1 / 52

hoecker@lal2p3.fr

B Physics , CP Violation and the CKM Fit. Andreas Höcker (LAL, Orsay). FNAL Colloquium, May 18, 2005. hoecker@lal.in2p3.fr. Outline. Themes :. Introduction CKM phase invariance and unitarity Statistical issues CKM metrology the traditional inputs deep B physics : , , 

espen
Download Presentation

hoecker@lal2p3.fr

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. B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit Andreas Höcker (LAL, Orsay) FNAL Colloquium, May 18, 2005 hoecker@lal.in2p3.fr A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  2. Outline Themes : • Introduction • CKM phase invariance and unitarity • Statistical issues • CKM metrology • the traditional inputs • deep B physics :, ,  • a new star : B+  + • the global CKM fit • Related topics (radiative B decays and the B  K system) • Preparing the future A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  3. To start with … • The Universe is empty* ! • The Universe is almost empty* ! Bigi, Sanda, “CP Violation” (2000) • Initial condition ? • Dynamically generated ? Sakharov rules (1967) to explain Baryogenesis • Baryon number violation • CP violation • No thermic equilibrium (non-stationary system) • So, if we believe to have understood CPV in the quark sector, what does it signify ? • A sheer accident of nature ? • What would it do to us if “we set” the CKM phase to zero ? see in this respect: B. Cahn, “The eighteen arbitrary parameters of the Standard Model in your everyday life”, RMP 68, 951 (1996) A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  4. V.L. Fitch R. Turlay J.W. Cronin J.H. Christenson CP Violation is flavor physics Moments of glory in flavor physics : • Discovery of CP violation (1964) • The smallness of KL  +– predicts charm quark (GIM) • KM theory (to describe CP violation) predicts third quark generation • mK = m(KL) – m(KS) predicts mass of charm quark • Frequency of B0B0 mixing (mB) predicts heavy top quark • Prove of KM theory (sin2) • … ? PRL 13, 138 (1964) [cited: 1067 times] A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  5. (parenthesis) Evolution of working conditions (example BABAR) : BABAR: PRL 87, 091801 (2001) [cited: 308 times] Belle: PRL 87, 091802 (2001) [cited: 319 times] … 593 physicists (in early 2005). A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  6. The Search for New Physics in the B System • Since the precise measurement of sin2β in decays (in perfect agreement with the SM), there is considerable effort at B Factories towards the search for specific signs of New Physics (NP).WHY ? • Conflict between limits from flavor physics  1 TeV (e.g., K0, D0, B0 mixing), and NP scale (1 TeV)  NP cannot have a generic flavor structure • The gauge hierarchy Problem (Higgs sector, scale ~ 1 TeV) • Baryogenesis (CKM CPV too small) • The strong CP Problem (why is  ~ 0 ?) • Grand Unification of the gauge couplings • ... many more see, e.g., the instructive talk by Yuval Grossman at LP’03: hep-ph/0310229 A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  7. New Physics: some possibilities • Minimal flavor violation (MFV) models : CP violation is completely governed by CKM precision tests in rare processes Q : why ? • The NP is essentially flavor blind up to large scales test of CP violation in flavor conserving processes (EDM, …) Q : and what about the leptons ? • Intermediate solutions (example : only b  s transitions are affected by low energy NP), … Q : why would these two families by special ? • … and other still unknown alternatives, which certainly will give the correct answer A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  8. Im Im Im Q q W– Q CP Violation (Im[...]  0) VqQ q  J/2 J/2   Re Re Re Jarlskog invariant J = 0  no VCP Jarlskog, PRL 55, 1039 (1985) phase invariant : The CKM Matrix and the Unitarity Triangle d s b u c t    A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  9. If one wishes (not necessary for the analysis), one can Taylor expand in  and finds : digression :The Unitary Wolfenstein Parameterization • The standard parameterization uses Euler angles and one CPV phase  unitary ! • Now, define • And insert into V V is still unitary ! With this one finds (to all orders in ) : where: Buras et al., PRD 50, 3433 (1994) A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  10. Flavor Physics and CP Violation P940 E787/949 BTEV ATLAS KEK / J-PARC Super-B ? NA48 CLEO-c Super-BABAR ? (?) + EDM experiments at several places in the world Present and future - Worldwide Program on A. Höcker – Mid-Term at the B Factories : the New Picture of CP Violation

