1 / 74

CP Violation for the Heaven and the Earth — Sighting the 4th Generation ?

CP Violation for the Heaven and the Earth — Sighting the 4th Generation ?. December 15, 2008 , NTU-UCDavis Exch. @ NTU. Can all this be understood from my vantage ?. Story of a star-gazing ant. Outline. I. Genesis 1:1 , BAU , and CP Violation

abonnie
Download Presentation

CP Violation for the Heaven and the Earth — Sighting the 4th Generation ?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CP Violation for the Heaven and the Earth — Sighting the 4th Generation? December 15, 2008,NTU-UCDavis Exch. @ NTU

  2. Can all this be understood from my vantage? Story of a star-gazing ant

  3. Outline I. Genesis 1:1, BAU, and CP Violation II. The Abyss: BAU and CPV in Standard Model III. Walking on Earth Experiment & Phenomenology IV. Heavenly: CPV in KM4 Sufficient for BAU? V. Discussion Dominant CPV; Towards Tevatron/LHC; EWSB? VI. Conclusion: Carried to Heaven? Abyss b → s CPV 4 WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05; PRD’05; PRD’07 Belle, Nature, 452, 20 (2008) WSH, arXiv:0803.1234 [hep/ph]

  4. I. Genesis 1:1, BAU, and CP Violation

  5. Matter (?) Matter! Antimatter: 0%

  6. (1967) CPV & BAU (& U): The Sakharov View • Baryon Number V iolation • CP Violation • Deviation from Equilibrium 10-9Matterleft! 13Byr Bang Us Pair Annihilation (  Cosmic Microwave Background ) Equal Matter -Antimatter

  7. Sakharov Stimulated by ... Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 138 (1964) Discovery of CP Violation

  8. II. The Abyss: BAU and CPV in Standard Model Abyss WMAP Too Small in SM

  9. Complex Dynamics: KM Sector of SM VCKM 3x3 “Rotation” Unitary Need presence of all 3 generations to exhibit CPV in Standard Model

  10. The Nobel Prize in Physics 2008 "for the discovery of the origin of the broken symmetry which predicts the existence of at least three families of quarks in nature" "for the discovery of the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in subatomic physics" CPViolation in SM 7 October 2008 B Factory

  11. b  d transitions consistent with SM “Nontrivial”

  12. Wolfenstein Parametrization to O(5) Unique CPV Phase: Common Area of Triangle

  13. All like-charge quark pairs nondegenerate, • Otherwise  Back to 2-gen. and CPV vanish Jarlskog’s Invariant for CPV CPV so far only observed in KM ... • Nontrivial CPV Phase: A • Nontrivial

  14. Normalize by T ~ 100 GeV in SM is common (unique) area of triangle The Abyss: CPV in KMand B.A.U. The Lore WMAP Too Small in SM Jarlskog Invariant in SM3 (need 3 generation in KM) EW Phase Transition Temperature Masses too Small! ~ v.e.v. CPV Phase Small, but not Too small

  15. u, d, s, c, b quarks too light v.e.v. Why Repeat ? “Flavor Problem”

  16. IV. Walking on Earth b → s CPV the Experimentalist and Phenomenology

  17. Dispair Obligé

  18. Belle 2008 Nature: Simple Bean Count DA =AK+p0-AK+p-=+0.1640.037 4.4s +0.070.03vs-0.0940.020 Difference Is Large ! Paoti Chang’s talk

  19. 275M BB New Saga Towards Belle Nature Paper ... ACP(B  K+p0 ) Sakai Kp0 : 728 53 ACP(Kp0) = 0.04  0.05  0.02 hint thatACP(K+p- ) ¹ACP(Kp0 ) ? (2.4s) [also seen by BaBar] d p0 Large EW penguin (Z0) ? New Physics ? _ d B- b s K- u u ICHEP 2004, Beijing

  20. Belle 2004 PRL: Seed Y. Chao, P. Chang et al. by “yours truly” PEW Z’

  21. C PEW Wisdom from Peskin “hadronic”

  22. Peskin (private communication) “I must say that I am very skeptical that the new Belle result is new physics -- a larger than expected color suppressed amplitude is an explanation that is ready at hand. On the other hand, I felt that it was necessary to push the new physics interpretation when writing for the Nature audience, people outside of high energy physics, because this is why the result is potentially newsworthy.” Ya, ya! Need 1010anyway ! I’ll keep crawlin’... colorsuppressed

  23. d p0 _ d B- b s K- u u The Crawlin’ of one Ant Going Up a Hill ...

