Review Article | Published:

Flavour-changing neutral currents making and breaking the standard model

Nature volume 546, pages 221226 (08 June 2017) | Download Citation

Abstract

The standard model of particle physics is our best description yet of fundamental particles and their interactions, but it is known to be incomplete. As yet undiscovered particles and interactions might exist. One of the most powerful ways to search for new particles is by studying processes known as flavour-changing neutral current decays, whereby a quark changes its flavour without altering its electric charge. One example of such a transition is the decay of a beauty quark into a strange quark. Here we review some intriguing anomalies in these decays, which have revealed potential cracks in the standard model—hinting at the existence of new phenomena.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    ATLAS Collaboration. The ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. J. Instrum. 3, S08003 (2008)

  2. 2.

    CMS Collaboration. The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC. J. Instrum. 3, S08004 (2008)

  3. 3.

    et al. LHC machine. J. Instrum. 3, S08001 (2008)

  4. 4.

    LHCb Collaboration. The LHCb detector at the LHC. J. Instrum. 3, S08005 (2008)

  5. 5.

    & Elementary particles and SU(4). Phys. Lett. 11, 255–257 (1964)

  6. 6.

    , & Weak interactions with lepton–hadron symmetry. Phys. Rev. D 2, 1285–1292 (1970).Proposed a mechanism for the suppression of FCNCs, and predicted the existence of a fourth quark—the charm quark

  7. 7.

    et al. Experimental observation of a heavy particle J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 1404–1406 (1974)

  8. 8.

    et al. Discovery of a narrow resonance in e+e annihilation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 1406–1408 (1974)

  9. 9.

    BaBar Collaboration. The BaBar detector. Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 479, 1–116 (2002)

  10. 10.

    Belle Collaboration. The Belle detector. Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 479, 117–232 (2002)

  11. 11.

    Beyond the standard model with the LHC. Nature 448, 297–301 (2007)

  12. 12.

    & New physics in BKμμ? Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2646 (2013)

  13. 13.

    , , & Analysis of neutral Higgs-boson contributions to the decays Bs+ and → Kℓ+. Phys. Rev. D 64, 074014 (2001)

  14. 14.

    & Higgs-mediated B0μ+μ in minimal supersymmetry. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 228–231 (2000)

  15. 15.

    , & Promising process to distinguish super-symmetric models with large tanβ from the standard model: BXsμ+μ. Phys. Rev. D 59, 011701 (1999)

  16. 16.

    & Dileptonic decay of Bs meson in SUSY models with large tanβ. Phys. Lett. B 451, 86–92 (1999)

  17. 17.

    et al. Bs,d+ in the standard model with reduced theoretical uncertainty. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 101801 (2014)

  18. 18.

    HPQCD Collaboration. B and Bs meson decay constants from lattice QCD. Phys. Rev. D 86, 034506 (2012)

  19. 19.

    Fermilab Lattice & MILC Collaborations. B- and D-meson decay constants from three-flavor lattice QCD. Phys. Rev. D 85, 114506 (2012)

  20. 20.

    RBC–UKQCD Collaborations. B-meson decay constants with domain wall light quarks and nonperturbatively tuned relativistic b-quarks. AIP Conf. Proc. 1560, 368 (2013)

  21. 21.

    Unitary symmetry and leptonic decays. Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531–533 (1963)

  22. 22.

    & CP violation in the renormalizable theory of weak interaction. Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652–657 (1973)

  23. 23.

    CMS Collaboration & LHCb Collaboration. Observation of the rare → μ+μ decay from the combined analysis of CMS and LHCb data. Nature 522, 68–72 (2015).After three decades of searching, the first observation of the very rare decay  → μ+μ, made by the CMS and LHCb collaborations

  24. 24.

    ATLAS Collaboration. Study of the rare decays of and B0 into muon pairs from data collected during the LHC run 1 with the ATLAS detector. Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 513 (2016)

  25. 25.

    LHCb Collaboration. Differential branching fractions and isospin asymmetries of BK()μ+μ decays. J. High Energy Phys. 6, 133 (2014)

  26. 26.

    LHCb Collaboration. Angular analysis and differential branching fraction of the decay → φμ+μ. J. High Energy Phys. 9, 179 (2015)

  27. 27.

    LHCb Collaboration. Measurements of the S-wave fraction in B0K+πμ+μ decays and the B0K(892)0μ+μ differential branching fraction. J. High Energy Phys. 11, 47 (2016)

  28. 28.

    , & Angular distributions of → λ++ decays. J. High Energy Phys. 12, 040 (2007)

  29. 29.

    , & On the standard model predictions for RK and RK. Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 440 (2016)

  30. 30.

    LHCb Collaboration. Test of lepton universality using B+ → K++ decays. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 151601 (2014).Most precise measurement of the lepton universality ratio RK

  31. 31.

    BaBar Collaboration. Measurement of branching fractions and rate asymmetries in the rare decays BK()+. Phys. Rev. D 86, 032012 (2012)

  32. 32.

    Belle Collaboration. Measurement of the differential branching fraction and forward-backward asymmetry for BK()+. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 171801 (2009)

  33. 33.

    Belle Collaboration. Improved measurement of the electroweak penguin process BXs+. Phys. Rev. D72, 092005 (2005)

  34. 34.

    BaBar Collaboration. Measurement of the BXs+ branching fraction and search for direct CP violation from a sum of exclusive final states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 211802 (2014)

  35. 35.

    LHCb Collaboration. Angular analysis of the B0K0μ+μ decay using 3 fb−1 of integrated luminosity. J. High Energy Phys. 2, 104 (2016).Most precise results yet from angular analysis of the decay B0K0μ+μ, showing a discrepancy with standard model predictions for the observables that describe the angular distribution, including the observable

  36. 36.

    Belle Collaboration. Lepton-flavor-dependent angular analysis of BK+. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 111801 (2017)

  37. 37.

    , , & Decays as tests of the standard model. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 92, 50–91 (2017)

  38. 38.

    , , & On the impact of power corrections in the prediction of BKμ+μ observables. J. High Energy Phys. 12, 125 (2014)

  39. 39.

    Effective field theory: course. In Probing the Standard Model of Particle Interactions: Proc. Summer School in Theoretical Physics (eds Gupta, R. et al.) 949–1049 (Elsevier, 1998); preprint at

  40. 40.

    & Operator product expansions and composite field operators in the general framework of quantum field theory. Commun. Math. Phys. 24, 87–106 (1972)

  41. 41.

    , , & Optimizing the basis of BK+ observables in the full kinematic range. J. High Energy Phys. 5, 137 (2013).First proposal to use angular observables such as , which have reduced uncertainties from strong-force interactions

  42. 42.

    , & Understanding the BKμ+μ anomaly. Phys. Rev. D 88, 074002 (2013)

  43. 43.

    , , & Quark flavor transitions in LμLτ models. Phys. Rev. D 89, 095033 (2014)

  44. 44.

    , & BKμ+μ optimised observables in the MSSM. Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2927 (2014)

  45. 45.

    , & Explaining hμ±τ, BKμ+μ and B+μ/BKe+e in a two-Higgs-doublet model with gauged LμLτ. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 151801 (2015)

  46. 46.

    , , & Global analysis of bsℓℓ anomalies. J. High Energy Phys. 6, 92 (2016)

  47. 47.

    , & On the anomalies in the latest LHCb data. Nucl. Phys. B 909, 737–777 (2016)

  48. 48.

    & On BVℓℓ at small dilepton invariant mass, power corrections, and new physics. J. High Energy Phys. 5, 43 (2013)

  49. 49.

    , & Comprehensive Bayesian analysis of rare (semi)leptonic and radiative B decays. Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2897 (2014); erratum 74, 3179 (2014)

  50. 50.

    & On the LHCb anomaly in BK+. J. High Energy Phys. 4, 97 (2014)

  51. 51.

    , & An explicit Z′-boson explanation of the BKμ+μ anomaly. J. High Energy Phys. 1, 69 (2014)

  52. 52.

    , & Explaining the BKμ+μ data with scalar interactions. Phys. Rev. D 89, 071501 (2014)

  53. 53.

    . & Resonances gone topsy turvy - the charm of QCD or new physics in bsℓ+? Preprint at (2014)

  54. 54.

    & New physics in bs transitions after LHC Run 1. Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 382 (2015).Global analysis of FCNC anomalies involving the beauty quark, hinting at a significant contribution from a new-physics particle.

  55. 55.

    , , & Explaining dark matter and B decay anomalies with an Lμ−Lτ model. J. High Energy Phys. 12, 106 (2016)

  56. 56.

    & Lepton number as the fourth color. Phys. Rev. D 10, 275–289 (1974); erratum 11, 703 (1975)

  57. 57.

    & Minimal leptoquark explanation for the , RK, and (g − 2)µ anomalies. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 141802 (2016)

  58. 58.

    & Vector leptoquark resolution of RK and puzzles. Phys. Lett. B 755, 270–274 (2016)

  59. 59.

    , & Composite leptoquarks and anomalies in B-meson decays. J. High Energy Phys. 5, 6 (2015)

  60. 60.

    , & BK+ decay at large hadronic recoil. J. High Energy Phys. 2, 10 (2013)

  61. 61.

    , , & Charm-loop effect in BK()+ and BKγ. J. High Energy Phys. 9, 89 (2010)

  62. 62.

    Belle II Collaboration. Belle II technical design report. Preprint at (2010)

Download references

Acknowledgements

K.A.P. acknowledges support from the European Science and Technology Facilities Council under grant number ST/K001256/1; F.A. acknowledges support from the Netherlands Foundation for Fundamental Research of Matter (FOM) and the Netherlands Foundation of Scientific Research Institutes (NWO-I); M.-O.B. acknowledges support from CERN; and P.O. acknowledges support from the Swiss National Science Foundation under grant number BSSGI0_155990.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. National Institute for Subatomic Physics (Nikhef), Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    • F. Archilli
  2. European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland

    • M.-O. Bettler
  3. Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    • P. Owen
  4. HH Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    • K. A. Petridis

Authors

  1. Search for F. Archilli in:

  2. Search for M.-O. Bettler in:

  3. Search for P. Owen in:

  4. Search for K. A. Petridis in:

Contributions

All authors contributed to writing and editing the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Owen.

Reviewer Information Nature thanks P. Urquijo and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21721

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.