\section{Introduction}
Comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 (hereafter 73P) is a Jupiter family comet with a semimajor axis $a$ = 3.063 AU, orbital  inclination $i$ = 11.4$\degree$, and eccentricity $e$ = 0.692. The comet was first reported to have fragmented into at least four pieces on September 12, 1995 (Crovisier et al., 1995), shortly before its perihelion passage at 0.94 AU on September 22. While fragments A and D were not seen during its following apparition, fragments B and C are long-lived, continuing to appear in subsequent apparitions every 5.36 years. Fragment 73P-C is the brightest of the fragments and is also the leading fragment in the orbit. These characteristics generally describe the primary fragment of a split comet according to Boehnhardt (2004), so 73P-C is therefore considered the primary nucleus. While its 2001 apparition provided a less than ideal observing geometry, the comet approached to within 0.08 AU of the Earth in 2006, providing an excellent opportunity for high resolution observations with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). 73P fragmented again during this apparition, releasing fragments G, H, J, L, M and N, with fragments B and G famously shedding dozens of smaller pieces (Fuse et al., 2007 and Weaver et al., 2008).

Potential causes of cometary fragmentation include tidal disruption (Asphaug and Benz 1994), rotational instability (Jewitt 1997), internal build-up of thermal gas pressure (Samarasinha 2001), and impact induced fragmentation (Sekanina 1997 and Boehnhardt 2004). In the case of 73P-C, tidal disruption can be discounted since the orbit of the comet does not pass within the Roche spheres of any of the major planets or the Sun.  Impacts are intrinsically unlikely and offer an even less credible explanation given that the comet has exhibited multiple break-up episodes in different orbits.  Estimates of the rotational period of 73P-C (c.f.~Table \ref{past}) are widely spread over the range from 3.019 hours (Drahus et al., 2010) to 27.2 hours (Storm et al.~2006).  The lower end of this range is suggestive of fragmentation due to rotational instability  (Marzari et al.~2011). However, the upper end of the range is completely inconsistent with this possibility.

In this paper, our motivation is to characterize 73P using the highest resolution data and to obtain a deeper understanding of how 73P fragmented. We focus on 73P-C and examine HST images from April, 2006 and measure the rotation period of 73P-C in order to reduce the ambiguity behind the cause of its fragmentation.

\section{Observations}

The images were taken under HST program GO 10625, with P. Lamy as the principal investigator using the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) in the High Resolution Channel (HRC). The field of view of the HRC is $29\arcsec \times 26\arcsec$ with a pixel scale of $0.028\arcsec \times 0.025\arcsec$/pixel (Ford et al., 1998 and Ryon et al. 2019).  The observations started on 2006 April 10, 21:35 UT and ended 2006 April 11, 19:06 UT, providing a span of $\sim$21.5 hours. A total of eight orbits were scheduled to observe 73P-C. Six of the eight orbits consisted of observations that were identical in filters, the number of images taken in each filter, and the exposure times. In each orbit, two images were taken with the F475 filter, two with F555, six with F606, and four with F625. The first orbit is almost identical, but features shorter exposure times for the two images taken in the F475 filter. The eighth orbit also features shorter exposure times of the two images taken in F475, as well as the two images in F555 and the four images in F625 in order to provide time for two additional images taken in the F814 filter. We focused our analysis on the filters consistent between each orbit. Orbits four and seven are not available on the Hubble Legacy Archive, leaving a total of 84 DRZ images (calibrated, geometrically-corrected, dither-combined images created by AstroDrizzle in units of electrons/s) that were analyzed in this work (Table \ref{filters}). The observing geometry is listed in Table (\ref{geometry}) for the two days on which the comet was observed.

\subsection{Nucleus Measurements}
The morphology of  the parent body, 73P-C, can be seen in Figure (\ref{contour}). It displays an obvious coma elongated towards the southwest direction, approximately aligned with the antisolar direction (marked -$\odot$). We used aperture photometry to measure the apparent magnitude in the 84 images and accounted for the zeropoint of each filter given by \url{http://www.stsci.edu/hst/acs/analysis/zeropoints/old_page/localZeropoints}. For the nucleus measurements, we chose an aperture radius of $\sim$0.13$\arcsec$ ($\sim$FWHM of the PSF), which corresponds to a distance of 27 km at the comet. We then subtracted the background flux caused by the sky and coma through an annulus contiguous with the aperture and extending out another $\sim$0.26$\arcsec$. In order to analyze the data from each filter all together, we calculated the average colors with respect to filter F555 (equivalent to the Johnson V filter) and used the colors to shift the magnitudes in each filter such that they are equivalent to the F555 filter (Table \ref{colors}). The nucleus aperture magnitudes are plotted as a function of time in Figure (\ref{nuclight34}).

\subsection{Coma Measurements}
Next, we compared the lightcurve of the central aperture (containing the nucleus and near-nucleus dust) to lightcurves of the coma annuli (containing only dust). We used the same aperture radius to obtain the lightcurve for the nucleus. We then measured the flux within the coma within two annuli extending from $\sim$0.13$\arcsec$ to $\sim$0.65$\arcsec$ and from $\sim$0.65$\arcsec$ to $\sim$1.17$\arcsec$. Instead of subtracting the background flux from an annulus immediately outside these regions, we only subtracted the flux from the distant sky background. For this purpose, we experimented to select an annulus with inner and outer radii of $\sim$5.7$\arcsec$ and $\sim$6.5$\arcsec$ respectively, and subtracted this flux from all measurements. The aperture and annuli are drawn on an image of the comet in Figure (\ref{aperture}). Colors were again calculated in the coma regions with respect to filter F555 as listed in Table (\ref{colors}), with error estimates representative of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The SNR decreased further out in the coma, where the sky background had a larger effect.The resulting apparent magnitudes are plotted in Figure (\ref{phasefoldshift}).

\section{Results}

\subsection{Rotational Period of the Nucleus}

	We measured the rotation period of the nucleus by fitting a lightcurve to the time-varying magnitudes. For convenience of presentation, the time plotted in Figures (\ref{nuclight34}) and (\ref{phasefoldshift}) was calculated from

\begin{equation}
T = (JD - 2453836.399) \times 24
\label{time}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $T$ is time in hours and JD is the Julian date obtained from the image header. We used IRAF's phase dispersion minimization (PDM) program to search for likely periods in the data, and used these values as a guide to create the best fit sinusoid curves by least squares. We fit the data from each filter separately, as well as combined by converting the F475, F606, and F625 filters to the F555 filter according to the colors in Table (\ref{colors}). We found that all five of these fits resulted in the same period within two standard deviations. Therefore, for simplicity, we only show the fit for the combined data in this work. Figure (\ref{nuclight34}) shows the best fit for the lightcurve of the nucleus. This sinusoidal  least-squares fitted curve  has a single-peaked period $P$ = 10.38 $\pm$ 0.04 hours. The lightcurves of most solar system small bodies are dominated by variation in the cross-section due to aspherical shape, rather than by surface albedo variations (Burns and Tedesco, 1979). In these cases the  lightcurves are doubly periodic (two maxima and minima per rotation) owing to rotational symmetry. For 73P-C, this would imply a rotational period $2P$ = 20.76 $\pm$ 0.08 hours.  This relatively long period is consistent with a lower limit $P >$ 10 hours set using radar observations by Nolan et al.~(2006), but disagrees with shorter periods obtained using less direct methods (Table \ref{past}).  Incomplete sampling of the lightcurve leads to aliasing in the period determination and, therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that other periods might fit the data.  The shortest plausible period from our PDM analysis is $P$ = 5.01 hours and thus we can rule out shorter periods proposed by Drahus et al. (2010), Toth et al. (2006 and 2008) listed in Table (\ref{past}).

\subsection{Dust Outflow Speed}

We next repeated the analysis for the lightcurves of the nucleus and coma regions measured from the sky-subtraction technique. Specifically, we aim to detect a phase lag in the lightcurves from the three apertures caused by the finite speed of outflow of the dust. Keeping the same period found in our best fit of the nucleus lightcurve in the previous section, we fitted curves with the lightcurve period $P$ =  10.38$\pm$0.04 hours to the phase-folded data in Figure (\ref{phasefoldshift}). The figure shows that there is a phase lag  from the nucleus to the dust regions of the coma. The fitted phase lags are listed in Table (\ref{params34}). From the central aperture to the inner coma annulus there is a $\Delta T$ = 0.21 $\pm$ 0.05 hour lag while from the center to the outer coma annulus the lag is $\Delta T$ = 0.46 $\pm$ 0.08 hour.  Figure (\ref{phaseshiftspeed}) shows the  phase lag versus the effective radius of each photometry annulus, computed by determining the center of light of the photons hitting the CCD in each aperture or annulus according to the surface brightness profile plotted in Figure (\ref{slope}). With a surface brightness  $\propto \theta^{-1}$ (where $\theta$ is the radial distance from the center), the effective radius, $\theta_e$, is given simply  by $\theta_e = (\theta_i + \theta_o)/2$, where  $\theta_i$ and $\theta_o$ are the inner and outer radii of each annulus. The speed of the dust, $v_g$, is given by the gradient of a straight line fitted to the data in Figure (\ref{phaseshiftspeed}).   We find $v_g =$ 107 $\pm$ 9 m/s.  At this speed, dust released from the nucleus would escape from the central photometry aperture of projected radius $\theta_o$ = 27 km (Table \ref{params34}) in a time $t \sim \theta_o/V_g \sim$ 250 s.  This time is very short compared to the nucleus rotational period and, therefore, we can neglect the effects of averaging in the interpretation of the lightcurve data.

\subsection{Size of the Nucleus}

We converted from apparent to absolute magnitude, $H_V$, defined as the magnitude corrected to unit heliocentric and geocentric distance ($r_H$ and $\Delta$, respectively) and to phase angle  $\alpha$ = 0\degr.  For the apparent magnitude, $m_V$, the correction is

\begin{equation}
H_V= m_V - 5\log_{10}(r_H \Delta) - f(\alpha)
\label{abs}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $f(\alpha)$ is the phase function representing the angular dependence of the scattered sunlight at phase angle $\alpha$ in degrees. We assume a linear phase function

\begin{equation}
f(\alpha) = (0.046 \pm 0.017) \alpha
\label{phasefunc}
\end{equation}

\noindent based on measurements of 37 Jupiter family comets reported by Kokotanekova (2017). We find the absolute magnitude of 73P-C to be $H_V$ = 17.3 $\pm$ 0.1.

We estimated the cross-section of the nucleus using

\begin{equation}
C_e=\dfrac{{\pi}(2.25\times10^{16})}{p_V}10^{-0.4[H_V-V_{\odot}]}
\label{crosssection}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $p_V$ is the geometric albedo, which we assume to be 0.04 (Hartmann et al.~1987, Lamy et al.~2004, Fern{\'a}ndez et al. 2013), $H_V$ is the absolute magnitude and $V_{\odot}\sim$ -26.77 is the apparent magnitude of the Sun. The effective nucleus radius is then $r_n=\sqrt{(C_e / \pi)}$ and we find $r_n = 1.2\pm0.1$ km. This is consistent with the pre-breakup radius $r_n$  $\sim$ 1 km as reported by Sekanina~(1989) and $r_n$ $\sim$ 1.1 km as reported by Boehnhardt et al.~(1999). In both of these studies, as well as our calculation of the radius, coma contamination was not accounted for, and therefore these values all represent upper limits to the size of the nucleus.

