640 likes | 763 Views
A New Solution for Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe. July 3 2008, 2nd Open meeting for proto-sBelle @ KEK. Outline. I. The Lore that Despairs the Experimenter BAU; KM; Heavenly TH; Belle’04, D A K p and P EW II. Going Up a Hill ...
E N D
A New Solution for Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe July 3 2008,2nd Open meeting for proto-sBelle@ KEK
Outline I. The Lore that Despairs the Experimenter BAU; KM; Heavenly TH;Belle’04, DAKp and PEW II. Going Up a Hill ... Embark; Constraints; Consistency; b → s CP Phase III. ... (maybe) Becoming a Mountain sin2FBs; AFB;DmD; [KL → pnn] expexp (exp) IV. Soaring to the Starry Heavens Boxes, Penguins, Yukawas; CPVBAU Redux V. Towards Solution of BAU CPV — 2-3-4 Dominance; Phase Trans. — Strong Coupling? VI. Verification @ LHC ? sin2FBs Confirmation VII. Conclusion s b 4 ; b’, t’ Discovery
Dispair Obligé
Sakharov Conditions:MatterUniverse Sakharov (1967) Antimatter →Matter if: (1) Proton Decay(Baryon # Violation) (2) Matter-antimatter Asymm.(CP Violation) (3) Out of Equilibrium Particle Physics Astrophysics
Electroweak Baryogenesis !? Kuzmin, Rubakov, Shaposhnikov, 1986 Sakharov (1967) Antimatter →Matter if: (1) Proton Decay(Baryon # Violation) (2) Matter-antimatter Asymm.(CP Violation) (3) Out of Equilibrium ✔ Too Small ! Challenge EWPhT a crossover ! (not strong enough ...) Particle Physics Astrophysics Continue Search for CP Violation
Too Small in SM Normalize by T ~ 100 GeV in SM is common (unique) area of triangle B.A.U. fromCPV in KM? WMAP Why? Jarlskog Invariant in SM3 (need 3 generation in KM) masses too small ! CPV Phase
Heavenly TH “Affleck-Dine”, SUSY etc.: Extra Scalars (strongly) coupled to H0 Leptogenesis: Heavy Majorana Neutrinos ⊕ LFV/CPV Decay ⊕ B/L Violation (“EW Baryogenesis”) More Scalars! Popular! Driving q13 study for neutrinos. But, “Heavenly”— Could be(come) Metaphysics
Belle 2004 PRL: Seed by “yours truly” PEW Z’
275M BB New ACP(B K+p0 ) Sakai Kp0 : 728 53 ACP(Kp0) = 0.04 0.05 0.02 hint thatACP(K+p- ) ¹ACP(Kp0 ) ? (2.4s) [also seen by BaBar] d p0 Large EW penguin (Z0) ? New Physics ? _ d B- b s K- u u ICHEP 2004, Beijing
3.8s 2005
Belle 2008 Nature: Simple Bean Count DA =AK+p0-AK+p-=+0.1640.037 4.4s +0.070.03vs-0.0940.020
+0.0500.025 -0.0970.012 ? A lot of (hadronic) finesse d p0 _ d b s B- K- u u World = +0.1470.028> 5s Experiment is Firm DAKp~ 0 expected Why aPuzzle ? Large C ? Large EWPenguin? Baek, London, PLB653, 249 (2007) Need NP CPV Phase PEW has practically no weak phase in SM t, ?
Wisdom from Peskin C PEW
color suppressed 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’.
d p0 _ d B- b s K- u u II. Going Up a Hill ...
My first B paper dimensions nondecoupling
My first B paper ... also on 4th generation
+0.0500.025 -0.0970.012 ? A lot of (hadronic) finesse d p0 _ d b s B- K- u u World = +0.1470.028> 5s Experiment is Firm DAKp~ 0 expected Why aPuzzle ? Large C ? Large EWPenguin? Baek, London, PLB653, 249 (2007) Need NP CPV Phase PEW has practically no weak phase in SM t, ? t, t’ 4th Gen. in EWP Natural nondecoupling
d p0 _ d B- b s K- u u ,t’ Embark Going Up a Hill ...