  11. The BdSystem(e+e–(4S) factories) the Bd is also produced by the hadron machines A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  12. CMS ATLAS The Bs System (hadron machines) the Bs is not produced by the (4S)B factories A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  13. oneandone oneandone oneandone Asymmetric-Energy B Factories (ex. PEP II) e+ e– 3 km Quantum coherence : at t = 0, the system is a superposition of : 9 GeV e– against 3.1 GeV e+ : • coherent production of neutral B pair • boost of (4S) in the laboratory : = 0.56 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen phenomenon : measurement of flavor of one meson determines flavor of other meson at same proper time; this property is exploited for the “flavor tagging” A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  14. The Global CKM Fit Inspired by the global electroweak fits A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  15. Fitting Approach Constraints on theoretical parameters Measurement xexp ytheo = (A,,,,mt,, …) Theoretical predictions = (BK,fB,BBd, …) Xtheo(ymodel= ytheo ,yQCD) yQCD Define: “2” = – 2 lnL(ymodel) L(ymodel) =Lexp[– xtheo(ymodel)]Ltheo(yQCD) ytheo – free parameters (DON’T USE PDFs !) xexp statistical quantities « guesstimates » Frequentist:Rfit Bayesian • experimental likelihood • if not available: Gaussian errors • asymmetric errors • correlations between xexp’s Uniform likelihoods: “allowed ranges” CKMfitter Group and others Probabilities UTfit Collaboration A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  16. Three-Step CKM Analysis using Rfit Probing the SM Metrology Test New Physics • Define: ymod = {a; µ} = {, , A,,yQCD,...} • Set Confidence Levels in {a} space, irrespective of the µvalues • Fit with respect to {µ} ²min;µ(a) = minµ{²(a, µ) } • ²(a)=²min;µ(a)–²min;ymod CL(a) = 1 –Prob(²(a), Ndof) (or toy MC) • If CL(SM) good Obtain limits on New Physics parameters • If CL(SM) bad Try some other model • Test of “Goodness-of-fit” • Evaluate global minimum ²min;ymod(ymod-opt) • Create perfect data set : xexp-opt = xtheo(ymod-opt) generate xexp usingLexp • Perform many toy fits:²min-toy(ymod-opt)  F(²min-toy) AH-Lacker-Laplace-Le Diberder EPJ C21 (2001) 225, [hep-ph/0104062] A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  17. m e t r o l o g y Inputs to the Global CKM Fit • |Vud| and |Vus| [not discussed here] • |Vub| and |Vcb| • CPV in K0 mixing • Bd and Bs mixing • sin2 •  : • B • B • B •  : • ADS, GLW • Dalitz • B+  + A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  18. |Vub /Vcb | sin2 |Vcb| and |Vub| • For|Vcb|and|Vub|existexclusive and inclusive semileptonic approaches d s b exclusive inclusive B Xu ℓ B  ℓ b u u b c c B D* ℓ B Xc ℓ dominant uncertainties t Form factor OPE (|Vcb,ub|) and shape function (|Vub|) • |Vub| ( 2 +2) is crucial for the SM prediction of sin(2 ) • |Vcb| ( A) is important in the kaon system (K, BR(K ), …) A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  19. (|Vub|) = 5% (|Vcb|) = 5% |Vcb| and |Vub| • Inclusive approaches most appealing at present nonperturbative corrections free quark decay • |Vcb| : moments analyses have 1.5–2% precision ! CKM-05 • |Vub| : reduced conflict between excl. and incl. • SF params. from bcl , OPE from Bosch et al. • reduction of central value 4.6  4.110–3 • ℓ result goes up with Lattice FF (unquenched) CKMfitter average A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  