Toth et al.~(2005) accounted for coma contamination by modeling the expected brightness profile of the coma and nucleus, and calculating the residual flux associated with just the nucleus. From this, Toth et al.~(2005) find that, as of 2001 November 26, 73P-C had decreased in radius to $r_n$ = 0.68 $\pm$ 0.04 km (i.e.~to only 25$\%$ of the original volume). However, the smaller size is likely a result of accounting for dust contamination rather than the nucleus physically shrinking over time. We conducted a similar analysis by extrapolating the surface brightness profile in the coma to the center aperture. We subtracted the estimated flux of the coma within the center aperture from the flux value we measured using aperture photometry. The residual flux represents that of the isolated nucleus. In the measured region of the coma, Figure (\ref{slope}) shows the surface brightness profile $\propto r^{-1}$, where $r$ is the radial distance from the center of the nucleus. This implies that the integrated flux within an annulus is simply proportional to the width of the annulus, i.e.~flux $\propto r_o-r_i$. Therefore, if there is no nucleus present, we expect to find flux ratios in the different apertures $A1/A2$ = 27/(136-27) = 0.25 and $A1/A3$ = 27/(245 - 136) = 0.25 (c.f.~Table \ref{params34}).  Instead, the average flux measured through the center aperture is $\sim29\%\pm2.5\%$~ of the average flux in the indicated coma annuli. The residual flux corresponds to an apparent magnitude $m_V\sim18.7\pm0.7$, absolute magnitude $H_V\sim19.7 \pm 0.7$, and radius $r_n\sim0.4\pm0.1$ km. This estimate (diameter 0.8$\pm$0.2 km)  is comparable, within the uncertainties, to Arecibo (12.6 cm) and Goldstone (3.5 cm) radar data reported to show that fragment C is at least 1 km in diameter (Nolan et al. 2006).

\section{Discussion}

\subsection{Stability of the Nucleus Rotation}

Is rotational instability a plausible mechanism of fragmentation for 73P? We compare the minimum period we derived with the critical rotational period of the body given by

\begin{equation}
P_C=k\left[ \frac{3\pi}{G\rho} \right]^{\frac{1}{2}}
\label{rotinst}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $\rho$ is the density, $k$ is a dimensionless constant that depends on the shape of the body. For a sphere, $k$ reduces to 1. We assume that a prolate shaped nucleus generates the lightcurve, so $k=a/b$ where $a$ $>$ $b$. We also assume a density $\rho$ = 600 kg/m$^3$, as representative for comets (Britt et al.~2006). With photometric variations of $\sim0.31 \pm 0.01$ magnitudes in the nucleus, we infer $k=1.33 \pm 0.01$, and a critical period $P_C = 5.67 \pm 0.04$ hours for a prolate spheroid of this density, which is far shorter than our 10.38 hour best-fit single-peaked lightcurve period.  Therefore, we can confidently rule out the possibility of break up of a strengthless nucleus due to rotational instability.

\subsection{Coma Dust Speed and Particle Size}

From the measured speed of the dust in the coma, we can estimate the average dust grain size and mass loss rate from the nucleus. We assume an inverse relationship between ejection velocity and grain size

\begin{equation}
v = v_0 \beta^{\frac{1}{2}}
 \label{velocity}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $\beta$ is the ratio of the acceleration due to solar radiation pressure to the acceleration due to solar gravity and $v_0$ is the reference velocity for a particle 1 $\micron$ in radius (Lisse et al.~1998; Reach et al.~2000; Ishiguro et al.~2007) and $\beta \sim 1/a$ where $a$ is the grain radius in $\micron$. We then can evaluate the average velocity of particles by weighting the velocity by the size distribution and the cross-section of the particles. The average velocity is

\begin{equation}
\bar{v} = \frac{\int_{a_{min}}^{a_{max}} v_0 \pi a^{\frac{3}{2}} n(a) da}{\int_{a_{min}}^{a_{max}}  \pi a^2 n(a) da}
 \label{averagevelocity}
\end{equation}

\noindent where n(a)da is the size distribution of dust. This power law distribution is defined as

\begin{equation}
n(a) da = \Gamma a^{-\gamma} da
 \label{averagevelocity2}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $\Gamma$ is a constant that does not affect the resulting velocity, and we take $\gamma = 3.5$, as found in other active bodies (e.g.~Jewitt et al.~2014). Then, assuming $a_{max}$ $\gg $ $a_{min}$, the resulting average velocity is

\begin{equation}
\bar{v} = \frac{v_0 }{2 \sqrt{a_{min}}}
 \label{resultvelocity}
\end{equation}

\noindent with $a_{min}$ expressed in \micron.

Equation (\ref{resultvelocity}) shows that, with these assumptions, the average velocity only depends on the minimum particle size. The smallest particles that can be seen in the visible spectrum are limited by diffraction. The scattering efficiency of a particle depends on the size parameter, $x = 2\pi a/\lambda$, where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of observation. The scattering efficiency approaches 0 as $x \rightarrow$ 0, and oscillates around and approaches unity when  $x~\textgreater$ 1 (Van de Hulst 1957). In the visible spectrum ($\lambda \sim$0.5 \micron), $x =$ 1 corresponds to $a \sim 0.1$ \micron. These tiny particles are  likely to be dynamically well coupled to the gas and ejected with a velocity that is comparable to the average thermal velocity, given by integrating the Maxwell Boltzman distribution of particle speeds;

\begin{equation}
v_{th} = \sqrt{\frac{8 k_B T}{\pi m}}.
 \label{gasvelocity}
\end{equation}

\noindent Here the spherical blackbody temperature at $\sim$1.23 AU from the Sun is $T\sim251$ K, $k_B$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and $m$ is the mass of an H$_2$O molecule. Equation (\ref{gasvelocity}) gives $v_{th}$ $\sim$ 550 m s$^{-1}$, which is our best estimate of the outflow speed in gas. If we assume that the smallest particles, $a \sim$ 0.1 \micron\, are dynamically well coupled to the gas and traveling at $v_{th}$, then the mean speed $\bar{v}\sim$107 $\pm$ 9 m s$^{-1}$ corresponds to effective particle radius $a \sim$ 3 \micron,  by Equation (\ref{resultvelocity}).

