1 / 39

Fourth Generation Manifestations in B Decays

Fourth Generation Manifestations in B Decays. July 24, 2006, ITEP , Moscow. Outline. I Introduction: Rates vs CPV 7 II D A = A K + p 0 - A K + p -  0 10 LO PQCD; D S in QCDF; Towards NLO PQCD

fleur
Download Presentation

Fourth Generation Manifestations in B Decays

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. Fourth Generation Manifestations in B Decays July 24, 2006, ITEP, Moscow

  2. Outline I Introduction: Rates vs CPV 7 II DA = AK+p0-AK+p- 0 10 LO PQCD; DS in QCDF; Towards NLO PQCD III Consistency and b  s Predictions 4 bsll vsDmBs; sin2FBs; AK*g ; IV 4 x 4 Unitarity: Z  bb and Kaon constraints Predictions — KL p0nn; (DmD;) sin2FBd; 6 & AK+J/y3 V Conclusion 1 _ coworkers M. Nagashima, G. Raz, A. Soddu + H.n. Li, S. Mishima

  3. Rates: P-EWP Interference Deshpande and He, PRL’95 (also Buras and Fleischer) Deshpande, He, WSH and Pakvasa, PRL’99 Stimulated by CLEO ‘98 d p0 _ d K0p K0p b s B- Kp Kp Kp0 Kp0 K- u u K0p0 K0p0 Precursor to Rc - Rn I. Introduction Rates vs CPV Rates: Pure EWP WSH, Soni, Willey, PRL’87 nondecoupling Measured Belle ’02 Z dominance for heavy top

  4. Buras @ CKM05

  5. Arhrib and WSH, EPJC’03 4th Generation as template Fleischer @ CKM05 • Comment • These ratios are • “bad” expt’lly: • sensitive to • K0 and p0systematics • Absolute rates, even • ratios, are subject to • theoretical uncertainty. • Direct CPV (or TCPV) are • better ratios expt’lly, and • theoretically: • subject to • strong phase only. No CPV Phase in Vts ? Great ! — Probe New Physics

  6. On Boxes and Z Penguins nondecoupling GIM, charm, εK small ε’K, K  pnn (still waiting) heavy top, sin2f1/b Bs Z dominance for heavy top 1986  2002 All w/ 3-gen., Just wait if there’s 4th D ! b’, t’ @ LHC

  7. 4th generation? — The jury is out … • Particle mass ~ EW scale Natural: • W, Z, H; top the only fermion, so … • Nn = 3, ca. 1989: b’ stock collapsed … • Well, now neutrino has mass Something extra out there • ➯ Pls attend A. Soddu talk at ICHEP • Trouble with S parameter (PDG04, 06) ? • - Possible if neutral lepton N relatively light, mN ~ 55 GeV • (Maltoni,) Novikov, Okun, Razanov, Vysotsky • - PDG: Direct b’/t’ search; Unitarity (CKM) listings • EW Dr: |mt’ –mb’ | ≲ MW eV Seesaw and 4th Generation Flavour In era of LHC, can Directly Search for b’, t’ Once and For All !

  8. March of the B Penguins • EMP: B  K*g 1993 (CLEO) • b  sg 1995 (CLEO) • Strong P: B  Kp, h’K1998 (CLEO) • Direct CPV 2004 (BaBar/Belle) • 4th gen. effect subdued … • EWP: B  Kℓ+ℓ- 2002 (Belle) • b  sℓ+ℓ- 2002 (Belle) • no apparent 4th gen. effect • So why bother ?

  9. Belle PRL’04 Started theory work after this.

  10. II DA=AK+p0-AK+p- 0 WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05

  11. Why DA = AK+p0- AK+p-> 0a Puzzle ? -10.81.7 %+44 % ? DA ~ 0 expected

  12. d p0 _ d b s B- K- u u Why DA = AK+p0- AK+p-> 0a Puzzle ? -10.81.7 %+44 % ? DA ~ 0 expected Large C ? Large EWPenguin? Suppress Tree CPV Phase Need NP CPV Phase ∵ T and PEW ≈ same strong phase t, t’ 4th Gen. in EWP Natural

  13. Effective b  s Hamiltonian and t’ Effect SM 3

  14. Effective b  s Hamiltonian and t’ Effect SM 3 SM 4 new unitarity condition new penguin from t’

  15. Wilson Coefficients at MW Scale (No New Operators) Tree nondecoupling QCD penguin SM4 naturally Impact on EWP EW penguin

  16. LO PQCD Li, Sanda, Keum 2001 Factorizable Non- Factorizable Pa P T Penguin Annihilation w/ Strong Phase

  17. d p0 _ d s b B- K- u u LO PQCD Factorizable Non- Factorizable PEW C (Ta)

