4.7 Article

Standard model radiative corrections in the pion form factor measurements do not explain the aμ anomaly

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 100, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.076004

关键词

-

资金

  1. Polish National Science Centre [DEC-2012/07/B/ST2/03867, DEC-2013/11/B/ST2/04023]
  2. German Research Foundation DFG [CRC-1044]
  3. Generalitat Valenciana, Spanish Government
  4. ERDF funds from the European Commission [PROMETEO/2017/053, FPA2017-84445-P, FPA2017-84543-P, SEV-20140398]
  5. COST Action PARTICLEFACE [CA16201]
  6. Spanish Government
  7. Generalitat Valenciana [RYC-2014-16061, SEJI-2017/2017/019]
  8. international mobilities for research activities of the University of Hradec Kralove [CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/16_027/0008487]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we address the question of whether the almost four standard deviations difference between theory and experiment for the muon anomalous magnetic moment a(mu) can be explained as a higher-order Standard Model perturbation effect in the pion form factor measurements. This question has, until now, remained open, obscuring the source of discrepancies between the measurements. We calculate the last radiative corrections for the extraction of the pion form factor, which were believed to be potentially substantial enough to explain the data within the Standard Model. We find that the corrections are too small to diminish existing discrepancies in the determination of the pion form factor for different kinematical configurations of low-energy BABAR, BES-III and KLOE experiments. Consequently, they cannot noticeably change the previous predictions for a(mu) and decrease the deviations between theory and direct measurements. To solve the above issues, new data and better understanding of low-energy experimental setups are needed, especially as new direct a(mu) measurements at Fermilab and J-PARC will provide new insights and substantially shrink the experimental error.

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