This particle size estimate is clearly approximate, given that we do not know the actual gas flux from the nucleus and that $v_{th}$ is only an approximation to the outflow speed.  However, the sunward extent of the coma provides an independent estimate of the particle ejection speed (Jewitt 1991).
A particle launched towards the Sun and experiencing a constant anti-solar acceleration of magnitude $\beta g_{\odot}$ will reach a turn-around distance given by

\begin{equation}
L = \frac{v^2}{2 \beta g_{\odot}}.
\label{L}
\end{equation}

\noindent Substituting $v = v_0 \beta^{1/2}$, Equation (\ref{L}) simplifies to $L = v_0^2/(2 g_{\odot})$, where $g_{\odot} = 4\times10^{-3}$ m s$^{-2}$ is the solar gravity at $r_H$ = 1.23 AU.  We see from Figure (\ref{contour}) that the sunward angular extent of the coma is $\sim$10\arcsec~corresponding to 2$\times10^6$ m at the comet, neglecting the effects of projection.  We infer $v_0 \sim (2 g_{\odot} L)^{1/2} \sim$ 125 m s$^{-1}$, corresponding to the speed of a 1 \micron\ particle.  This is close enough, given the many approximations involved, that we consider this independent estimate to be in strong support of the result from aperture photometry.

\subsection{Mass Loss Rate}

 With the effective velocity in-hand, a simple mass loss rate estimate can be obtained from

\begin{equation}
\frac{dM}{dt}=\frac{4 \rho \bar{a} C_e \bar{v}}{3d}
 \label{massloss}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $\rho$ is the dust grain density, which we assume again to be 600 kg m$^{-3}$, $\bar{a}$ is the average particle radius, $C_e$ is the total cross section of all the particles in the measured portion of the coma as given by Equation (\ref{crosssection}), $\bar{v}$ is the average velocity of particles in the coma, and $d$ is the distance traveled. For $d$, we use the distance from the nucleus to the midpoint of the outer defined region of the coma, $d \sim$190 km. Substituting into Equation (\ref{massloss}) gives the order of magnitude average mass loss rate $dM/dt$ $\sim$ 50 $\pm$ 17 kg s$^{-1}$ where the error is largely dominated by the error on particle size. Finally, we solved the energy balance equation for a patch of perfectly absorbing ice exposed at the subsolar point on the nucleus of 73P. The equilibrium mass loss rate at $r_H$ = 1.23 AU  is $f_s=2.9\times10^{-4}$ kg m$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (ice temperature 202 K). The measured sublimation rate can thus be supplied by a circular patch of area

\begin{equation}
\pi r^2=\frac{1}{\delta f_s}\frac{dM}{dt}
 \label{activepatch}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $\delta$ is the dust-to-ice mass ratio. If $\delta$ is equal to unity, then $\pi r^2 \sim 0.17 \pm 0.05$ km$^2$ and $r\sim 0.2$ km. On a 0.4 km radius spherical nucleus, this patch corresponds to an active fraction $f_A=\pi r^2 / 4 \pi r_n^2 \sim 0.08$. Published estimates of $\delta$ vary considerably, but there is now a consensus that $\delta > 1$. For example, Reach et. al (2000) found $\delta \sim$ 10-30 in 2P/Encke, while Fulle et al. (2017) find $\delta = 7.5$ for Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. These larger values would imply an active patch of radius $r\sim$0.04-0.08 km on 73P-C. Evidently, very localized activity on 73P can drive the coma.

\section{Conclusion}

We analyzed 84 images of comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 taken with HST on UT 2006 April 10 and 11 to find

\begin{itemize}
\item The best-fit lightcurve period is $P$ = 10.38 $\pm$ 0.04 hours (2$P$ = 20.76 $\pm$ 0.08 hours for a double-peaked lightcurve, as expected for an irregularly shaped body). This eliminates the possibility of rotational instability as a fragmentation mechanism, because the rotation period is above the critical period for breakup for any reasonable density.

\item Accounting for dust contamination, our best estimate of the absolute magnitude is $H_V\sim19.7\pm0.7$ corresponding to a nucleus radius $r_n\sim0.4\pm0.1$ km, assuming an albedo of 0.04.

\item  Phase-lagged brightness variations in the coma show that the dust outflow speed is $v_g = 107 \pm 9$ m s$^{-1}$, corresponding to average dust particle radius  $\bar{a}$ $\sim$ 3 $\pm$ 1 \micron.  The mass loss rate, $dM/dt$ $\sim$ 50 kg s$^{-1}$, is consistent with sublimation of an exposed,  ice patch of radius only $\sim$0.2 km corresponding to $\sim 8\%$ of the nucleus surface.

\end{itemize}

\acknowledgments

We thank Jessica Agarwal, Jing Li, and Max Mutchler for reading the manuscript. This work was supported by the HST's Archival Research Program, proposal \#15301 awarded to D.J. Also, A.G. acknowledges her NESSF grant \#18-0217 for providing funding to accomplish this work. This work was based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, and obtained from the Hubble Legacy Archive, which is a collaboration between the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI/NASA), the Space Telescope European Coordinating Facility (ST-ECF/ESA) and the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre (CADC/NRC/CSA).


