The large number of <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><a:mrow><a:mi>τ</a:mi></a:mrow></a:math> leptons available at the Belle II experiment makes it possible to study their properties and the extent of their compositeness. We propose a strategy that relies on three observables defined in terms of elements of the polarization density matrix of the produced <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><c:mi>τ</c:mi></c:math> pairs, which we obtain via quantum tomography. We find that these observables can explore values of the magnetic dipole moment down to <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><e:mn>6.3</e:mn><e:mo>×</e:mo><e:msup><e:mn>10</e:mn><e:mrow><e:mo>−</e:mo><e:mn>4</e:mn></e:mrow></e:msup></e:math>, which is 2 orders of magnitude better than the current experimental limit, constrain the electromagnetic radius below <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><g:mn>4.3</g:mn><g:mo>×</g:mo><g:msup><g:mn>10</g:mn><g:mrow><g:mo>−</g:mo><g:mn>3</g:mn></g:mrow></g:msup><g:mtext> </g:mtext><g:mtext> </g:mtext><g:mi>fm</g:mi></g:math>, and exclude an electric dipole moment larger than <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><i:mrow><i:mn>1.7</i:mn><i:mo>×</i:mo><i:msup><i:mrow><i:mn>10</i:mn></i:mrow><i:mrow><i:mo>−</i:mo><i:mn>17</i:mn></i:mrow></i:msup><i:mtext> </i:mtext><i:mtext> </i:mtext><i:mi mathvariant="normal">e</i:mi><i:mtext> </i:mtext><i:mi>cm</i:mi></i:mrow></i:math>. The quoted limits are at the 95% confidence level (CL) and are obtained for a benchmark integrated luminosity of <l:math xmlns:l="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><l:mrow><l:mn>1</l:mn><l:mtext> </l:mtext><l:mtext> </l:mtext><l:msup><l:mrow><l:mi>ab</l:mi></l:mrow><l:mrow><l:mo>−</l:mo><l:mn>1</l:mn></l:mrow></l:msup></l:mrow></l:math> and a Monte Carlo estimate of the statistical sensitivity. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fabbrichesi et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: