As to the double-checking, the analysis behind this result used the whole data set collected by the BaBar experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC). So that's years of data, and the experiment hasn't been running since 2008. The question of course is, can some other experiment produce the same results. As this is B-physics I would guess LHCb, one of the 4 main experiments at CERN's LHC, might be able to do this, but I really don't know for sure.
If you can repeat the same experiment and get another 3 sigma deviation from the Standard Model predictions then yes, you could combine the results to get a >3 sigma total (though they don't simply just add up to 6).
The faster-than-light neutrinos probably got explained by a loose cable, sorry. :)
Right:) That's exactly what I was referring to: the uncertainty about the model/experimental setup is larger than the N-sigmas uncertainty reported by the model and instruments.
Except the scientists behind the loose cable up front said "we don't understand these these results, we think they are false, please help us figure out why". At no point were they published for legitimate consideration.
>3 sigmas is called evidence. >5 sigmas would be called discovery. This is the standard particle physics convention. 3 sigmas also seems to be the unofficial limit after which you are allowed to get a little excited and start to speculate about the explanations. :) As the paper says the 3.4 sigmas corresponds to a p value of 6.9 x 10^-4, which means that supposing only stuff included in the Standard Model exists, getting these results (or something even stronger) just by chance has the probability of 6.9 x 10^-4. That doesn't pop the champagne yet, but it's definitely something to talk about.
I lack the background to judge whether this will probably be explained by something relatively boring such as a new resonance particle composed of already known fundamental particles (i.e. a new baryon) or maybe an excited state of an already known particle, or something fundamentally new, like supersymmetry, Higgs or something else. This is why I posed the title as a question.
I find it very interesting though that the paper speaks about excluding the "type II two-Higgs-doublet (2HD) model charged Higgs", but I don't know what "type II" there means. The 2HDM is the simplest way you can extend the Standard Model Higgs field (which is what all the Higgs search buzz is about) in to many beyond the standard model theories, like supersymmetry. At least the apparently quite popular minimal supersymmetric model has a 2HD. But the key question is what's type II, and where's my type I?
The resonances and composed particles are used in the calculations, so if this result is true, it would involve new things that are not in the standard model.
We studied only the simple version that has only one Higgs field :(, so I don’t know what type I/II means, but using Google, I found this (see slide #6), that starts with a not very technical introduction: http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2007/kanefest/ha...
Yeah resonances and such would be new, but nothing as exciting as say a charged Higgs. I think they found some previously undiscovered resonance particle at the LHC a few months ago, but it didn't really even make the news outside physics.
Thanks for the link, that was actually really helpful. I wonder why the paper doesn't say anything about if their data would fit a type I or type III charged Higgs. Probably has something to do with whether leptons are considered to be up or down type (?) and thus how the charged Higgses would couple in the given process.
As to the double-checking, the analysis behind this result used the whole data set collected by the BaBar experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC). So that's years of data, and the experiment hasn't been running since 2008. The question of course is, can some other experiment produce the same results. As this is B-physics I would guess LHCb, one of the 4 main experiments at CERN's LHC, might be able to do this, but I really don't know for sure.
If you can repeat the same experiment and get another 3 sigma deviation from the Standard Model predictions then yes, you could combine the results to get a >3 sigma total (though they don't simply just add up to 6).