\section{\label{}}

\section{Introduction}
Next year will mark the 50th anniversary of the seminal paper by Glashow, Iliopoulos and Maiani~\cite{Glashow:1970gm} and, while much experimental progress has been made in the ellapsed time, our fundamental theory understanding of flavor has not changed since. This speaks to the insight of the aforementioned work but is not to say there has been no effort from the theory community; new ideas have emerged as answers for a deeper understanding, from spontaneous symmetry breaking to extra-dimensions. At the same time the wealth of data from flavor experiments provided the foundation for new fields of study like heavy quark effective field theory or soft collinear effective field theory while yielding valuable input on theories beyond the established one.

In this regard the experimental program on B physics has been at the forefront of the progress in the field of flavor with sustained relevance throughout the last decades and into the future with experiments like LHCb and Belle II. It might be also the source of momentous experimental results if the present deviations from the standard theory are confirmed opening the door for the long overdue breakthrough in flavor physics.

\section{Theory context}

Flavor as it is understood today originates from the (different) mass of same-charge elementary particles. The spectrum of fundamental particles presents the theoretically self-consistent structure of five different-charge particles replicated three times. Each of these three structures consists of three color-charged fermions (quarks) and two color neutral fermions (leptons), all five of them charged under the electroweak group. Explicitly
\begin{gather} \nonumber
q_L\sim (3,2,1/6) \quad
u_R \sim (3,1,2/3) \quad
d_R \sim (3,1,-1/3)\\
\ell_L \sim (1,2,-1/2)\qquad e_R \sim (1,1,-1)\label{SMReps}
\end{gather}
where charge is encoded as representation under the color ($SU(3)_c$), weak isospin ($SU(2)_L$) or hyper-charge ($U(1)_Y$) interactions as (Rep. under $SU(3)_c$, Rep. under $SU(2)_L$, Rep. under $U(1)_Y$) and the sub-index $L,R$ indicates the chirality (helicity at high energy) i.e. Lorentz group $SO(4)\sim SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ representation.

Interactions are given by particle's charges (representations) and controlled by the respective magnitude $g_c,g, g_Y$ of strong, weak-isospin and hypercharge couplings. While representations under a non-abelian group are discreet, charges under the Abelian $U(1)_Y$ constitute  a priori a continuum. Nevertheless for the quantum consistency of the theory anomaly cancellation is required which imposes, given the non-abelian representations, the ratios between the different hyper-charges given in~(\ref{SMReps}).
These are however the similarities between the three copies of generations, to account for flavor one has to explain the differences.

As outlined in the introduction, the difference is mass, in a sufficiently broad acceptation. The conflict within the Standard Model(SM) is that mass cannot be generated for the `theory' outlined above. Mass conflicts with charge conservation of the electroweak symmetry group, yet is an observed property of the low energy world which we experience. The reconciliation between the two is brought about by the Higgs doublet, $H\sim (1,2,1/2)$, and spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. the `concealment' of the electroweak group at low energies. The Higgs scalar field allows for an interaction between different-charge fermions that respects the electroweak symmetry as:
\begin{align}\nonumber
S_Y=&-\int d^4x\left\{\bar q_L Y_u \tilde H u_R +\bar q_L Y_d Hd_R +\bar\ell_L Y_e  He_R\right\}\\
& +{\rm h.c.}\label{Eq:Yuk}
\end{align}
while the vacuum state of the theory has a non-vanishing background value for the Higgs field $\left\langle H\right\rangle=(0,v/\sqrt2)$, $v=246$GeV. This makes the electroweak symmetry not manifest at low energies and yields masses for three of the 4 force carriers of $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$, $W^{\pm}$ and $Z$ leaving only the photon intact. At the same time eq.~(\ref{Eq:Yuk}), when expanded around the vacuum yields a mass term for fermions:
\begin{align}
M_u=&\frac{v}{\sqrt2}Y_u=V^\dagger{\rm diag}(m_u)\,,\\
M_d=&\frac{v}{\sqrt2}Y_d={\rm diag}(m_d)\,,\\
M_e=&\frac{v}{\sqrt2}Y_e={\rm diag}(m_e)\,,
\end{align}
where each entry is a $3\times 3$ matrix for the 3 generations of matter and we have, in the second equality, used the freedom in rotating $q_L,u_R,d_r,\ell,_L,e_R$ fields in flavor 3-space to reduce these matrices to the physical parameters. The diagonal matrices encode the masses for the different generations and present a strong hierarchical pattern for all (electromagnetically) charged fermions as shown in the fig.~\ref{Sktch}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{mass.png}
\caption{Sketch of the fermionic spectrum}\label{Sktch}
\end{figure}
V is the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa unitary mixing matrix with 3 angles and a phase, and the equivalent matrix for neutrinos is
the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata mixing matrix with another 3 angles and a variable number of phases depending on the nature of neutrino masses. The quark mixing angles are small and $V$ a nearly identity-like matrix while opposite stand leptons with large mixing angles and yet to be determine phases. Combine this with neutrinos lying 6 orders of magnitude in mass below the lightest charged fermion and one has a pattern of masses and mixings which is intricate, seemingly capricious and theoretically unaccounted for.

In the vacuum state we can tell the two components of the $SU(2)_L$ doublets $q_L=(u_L,d_L)$  apart and in particular rotate them in flavour space separately to diagonalize mass matrices and shift the unitary matrices to $W$ boson couplings as
\begin{align}
\frac{g}{\sqrt2}\, \bar u_L V \gamma^\mu d_L W_{\mu}^++{\rm h.c.}
\end{align}
while neutral bosons $Z$ and photon couple universally to fermions and the current $\Sigma_i\bar u_{L_i}\gamma u_{L_i}$ stays unchanged under rotations. This fact, which might seem a passing remark, has very relevant phenomenological implications. Different generations change into each other through their couplings to the W boson,  and for example the decay of a third-generation-flavored particle like the B meson will predominantly occur through a `charged current'.