  18. EWP

  19. ACP(K+p-) ~ -0.11, ACP(K+p0) ~ +0.04 ? From Constraints • Some parameter space allowed • fsb~ +p/2 favored by • both ACP(K+p0) • and ⊕ WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 Independently Unchanged by DmBs measurement

  20. SfK0, SK0p0 hep-ph/0603097 WSH, Nagashima, Raz, Soddu Right trend forSpK, SfK QCDF NLO s3 PQCD LO NF (QCDF-LO)

  21. 3s BR range Robustness Against Hadronic Uncertainty QCDF Vary Hard spectator Weak Annihilation around QCDF“s3” value of • BRs: hadr. uncertainty • SpK, SfKRobust • Sh’Kdiluted away

  22. WC + VC + QL + MP Li, (Sanda,) Mishima NLO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen. WSH, Li, Mishima, Nagashima, in prep. DA 15% DS  -0.11 vs -0.380.26 (data) SM3 input Toward NLO PQCD LO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen. WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 DA 12% vs 15% (data)

  23. III Consistency and b  s Predictions

  24. Arhrib and WSH Hattori, Hasuike and Wakaizumi Yanir Constraints WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 4th generation not excluded Independently favored allowed

  25. and Prospects Could Tevatron Measure These !? Just Around Corner! (SM3-like) Update at ICHEP ’06 Phase WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 ~ -0.2 to -0.7! Defintely BSM if measured !

  26. Consistency and b  sg Predictions PDG ’06 SM3 SM3 BR OK ACP ~ 0 far away beyond SuperB Heavy t’ effect decoupled for b  sg

  27. K0p Predictions AK0p+-AK0p0  14% Rc≲ Rn≈ 1.08 R≈ 0.94 -0.020.04 +0.020.13 HFAG (+0.11  0.18  0.08) Belle Not in good agreement — Await further test

  28. _ IV 4 x 4 Unitarity: Z  bb and Kaon constraints ➯ AK+J/y 0 ? WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’05 hep-ph/0605080

  29. Parameterization for B (’n K; ’nb’) WSH, Soni, Steger, PLB ’87 SM3 s b 3 new angles, 2 new CPVphases

  30. b  d impose From b → s study 4 x 4 Unitarity ➯ Constraints SM3 We need to deal with mixing matrix in detail to keep Unitarity b  s Kaon Cross Check !

  31. (E. Pallante et al.) (J. Bijnens et al.) well-satisfy ! Constrain s  dfrom K Physics (shaded) “Standard” No SM3 solution Therefore….

  32. well-satisfy vs Vub ~ 0.01e-ig Disfavored Hard to tell apart (non-trivial) with present precision ∵ stringent s d

  33. Implication for Current E391A U.L. Grossman-Nir Very hard to measure enhanced to or even higher !! In general larger than !! SM 3 Rate enhanced up to almost two orders !! ∵ Large CPV Phase

  34. x ~ 0.22 “Typical” CKM Matrix Double Cabibbo (Too) Large/Imaginary b  s b  d

  35. c J/y _ c t, t’ b s B- K- u u Intriguing “Prediction”: AJ/yK+ 0 ? WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, hep-ph/0605080 • B  J/yK+ dominated by color suppressed b  ccs (a2) • - Inclusion of SM3 Penguin does not alter Weak Phase ~ 0 • The amplitude above likely has Strong Phased • - B  J/yK+ Rate is enhanced: “hadronic” • - Analogous to enhancement seen in B0 D0p0 • ➯ d ~ 30° • - Further support from Strong Phase in B  J/yK*: d ~ 30° • Enter t’ effect: • - Weak Phaseeifsb • - Factorized amplitude : J/y spits off from virtual Z • ➯ d ~ 30° Likely Retained Expt Interference Making of DCPV !

  36. PDG ’05 AJ/yK+ 0 ? indirect Belle/BaBar Another hint: Low SJ/yK? vs. 0.685 ± 0.032 HFAG 0.790 ± 0.031 UTfit similar toDS d ~ 30° PDG ’06

  37. Prognosis for AJ/yK+ Measurement PDG ’06 Sign flip • AJ/yK+is getting serious: careful studies started • Systematics Study becomes Theme • — Needed towards SuperB !! Could be seen by 2008 ?! Better thanDA and DS?

  38. Check AJ/yK + V. Conclusion b sCPV Phenomena Is Current NP Frontier Three ? Model-indep. treatmennt: Sinha, Basuda, WSH, hep-ph/0605194 • Sfinb sqq • AK+p--AK+p0 Puzzle • Sfinb scc ? Two Hints Can All 3 Arise from PEW w/ 4th Generation ? Seemingly Yes. Best Bets may besin2FBs< 0 and AJ/yK+ 0

More Related