- Nn counting? 4th “neutrino” heavy Massive neutrinos call for new Physics • 4thgeneration not in such great conflict with EWPrT • Kribs, Plehn, Spannowsky, Tait, PRD’07 4th Generation Still? - Disfavored by EW Precision (see e.g. J. Erler hep-ph/0604035; PDG06
Arhrib and WSH, EPJC’03 t➯t, t’ CPV Phase t t GIM Respecting
d p0 _ d t, t’ b s B- K- u u NLO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen. WSH, Li, Mishima, Nagashima, PRL’07 DA 15% DS -0.11 vs -0.340.2x (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) Joining C & PEW
Consistency and b sg Predictions PDG ’06 SM3 SM3 BR OK ACP ~ 0 far away beyond SuperB Heavy t’ effect decoupled for b sg
_ Z bb b d x ~ 0.22 4 x 4 Unitarity ➯Z/K Constraints “Typical” CKM Matrix WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’05 s b d s Satisfy b d: ✓ Cannot tell triangle from quadrangle b s
~ SM3 Strength and Size of b → d “Triangle” andb → s Quadrangle b → d negligible b → s b → s Quadrangle Area ~ (-)30x b → d Triangle (almost Triangle)
human ants III. ... (maybe) Becoming a Mountain
Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 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 ?
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. 2009 Sign Predicted ! sin2FBs ~ -0.5 --0.7 ? Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05
sin2FBs~ -0.5 --0.7 WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 arXiv:0712.2397 [hep.ex] arXiv:0802.2255 [hep.ex] 3.7s ~2.5s ± ? +0.16 -0.14 sin2FBs=-0.64 Incredible !!! UTfit arXiv:0803.0659 [hep.ph]
WSH,Nagashima,Soddu, PRD’07 (hep-ph/0610385) 4th Generation ? Did not ask for this ! Tevatron can compete w/ LHCb iff |sin2FBs|> 0.4
CDF now interested in 4th generation.
Fourth Generation PRD 77, 014016 (2008) Quoted byTsybychev at FPCP08 a: SM; b: 4 Gen. better data: LHCb MC (2 fb-1) (FL and)AFB (and AI) favor the “opposite-sign C7 model” Ali, Mannel, Morozumi, PLB273, 505 (1991) Eigen at FPCP08 349 fb-1 386M 229M
D Mixing (Short-distance Only) PDG06 310 270 From 4 x 4 Unitarity mb’ = 230 GeV x = Dm/G ~ 1 - 3 plausible w/ Sizable (but not huge) CPV in Mixing ~ -15% N.B. SM LD could generate y ~ 1%, x ≈ y [Falk, Grossman, Ligeti, (Nir,) Petrov]
On Boxes and Z Penguins Z t, t’
On Boxes and Z Penguins GIM, charm,K small ’/, K pnn (still waiting) heavy top, sin2f1/b Z dominance for heavy top 1986 2002 Most Flavor/CPV learned from these diagrams
On Boxes and Z Penguins Nondecoupling GIM, charm,K ∵ Large Yukawa! small ’/, K pnn (still waiting) heavy top, sin2f1/b Bs Z dominance for heavy top AFB 1986 2002 All w/ 3-generations, Just wait if there’s a 4th D ! b’,t’ @ LHC
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 !
in SM is common (unique) area of triangle Only fac. 30 in CPV per se 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 !
b → d b → s Only fac. 30 in CPV per se 10+15 Gain mostly in Large Yukawa Couplings ! ~ 10+15 Gain 10+13
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) small
b → d b → s If Vus shrinks to a point Difference in area for b → s Small b → s Quadrangle Area ~ (-)30x b → d Triangle (almost Triangle) 2nd argument that is predominant CPV 4 generations: 3 indep. phases 4 generations: 3 indep. phases
1st Order Phase Trans. for BAU ? Ran out of time, and knowledge ... • Fok & Kribs: Not possible in 4th generation • Conjecture: Could Strong Yukawa’s do it ? Beyond Unitarity Limit Holdom
VI. Verification @ LHC ? • sin2FBs Confirmation — “Easy” for LHCb • b’, t’ Discovery —Straightforward at LHC