The case of a decay via a neutral current is still possible at the quantum level via virtual charged currents as
\begin{align}
\raisebox{-9.5mm}{\begin{tikzpicture}
	\draw [thick]  (-1,1) node [anchor=north east] {$d_i$}--(0,0)
	\draw [thick] (-1,-1) node [anchor= south east] { $d_j$} -- (0,0)
	\draw [style={decorate, decoration={snake}},thick] (0,0)
	-- (.75,0);
		\draw [style={decorate, decoration={snake}},thick] (-0.6,0.6) node [anchor=west] {$\,\,gV$} -- (-0.6,-0.6)  node [anchor=west] {$gV^\dagger$};
	\end{tikzpicture}}\qquad \sim\,\,
g\frac{g^2}{(4\pi)^2}\frac{V^\dagger_{i k} m^2_{u_k}V_{kj}}{M_W^2} \,,
\end{align}
where the case of down-type external states has a suppression due to small off-diagonal elements in $V$, the case of external up-type has small ratios of masses $m_d/M_W$ as an extra suppression and finally charged leptons in the external states have a very acute small mass suppression $m_\nu/M_W$.

The couplings we have discussed so far, which basically constitute the SM, are however not expected to be the sole interactions that matter possesses. Rather we think of them as the leading terms in a low energy expansion on energy, $E$, with order parameter $E/\Lambda$ and $\Lambda$ a new scale $\geq 246$GeV. In this way a correction to the $Z$ coupling to e.g. leptons reads
\begin{align}
\frac{C}{\Lambda^2}\bar \ell_L \gamma_\mu \ell_L H^\dagger i D H +{\rm h.c.}
\end{align}
which modifies the $Z$ boson interactions as $g(1+C v^2/\Lambda^2)$ and with $C$ a $3\times 3$ matrix in flavor space.
The flavor of $Cv^2/\Lambda^2$ is however highly constrained experimentally; LEP data constrains non-universality ($C_{ii}\neq C_{jj}$) at the per mile level whereas flavor changing $C_{i<j}$ at the per million level.

At lower energies one can test the flavor of these same neutral currents with flavored hadron decays, which in the Standard Model are mediated by EW bosons as, for example,
\begin{align}
\raisebox{-9.5mm}{\begin{tikzpicture}
	\draw [thick]  (-.75,1) node [anchor=north east] {$d_i$}--(0,0)
	\draw [thick] (-.75,-1) node [anchor= south east] { $d_j$} -- (0,0)
	\draw [style={decorate, decoration={snake}},thick] (0,0)
	-- (.75,0);
	\draw [style={decorate, decoration={snake}},thick] (-0.6,0.75) node [anchor=west] {$\,\,gV$} -- (-0.6,-0.75)  node [anchor=west] {$gV^\dagger$};
	\draw [thick] (.75,0) --(1.25,1) node [anchor =east] {$e$};
		\draw [thick] (.75,0) --(1.25,-1) node [anchor=east] {$e$};

	\end{tikzpicture}}\quad \sim\,\,
\frac{g^2}{(4\pi)^2}\frac{V^\dagger_{i k} m^2_{u_k}V_{kj}}{M_W^2}G_
\,,\label{SM4F}
\end{align}
which would generate a four fermion interactions operator like $\bar d_{L_i} \gamma^\mu d_{L_j}  \bar e\gamma^\mu e$.
To these again one expects corrections from physics beyond the SM which we will study in the next section.

\section{Experimental evidence}
In the study of hadrons,
connecting the elements of theory with experiment requires the further step of taking matrix elements. This step is no hurdle in a perturbative theory but the strong character of color interactions at low energies makes it impossible to compute the result from first principles. One then parametrizes its ignorance in form-factors which can be estimated in certain limits or in some cases given by the lattice but eventually it is their uncertainty that rules the theory prediction. A way to avoid these uncertainties is to,  in some sense, use flavor to `factor them out'; consider leptonic or semileptonic decays of $B$ mesons to light leptons ($\mu,e$), we have that in this case the number of form factors collapses into one:
\begin{align}\nonumber
\left\langle  K(k) \right| \bar s\gamma^\mu b_L \left|B(p)\right\rangle &=f_+(q^2)(p+k)^\mu+\mathcal O(m_\ell/m_B)\\
\left\langle 0\right| \bar s\gamma^\mu b_L \left| B_s(p)\right\rangle &=f_{B_s}p^\mu+\mathcal O(m_\ell/m_B)
\end{align}
where by $\mathcal O( m_\ell/m_B)$ we refer to terms which, when contracted with the leptonic matrix element, will be of such order compared to the leading term.
One can now take the ratio of two different final lepton decays to cancel out the form factors and in the process obtain a probe of lepton universality in $B$ decays. This probe is more straightforward in the semi-leptonic case given that the leptonic decay scales with lepton mass due to angular momentum conservation.