  24. My first B paper WSH, Willey, Soni dimensions < nondecoupling

  25. Decoupling Thm: Heavy Masses are decoupled in QED/QCD ∵Appear in Propagator Nondecoupling: Yukawa CouplingslQAppear in Numerator dynamical Subtlety of Spont. Broken Gauge Theory

  26. d p0 _ d B- b s K- u u The Crawlin’ of one Ant ,t’ Embark Going Up a Hill ...

  27. My first B paper ... on 4th generation also 

  28. 4thgeneration not in such great conflict with EWPrT • Kribs, Plehn, Spannowsky, Tait, PRD’07 4th Generation Still? - Nn counting? 4th “neutrino” heavy Massive neutrinos call for new Physics - Disfavored by EW Precision (see e.g. J. Erler hep-ph/0604035; PDG06

  29. This is Still the Standard Model

  30. Arhrib and WSH, EPJC’03 t➯t, t’ CPV Phase t t GIM Respecting

  31. d p0 _ d t, t’ b s B- K- u u NLO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen. Joining C & PEW DA 15% DS  -0.11 consistent with data SM3 input DS DA Both and in Right Direction ! DA= AK+p0-AK+p- ~ 15% and LO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen. WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 DA 12% vs 15% (data) Can Account for Belle/BaBar Direct CPV Difference WSH, Li, Mishima, Nagashima, PRL’07

  32. _ Z bb b  d x ~ 0.22 4 x 4 Unitarity ➯Z/K Constraints “Typical” CKM Matrix WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’05 Extract Information from Constraints s b d s Nontrivial Satisfy b  d: ✓ Cannot tell triangle from quadrangle b  s

  33. Measured by Belle/BaBar CPV in Bd and Bs Mixing in SM b → d b → s sin2FBs = – 0.04 in SM3 sin2FBd Measure in Bs J/yf -sinbs CDF sinfsD∅

  34. Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like Strength and Size of WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 Prediction: Large CPV in Bs Mixing b → d b → s t, t ’ t, t ’ sin2FBs ~ -0.4 to -0.7 No Hadronic Uncertainty ... -0.04 SM

  35. Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 Prediction: Large CPV in Bs Mixing WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 SM (high) rsb Bs Mixing Measured @ Tevatron in 4/2006 • Fixed rsb➯ Narrow fsb Range • destructive with top • For rsb ~ 0.02 – 0.03, [Vcb ~ 0.04 • fsb Range ~ 60°-70° CDF2srange FiniteCPV Phase sin2FBs ~ -0.5 - -0.7 ? -0.04 SM

  36. Prediction: Large CPV in Bs Mixing WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 SM (high) rsb DAKp, DS CDF2srange Can Large CPV in Bs Mixing Be Measured @ Tevatron ? Sure thing by LHCb ca. 2010 (?) Sign Predicted ! sin2FBs ~ -0.5 - -0.7 ? -0.04 SM Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05

  37. sin2FBs~ -0.5 --0.7 WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 arXiv:0712.2397 [hep.ex] arXiv:0802.2255 [hep.ex] 3.7s +0.16 -0.14 sin2FBs=-0.64 UTfit arXiv:0803.0659 [hep.ph] (already in 05) PRL’08 Further ICHEP’08 Updates (CDF/DØ/fitters): Strengthen ! ~2.5s ± ? Incredible !!!

