET) up to mass-dimension six. We revisit the calculation of the had...

Javier Virto, his PhD student (and my former master student) Stefan Meiser, and I put a paper on the arXiv last Friday: arxiv.org/abs/2411.09458

We investigate the ongoing tension between theory predictions and measurements of nonleptonic B̅→D⁺K⁻ and B̅ₛ→ Dₛ⁺π⁻ decays.

Our analysis inputs, numerical results, and figures are available at doi.org/10.5281/zeno... .

We are already discussing how to drive this further, e.g. by studying both isospin projections of the electromagnetic pion form factor simultaneously, or by including higher resonances like the ρ(1450).