One therefore has a clean probe in the search for new physics given that this ratio in the SM is generated by diagrams as the one in ~(\ref{SM4F}) and equal 1 at leading order.
Experimental data on two such ratios from LHCb does indeed deviate at present from 1~\cite{Aaij:2019wad}:
\begin{align} \nonumber
R_K\equiv\frac{B\to K \mu\mu}{B\to K ee}=0.846\,\,\substack{+0.060 \\ -0.054} ({\rm stat}) \substack{+0.014 \\ -0.016} ({\rm sys})
\end{align}
and~\cite{Aaij:2017vbb}
\begin{align} \nonumber
R_K\equiv\frac{B\to K^* \mu\mu}{B\to K^* ee}=0.69\,\,\substack{+0.11 \\ -0.07} ({\rm stat}) \substack{+0.05 \\ -0.05} ({\rm sys})
\end{align}
both in the $1.1$GeV$<q^2<6$GeV bin (LHCb also reports a deviation in a low-$q^2$ bin for $R_K^*$~\cite{Aaij:2017vbb}).
The theory prediction in the SM has negligible uncertainty~\cite{Bordone:2016gaq} and each of the ratios presents a $~2.5\sigma$ significance for a deviation from the SM.
It should also be remarked that a value for $R_K^*$ has been reported by Belle~\cite{Abdesselam:2019wac} although its uncertainty at present makes it compatible with both the SM and LHCb.

There are in addition significant deviations in angular observables in the muon channel with however higher theory uncertainties. All in all the data paints a picture for a new effect which deserves scrutiny.

Before plunging into an analysis however let us inspect the type of physics that the new effect displays:
\begin{itemize}
\item Flavor-changing in the quark sector
\item Flavor-conserving but universality-violating in the lepton sector
\item Magnitude around to the Standard Model
\end{itemize}
Flavor changing effects are indeed, for the reasons elaborated in the previous section, a powerful probe into new physics given the low SM model `background' but then why does the effect has the size of the SM contribution and is not one, two orders of magnitude above? This could be because it is produced by particles of masses not far from the EW scale and connected to the hierarchy problem. On the other hand, all points above can be summarized in, why have we not seen this effect elsewhere, e.g. purely hadronic or leptonic physics? We do not have the answers to these questions, and that is what brightens the prospects in the field.

\section{Analysis}
The model-independent analysis of new physics behind the $R_{K^{(*)}}$ anomalies is analogous to the discussion in sec.~II, let us sketch it here while a more in depth review can be found in e.g.~\cite{Cerri:2018ypt}.
At the $B$-meson scale the electroweak-boson mediated processes that induce flavor changing neutral current decays (e.g.~\ref{SM4F}) take the form of 4 fermion contact interactions given that the $W,Z$ are not kinematically accesible.
This is to say that the relevant interactions read:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Leffnc}
S_{\rm n.c.}=
\int d^4x \frac{4 G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V^\dagger _{bt}V_{ts} C_k  \mathcal{O}_k,
\end{equation}
where the basis contains 4 fermion operators generated by the SM like
\begin{align}\label{eq:semilOps}
\mathcal{O}_9  &=
\frac{e^2}{(4 \pi)^2} [\bar s \gamma_\mu  P_ Lb][\bar{l} \gamma^\mu l],\\
\mathcal{O}_{10}  = &
\frac{e^2}{(4 \pi)^2} [\bar s \gamma_\mu  P_L b][\bar{l} \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 l],
\end{align}
with  $C_9^{SM}=4.24\simeq -C_{10}^{SM} $ but in generality one considers {\bf all} other possible four fermion structures including deviations in the above, their chiral partners $\mathcal{O}_{9,10}^\prime=\mathcal{O}_{9,10}(L\to R)$ and~\cite{Bobeth:2007dw}:
\begin{align}\label{eq:nonSM:scalars}
\mathcal{O}_S^{(\prime)} & = \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi)^2} [\bar s P_{R(L)} b] [\bar{l} l], \\
\mathcal{O}_P^{(\prime)}  &= \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi)^2} [\bar s P_{R(L)} b] [\bar{l} \gamma_5 l],
\\
\mathcal{O}_T   & = \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi)^2} [\bar s \sigma_{\mu\nu} b][\bar{l} \sigma^{\mu\nu} l], \\ \label{eq:nonSM:tensors}
\mathcal{O}_{T5} & = \frac{e^2}{(4 \pi)^2} [\bar s \sigma_{\mu\nu} b][\bar{l} \sigma^{\mu\nu} \gamma_5 l],
\end{align}
where we note a loop factor $\alpha_{\rm em}/4\pi=e^2/(4\pi)^2$ is used in the definition of the operators and hence we expect  a  coefficient of $16\pi^2 v^2/\Lambda^2$ from tree level new physics of mass $\Lambda$. This points at masses of $\Lambda\sim30$TeV given the size of deviations.