  38. WSH,Nagashima,Soddu, PRD’07 (hep-ph/0610385) 4th Generation ? Did not ask for this ! Tevatron can compete w/ LHCb iff |sin2FBs|> 0.4

  39. sin2FBs =-sinbs=sinfs (Conservative) outlook % of CDF ‘clones’ that would observe a 5σ-effect, as a function of βs • Assumptions • ΔΓs = 0.1 ps-1 • Constant data-taking efficiency • No analysis improvements. • No external constraints (ASL, lifetimes) used. Observationby 2010 if Central Value Stays ! Probability of 5σ observation CDF future will probably be better than that. And DØwill contribute too. βs --- 8/fb (~2010) --- 6/fb (~2009) D. Tonelli- Fermilab

  40. III. Heavenly: CPV in KM Sufficient for BAU? If ... KM4

  41. Normalize by T ~ 100 GeV in SM is common (unique) area of triangle CPV Phase B.A.U. fromCPV in KM? WMAP Too Small in SM Why? Jarlskog Invariant in SM3 (need 3 generation in KM) masses too small!

  42. in SM Order 1 ~ 30 CPV Phase B.A.U. fromCPV in KM? Enough CPV? WMAP Too Small in SM If shift by One Generation in SM4(need 3 generation in KM) Providence WSH, arXiv:0803.1234 [hep/ph] Moriond QCD ~ 10+15 Gain Nature would likely use this !? Gain mostly in Large Yukawa Couplings !

  43. The Abyss between CPV in SM3 vs BAU bridged in SM4 by Heaviness of t’and b’ Why wasn’t this clearly pointed out in past 20 years?

  44. 4thgeneration not in such great conflict with EWPrT • Kribs, Plehn, Spannowsky, Tait, PRD’07 4th Generation Still? - Nn counting? 4th “neutrino” heavy Massive neutrinos call for new Physics - Disfavored by EW Precision (see e.g. J. Erler hep-ph/0604035; PDG06 (To Me) CPV Source for BAU Overrides These Concerns !

  45. V. Discussion • 2-3-4 Dominance of CPV/BAU • Tevatron/LHC Verification • Large Yukawa: Source for EWSB ?

  46. b → d b → s Only fac. 30 in CPV per se 10+15 Gain mostly in Large Yukawa Couplings ! quadrangle from comprehensive study WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD05 ~ 10+15 Gain 10+13 This part will shrink a bit.

  47. 4 generations: 3 indep. phases long and short d-s degenerate 2-3-4 generation only ! Effectively 3 generations (on v.e.v. scale) CPV for BAU: 2-3-4 Dominance Jarlskog’87,n generations Jarlskog’85, 3 generations “3 cycles” also Gronau, Kfir, Loewy ’87 J(1,2,3) very small suppressed by ms, mc

  48. LHC • sin2FBs “Confirmation” — “Easy” for LHCb • b’, t’ Discovery —Straightforward/full terrain Tevatron/LHC Verification Unequivocal BSM ... if true Tevatron • sin2FBs “Evidence” by 2009 ? • “Observe” by 2010 ? • t’ Search Ongoing: • mt’ > 311 GeV @ 95% CL Robin Erbacher’s talk When ? Agenda of Taiwan-CMS

  49. Sighting Vision ~ Early ’06 • 4th generation? — The jury is out … In era of LHC, can Directly Search for b’, t’ Once and For All ! Find b’, t’, or Rule Out @ LHC It’s a Duty. • Strategy Considerations ( ) • Well shielded training ground— All Tools • ☞ Move on to Greener Pastures ~ 2 years • Publish early — Large Cross Section • - If “Limits”, then easy to publish • - If “Signal”, Lucked Out! Well shielded Publish early

  50. Initial discovery should consider b’  cW ~ b’  bZ, bH ~b’  tW* For mb’ > mt+MW = 255 GeV b’  tW dominance; FCNC searchable b’ Signatures For mb’ < mt+MW = 255 GeV b’  cW dominance b’  tW* dominance for sizable for suppressed Kinematic suppressed for mb’≲ 230 GeV Bonus !! cc(bar)WW; cWbZ; cWbH; tc(bar)WW*; tt(bar)W*W*; tW*bZ; tW*bH; Rich Signature Heavy Q related To EWSB ? 4 W’s + 2b’s tt(bar)WW → bb(bar)W+W-W+W-

More Related