20. no |Vcb| inclusive CPV in Neutral Kaon Mixing • Neutral kaon mixing (FCNC) mediated by box diagrams effective matrix element • Most precise results from amplitude ratio of KL to KS decays to +– and 00 • ij from perturbative QCD • improvement on BKfrom Lattice QCD (quenched) reported at CKM-05 : BK = 0.79 ± 0.04 ± 0.09 (now also Nf=2heavy calc. available) A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  21. [B=2] [B=2] + B0 Mixing • Effective FCNC Processes (CP conserving –– top loop dominates in box diagram): Perturbative QCD CKM Matrix Elements Non-perturbative: Lattice (eff. 4 fermion operator) Loop integral (top loop dominates) • Dominant theoretical uncertainties : consider in fit that Lattice results are correlated ! • Improved error indirect via ms : [SU(3) breaking correction] A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  22. No signal yet for Δmsupper limit : Δms > 14.5 ps–1 at 95% CL [ CDF: WA sensitivity 18.1  18.6 ps–1 ] CKM fit predicts : Δmd = 18.3 ps–1 + 6.5 – 2.3 Δms known future B0 Mixing • Δmd = (0.510 ± 0.005) ps–1 [ CKM constraint dominated by theory error ] CKM fit predicts : Δmd = 0.47 ps–1 HFAG – Winter 2005 + 0.23 – 0.12 A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  23. sin(2)[ the first UT input that is not theory limited ] Principal modes :  Tree : dominant Penguin : dominant A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  24. CP-Violation Primer • Condition for CP invariance : • Definition of “CP parameter” : decay amplitude ratio CP eigenvalue • CP invariance requires : • Classification of CP violation : CP violation in mixing (”indirect”) : CP-violating phenomena CP violation in the decay (“direct”) : CP violation in interference between mixing and decay : A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  25. Direct CP Violation • First seen by NA48 and KTeV in kaon system (’) • Large asymmetry observed by BABAR and Belle in B0  K+– decays : BABAR … none. • Direct CPV requires interference of amplitudes of similar size and with different weak and strong phases cannot be reliably predicted (at present) for use in CKM fit A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  26. BABAR BABAR BABAR CP mixing decay CP = –1 (J/ KS …) CP = +1 (J/ KL …) Mixing-Induced CP Violation • CP Violation due to the interference of decays with and without mixing • Time-dependent asymmetry observable CP observables with : = sin(2) and = 0 for b  ccs, sss A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  27. S I N 2  I S N O T A G O L D E N M O D E ! Mannel at CKM 2005 • Conflict with sin2efffrom s-penguin modes ? Beneke,hep-ph/0505075 I T ‘ S P L A T I N U M ! (*) (*)Thomas Mannel at CKM-05 ? sin(2)eff[s-penguin] careful with this average ! ? ? ? sin2[ first UT input that is not theory limited ! ] • “The” raison d’être of the B factories : Theory uncertainty ? HFAG – Winter 2005 A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  28. Principal modes : Not a CP eigenstate  [ next UT input that is not theory limited ]  Penguin : competitive ? Tree : dominant A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  29. “T” and “P” are of the same order of magnitude : [Note that T and P are complex amplitudes !] Direct CP violation can occur : ! where is the relative strong phase realistic scenario Charmless b u Decays • Tree “T” amplitude dominates No direct CP violation : • Time-dependent CP observable : ideal scenario A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  30. Isospin Analysis for B,  Unknowns Observables Constraints Account , T+–, P+–, T+0, P+0, T00, P00 B+–, S , C B+0, ACP B00, (S00),C00 2 isospin triangles and one common side 13unknowns – 7 observ. – 5 constraints – 1 glob. phase = 0  Assumptions: • neglect EW penguins (shifts  by ~ +2o)penguins • neglect SU(2) breaking • in ρρ: Q2B approx. (neglect interference)  can be resolved up to an 8-fold ambiguity within [0,] Refs. for SU(2) analyses : Gronau-London, PRL, 65, 3381 (1990), Lipkin et al., PRD 44, 1454 (1991), a.o. A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  31. CP Results for B0+– • Results for the time-dependent analysis : BABAR, hep-ex/0501071 Belle, hep-ex/0502035 Mediocre (but improved) agreement : 2 = 7.9 (CL = 0.019  2.3σ) A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  32. BABAR & Belle BABAR & Belle note yet updated with new result from Belle σ(S+–)= σ(C+–)~0.01 penguin / tree • Study decay dynamics ... B Isospin Analysis • 2 fit of isospin relations to observables: BABAR A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  33. B+– = (30 ± 6)10–6 , B00 < 1.110–6 at 90% CL A “surprise” : the B Isospin Analysis • Nature’s great present : longitudinal polarization dominates  almost no CP dilution • Rates for the B  system :  small penguins ! BABAR, hep-ex/0412067 • Results from CP fit : BABAR, hep-ex/0503049 • Isospin analysis : penguin / tree As expected: much smaller than in B  A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  34. CP mixing The B System • Dominant mode ρ+– is not a CP eigenstate Aleksan et al, NP B361, 141 (1991) • Isospin analysis requires to constrain pentagon Lipkin et al., PRD 44, 1454 (1991) • 13 observables vs 12 unknowns  • needs statistics of Super-B  [systematics?] • Better: exploit amplitude interference in Dalitz plot Snyder-Quinn, PRD 48, 2139 (1993) BABAR • simultaneous fit of  and strong phases • BABAR determines 16 (27) FF coefficients • correlated 2 fit to determine physics quantities 00 +– –+ A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  35. Results of B0()0 +–0 Dalitz analysis • From the 16 FF coefficients one determines the physical parameters : Parameters : , |T+–|,T–+,T00,P+–,P–+ Direct CP violation ? Scan in  using the bilinears : Δχ2(no direct CPV) = 14.5 (CL = 0.00070  3.4σ) A+– no direct CPV BABAR A–+ BABAR, hep-ex/0408099 A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  36. similar precision as CKM fit : CKM fit (no ,  in fit) Combination of, ,  : first measurement of  • Combining the three analyses (B   best single measurement) : mirror solution disfavored for the SM solution we find : A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  37. digression : “Color-Suppressed” Amplitudes Famous modes : • The color of the quarks emitted by the virtual W must correspond to the external quark lines to produce color-singlets  suppressionby ~1/Nc(naïve!) [ Suppression  verified in B(B0  D00)/B(B0  D–+) = (1/10.4)exp  (1/Nc)2 ] important non-factorizable contributions when large penguins ? Large u-penguins ? A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  38.  [ next UT input that is not theory limited ] • GLW : D0 decays into CP eigenstate • ADS : D0 decays to K–+ (favored) and K+– (suppressed) • GGSZ : D0 decays to KS+– (interference in Dalitz plot) • All methods fit simultaneously: , rB and  the million dollar Q: Gronau-London, PL B253, 483 (1991); Gronau-Wyler, PL B265, 172 (1991) Atwood-Dunietz-Soni, PRL 78, 3257 (1997) Giri et al, PRD 68, 054018 (2003) No Penguins  relative CKM phase :  Tree: dominant Tree: color-suppressed A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  39. “ADS+GLW” : Constraint on  • BABAR and Belle have measured the observables for GLW and ADS in the modesB– D0K–, D*0K–, D0K*– not yes used • No significant measurement of suppressed amplitude yet  limit : rB(*) 0.2 BABAR, hep-ex/0408082, 0408060, 0408069, 0408028 Belle, Belle-CONF-0443, hep-ex/0307074, 0408129 for the SM solution : not yet competitive with CKM fit A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  40. Measurement of amplitude ratio: [ no improved constraint when adding  from CKM fit ] “GGSZ” : Constraint on  • Promising : Increase B decay interference through D decay Dalitz plot with D0 KS+– • huge number of resonances to model: K*(892), (770), (782), f0(980,1370), K0*(1430), ...  • amplitudes of Dalitz plot measured in charm control sample  A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  41. B+ + • A new star at the horizon; helicity-suppressed annihilation decay sensitive to fB|Vub| • Powerful together with Δmd : removesfBdependence • Sensitive to charged Higgs replacing the W propagator • Best current limit from BABAR : M. Datta, SLAC seminar 2005 • Prediction from global CKM fit : A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  42. Putting it all together t h e g l o b a l C K M f i t Inputs: Perfect agreement … if it weren’t for the s-penguin decays A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  43. 2nd solution Putting it all together the impact of the unitarity triangle angles  The angle measurements dominate ! A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  44. Consistent Predictions of all CKM-related Observables FOR UPTODATE RESULTS CHECK THE CKMFITTER WEB numerical results at: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/ckmfitter/ and http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/ (mirror) A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  45. There’s much more in it … Other CKM-related topics not discussed in this colloquium : • super rare kaon decays : K  • charged decay already seen by E787, E949) • radiative and leptonic B decays : B , B K*, b  s, … • model-independent analysis of new physics in mixing and decay E787, PRL 88, 041803 (2002) E949, PRL 93, 031801 (2004) next pages Dynamical analysis of B , K, KK decays under different hypotheses Most simple charmless B decays; theory understanding must start here • SU(2)  done for , not fruitful for K at present • SU(3) • QCD Factorization next pages Puzzle ? A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  46. B   observation should be imminent! Belle BABAR Radiative Penguin Decays • Radiative penguin decays B   ( |Vtd|2) and B  K*( |Vts|2) sensitive to New Physics • Ratio of BRs predicted more cleanly than the individual rates: SU(3) breaking correction Ali, Parkhomenko, EPJ C23 (2002) 89 Bosch, Buchalla, NP B621 (2002) 459 (and later papers); errors from CKM 05 90% CL • So far only upper limit for B   90% CL BABAR, PRL 94, 011801 (2005) Belle, hep-ex/0408137 (prelim.) Charged modes larger limit: , but less theoretically clean A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  47. “” from B  00, K00, K+K– • interesting combined constraint in (,) plane • “” from B  +–, K+–, K+K– digression : Puzzling B, K, KK Decays : SU(3) • About puzzles : • there is a puzzle: why are “color-suppressed” terms (or u-penguins) so large ? • there isnoK puzzleusing SU(2) [quadrilateral system not constraining enough – 9 params vs. 9 obs] • there seems to beaK puzzleusing SU(3) when neglecting annihilation terms and PEW,C Silva-Wolfenstein, 1993 Buras et al. (BFRS), EPJ C32, 45 (2003) Chiang et al, PRD D70, 034020 (2004) Wu-Zhou, hep-ph/0503077 Charles et al., EPJ C21, 225 (2001) Charles-Malclès-Ocariz-AH, in preparation apologies to the many other authors on this problem • Complete analysis in strict SU(3) limit • Global analyses: • at present: 13 parameters vs. 19 observables • when everything is measured (incl. Bs) : 15 parameters vs. ~ 50 observables A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  48. digression : Puzzling B, K, KK Decays : QCDF • Several theoretical tools exist for nonleptonic B decays. All are based on the concept of Factorization • QCD FA • pQCD • SCET including the treatment of charming penguins by Ciuchini et al. Beneke et al, PRL 83, 1914 (1999); NP B675, 333 (03) Keum et al, PLB 504, 6 (2001); PRD 67, 054009 (03) Bauer et al, PRD 63, 114020 (2001) “Color Transparency” • With conservative error treatment, only a data-driven fit is predictive Is there a puzzle ? A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  49. assumptions: And the near Future ? t h e g l o b a l C K M f i t i n 2008 Inputs: ?...? A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

  50. Zfitter I N S P I R E D CKMfitter MNSfitter Sfitter GUTfitter HEPfitter COSMOfitter and the far … F U T U R E NA48 t h a n k y o u A. Höcker – B Physics, CP Violation and the CKM Fit …

More Related