A closer look narrows down the possible operators, at least for a sizable improvement of the new physics statistical agreement with data over the SM.
One first thing to notice is that if the scale of new physics is above the EW scale it must admit a description in terms of representations of the full SM group $SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$. So we can try and promote the fermion fields in  the operators of (\ref{eq:semilOps}-\ref{eq:nonSM:tensors}) to full representations, take a tensor operator for example
\begin{align}
\underset{U(1)_Y:}{} \,\,\,\,\underset{1/3}{\bar d_R}\sigma_{\mu\nu} \underset{1/6}{\bar q_L} \underset{1}{\bar e_R} \sigma_{\mu\nu} \underset{-1/2}{ \ell_L}  \,\,\,\,\underset{\Sigma \neq 0}{}
\end{align}
so the hyper-charge does not add up to one and given that $\sigma_{\mu\nu}P_L\otimes \sigma_{\mu\nu}P_R=0$ we find there is no operator producing such a structure at dimension 6.
It can be generated at dimension 8 with the insertion of Higgs doublets but given that it is a sub-sub-leading effect we discard it here. The rest of operators can be generated from the fully gauge invariant basis:
\begin{align}
Q_{\ell q}^{(1)}          =      & (\overline q \gamma^\mu q_L)(\bar \ell \gamma_\mu \ell_L) &
Q_{\ell q}^{(3)}          =      & (\overline q\vec{\tau} \gamma^\mu q_L)\cdot(\bar \ell \vec{\tau} \gamma_\mu \ell_L)\nonumber\\
Q_{\ell d}        =       & (\bar d \gamma^\mu d_R)(\bar \ell \gamma_\mu \ell_L)&
Q_{qe}     =          & (\overline q \gamma_\mu q_L)(\overline e \gamma^\mu e_R)   \nonumber\\
Q_{ed}   =                   & (\bar d_R \gamma^\mu d_R)(\overline e \gamma_\mu e_R) &
Q_{\ell edq} =& (\bar \ell_L e_R)(\overline d_R q) \label{eq:Leffdown}
\end{align}
yet we note there are two scalar operators above only ($Q_{\ell edq}$ and its h.c.) vs 4 in eqs.(14-15) so their coefficient are related by gauge invariance as:
\begin{align}
C_P&=-C_S\,, & C_P^\prime&=-C_S^\prime\,.
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[h]
	\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{CSP.jpg}
	\caption{Bounds on scalar ops from leptonic $B_{s,d}$ decays}\label{CSP}
\end{figure}
Furthermore the two remaining scalar paremeters $C_S, C_S^\prime$ contribute to fully leptonic decays without the SM chiral suppression and hence subject to severe bounds as displayed in fig.~\ref{CSP}.
This is so much so~\cite{Alonso:2014csa} that scalar operators cannot acount for the deviations in $R_{K,K^*}$.

One is therefore left with current-current operators only. Here consideration of the fact that there is deficit in both $K$ and $K^*$ modes which are excited by the vector and axial currents respectively, implies that new physics shares approximately the chiral structure of the SM. This selects $\mathcal O_{9,10}$ and discards $\mathcal O_{9,10}^{\prime}$, see e.g.~\cite{DAmico:2017mtc,Geng:2017svp}. Finally the latest data has preference for a chiral current in the lepton sector too, $\delta C_9=-\delta C_{10}$~\cite{Aebischer:2019mlg} leaving us at the end of this analysis with one operator (parameter) only.

The question of why does the effect has the SM magnitude therefore becomes more acute; it has not only the SM size but also its chirality structure. Perhaps this is indicative of all sources of flavor in nature residing in left-handed currents?
The more pressing question is nonetheless related to the other points raised in sec.~III as to why has this effect not appeared in other processes and whether it is even compatible with other bounds.
One should indeed inspect other very precisely measured processes in e.g. kaon physics, lepton universality violating $Z$ decays or lepton flavor violating decays. The issue with these other processes is that their modification is model dependent, yet one can stick to the effective analysis and minimal case of operators $\mathcal O_{9,10}$ only and estimate their loop level phenomenology via renormalization group evolution~\cite{Buras:2014fpa,Feruglio:2017rjo}. The result is that the $R_{K^{(*)}}$ anomalies can be accommodated while while compatible with other constraints.

The next step in the analysis is to inspect the possible UV completions that would produce the 4 fermion operators and the searches for new resonances. `Opening up' the operator as in the classification of the seesaw model types, yields two possibilites, $Z^\prime$ models or leptoquarks. Their study however falls beyond the present letter, see {\bf WedE1400} in this conference's proceedings.

Before closing however we would like to point out a possible explanation for the leptonic structure of the anomalies and its testing. It has been argued that lepton universality violation brings about lepton flavor violation~\cite{Glashow:2014iga}. While neutrinos massiveness is certainly a source of lepton flavor violation in practice new physics might have a flavor structure disconnected from it. If so one can motivate with symmetry the absence of flavor violation while allowing for non-universality by postulating that the new physics respects a $U(1)_e\times U(1)_\mu\times U(1)_\tau$ symmetry, that is an independent phase rotation for each generation. This symmetry is defined in the mass basis of the charged leptons so one could argue that this proposal is simply the alignment of new physics flavor with the mass of charged leptons. However, this alignment is not necessary if {\it the source of flavor in the new phyis is the charged lepton mass matrix}, that is $Y_e$ in eq.~\ref{Eq:Yuk}. This idea is indeed realized in minimal flavor violation and can be formulated in terms of a bigger encompassing flavor group. The reader is referred to~\cite{Alonso:2015sja} for the fully fleshed formulation, here we shortcut to the consequences in the coefficients for operators $\mathcal O_{9,10}$
\begin{align}
\frac{e^2}{(4\pi)^2}V^\dagger _{bt}V_{ts}\left( \delta C_9\right)_\alpha=-\frac{v^2}{\Lambda^2}\frac{m_\alpha^2}{m_\tau^2} \label{eqMLFV}
\end{align}
with $\alpha$ marking lepton flavor $\alpha=e,\mu,\tau$  and $\delta C_{10}=-\delta C_9$.
\begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=80mm]{MLFVFig.png}
	\caption{Correlation between different lepton flavor observables in the scenario of eq.~(\ref{eqMLFV}).} \label{MLFVFig}
\end{figure}
In this way the anomalies in $R_{K^{(*)}}$ can be accommodated by a modification of the muon channel yet an immediate consequence is an $O(10^3)$ enhancement in tauonic processes. Surprising as it might seem this is compatible with present data, see fig.~\ref{MLFVFig} and furthermore has the right size to accommodate the deivations in ratios in the charged current decays $B\to D^{(*)}\ell \nu$,~\cite{Alonso:2015sja}.

\section{Summary}
The present letter was meant as a brief and colloquial presentation of the theory perspective on the flavor changing neutral current anomalies $R_{K^{(*)}}$. The emphasis was on the questions that these observations pose for the theorist and an example of how a possible answer can be tested experimentally.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was supported by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan.
\end{acknowledgments}

\bigskip