4.7 Article

Evidence for an anomalous like-sign dimuon charge asymmetry

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 82, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.032001

关键词

-

资金

  1. DOE (USA)
  2. NSF (USA)
  3. CEA (France)
  4. CNRS/IN2P3 (France)
  5. FASI (Russia)
  6. Rosatom (Russia)
  7. RFBR (Russia)
  8. CNPq (Brazil)
  9. FAPERJ (Brazil)
  10. FAPESP (Brazil)
  11. FUNDUNESP (Brazil)
  12. DAE (India)
  13. DST (India)
  14. Colciencias (Colombia)
  15. CONACyT (Mexico)
  16. KRF (Korea)
  17. KOSEF (Korea)
  18. CONICET (Argentina)
  19. UBACyT (Argentina)
  20. FOM (The Netherlands)
  21. STFC (United Kingdom)
  22. Royal Society (United Kingdom)
  23. MSMT (Czech Republic)
  24. GACR (Czech Republic)
  25. CRC Program (Canada)
  26. NSERC (Canada)
  27. BMBF (Germany)
  28. DFG (Germany)
  29. SFI (Ireland)
  30. The Swedish Research Council (Sweden)
  31. CAS (China)
  32. CNSF (China)
  33. STFC [PP/E000487/1, ST/F00754X/1, ST/H001166/1, ST/F007418/1, ST/H00095X/2, PP/F000863/1, ST/I505756/1, ST/H004068/1, ST/H00095X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  34. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H001166/1, ST/H00095X/2, PP/E000487/1, ST/H00095X/1, ST/F007418/1, ST/I505756/1, ST/F00754X/1, PP/D004284/1, PP/F000863/1, ST/H004068/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  35. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  36. Division Of Physics [968284] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We measure the charge asymmetry A of like-sign dimuon events in 6.1 fb(-1) of p (p) over bar collisions recorded with the D0 detector at a center-of-mass energy root s = 1.96 TeV at the Fermilab Tevatron collider. From A, we extract the like-sign dimuon charge asymmetry in semileptonic b-hadron decays: A(sl)(b) = -0.00957 +/- 0.00251 (stat) +/- 0.00146 (syst). This result differs by 3.2 standard deviations from the standard model prediction A(sl)(b)(SM) = (-2.3(0.6)(+0.5)) x 10(-4) and provides first evidence of anomalous CP violation in the mixing of neutral B mesons.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据