1 / 57

Source of CP Violation for Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe

Source of CP Violation for Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe. ( August 1, 2008, ICHEP ’ 08 @ Penn ) September 4, 2008, Beyond 3SM @ CERN. Anti-Dilbert. Source of CP Violation. Outline. I. The Lore that Despairs the Experimenter

malik-harper
Download Presentation

Source of CP Violation for Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe

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. Source of CP Violation for Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe (August 1, 2008,ICHEP’08 @ Penn) September 4, 2008,Beyond 3SM @ CERN

  2. Anti-Dilbert Source of CP Violation

  3. Outline I. The Lore that Despairs the Experimenter II. Going up a Hill ... and (maybe) Becoming a Mountain III. Soaring to the Starry Heavens IV. Towards Solution of BAU V. Tevatron/LHC Verification VI. Conclusion

  4. I. The Lore that Despairs the Experimenter

  5. Dispair Obligé talk by Paoti Chang (Belle)

  6. 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

  7. Too Small in SM Normalize by T ~ 100 GeV in SM is common (unique) area of triangle B.A.U. fromCPV in KM? WMAP Jarlskog Invariant in SM3 (need 3 generation in KM) Why? Masses too Small ! Small, but not Too small CPV Phase

  8. 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

  9. 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

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

  11. Wisdom from Peskin C PEW

  12. 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’... color suppressed

  13. II. Going up a Hill ... and (maybe) Becoming a Mountain

  14. d p0 _ d B- b s K- u u Going Up a Hill ...

  15. My first B paper WSH, Willey, Soni dimensions nondecoupling

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

  17. d p0 _ d B- b s K- u u ,t’ Embark Going Up a Hill ...

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

  19. 4thgeneration not in such great conflict with EWPrT • Kribs, Plehn, Spannowsky, Tait, PRD’07 4th Generation Still? talks by Marc Sher & Mikhail Vysotsky P.Q. Hung - Nn counting? 4th “neutrino” heavy Massive neutrinos call for new Physics - Disfavored by EW Precision (see e.g. J. Erler hep-ph/0604035; PDG06

  20. d p0 _ d t, t’ b s B- K- u u 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) NLO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen. WSH, Li, Mishima, Nagashima, PRL’07 Joining C & PEW DA 15% DS  -0.11 vs -0.340.2x (data) SM3 input

  21. human ants Recently ... (maybe) Becoming a Mountain

  22. New Physics in DmBs, DmD, and A(B+ J/yK+) Conclusion I Intro: SM Reigns (?) Flavor/CP Frontier and 4th Generation (?!) II Large CPV in Bs Mixing DmBs vs B(bsll) ⇔DAKp, DS; Unitarity link to K/D III D Mixing Prediction IV DCPV in B+ J/yK+ V Conclusion sin2FBs~ -0.4 - -0.7 AJ/yK+ ~ couple % ? coworkers M. Nagashima, G. Raz, A. Soddu [H.n. Li, S. Mishima]

  23. Large CPV in Bs Mixing SM rsb DAKp, DS CDF2srange Can Large CPV in Bs Mixing Be Measured @ Tevatron ? Sign Predicted ! Sure thing by LHCb ca. 2008 sin2FBs ~ -0.4 - -0.7 ? Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05

  24. 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] talk by Juan Fernandez (CDF) Further ICHEP’08 Updates (CDF/DØ/fitters): Strengthen ! ~2.5s ± ? Incredible !!!

  25. More breadth/depth tomorrow

  26. III. Soaring to the Starry Heavens

  27. On Boxes and Z Penguins Large t, t’ Yukawa! Z t, t’

  28. … Large Yukawa! YuReKawa !

  29. 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 !

  30. 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] ~ 10+15 Gain Nature would likely use this !? Gain mostly in Large Yukawa Couplings !

  31. 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

  32. IV. Towards Solution of BAU

  33. 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

  34. b → d b → s If VusVub 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 measured 4 generations: 3 indep. phases emergent

  35. 1st Order EW Phase Trans. for BAU ? Ran out of time, and knowledge ... (perturbative) • Fok & Kribs: Not possible in 4th generation • Conjecture: Could Strong Yukawa’s do it ? talks by Bob Holdom & Leandro Da Rold, also A. Soni Beyond Unitarity Limit Holdom

  36. V. Tevatron/LHC Verification

  37. LHCb : 0.5 fb-1 (2008 ?) • s(sin2FBs) ≃ 0.04 • ATLAS : 2.5 fb-1 (2008 ?) • s(sin2FBs) ≃ 0.16 • CMS ? $ Tevatron could get lucky ifsin2FBslargeNew Physics ! FBsProspect (short term) Bs J/ analogous toBdJ/KS VV Angular & Vertex Resolved Analysis to disentangle CP +/- components • CDF/DØ: 8 fb-1 projected • s(sin2FBs) ≃ 0.2 (?)/exp • similar €LHCb the winner if ~ SM sin2FBs ~ -0.04in SM But 2009 looks interesting ! Could Tevatron run beyond 2008 ? Nakada @ fLHC 3/07

  38. LHC • sin2FBs “Confirmation” — “Easy” for LHCb • b’, t’ Discovery —Straightforward/full terrain Tevatron Juan Fernandez (CDF) • sin2FBs “Evidence” by 2010 ? • t’ Search Ongoing: • mt’ > 311 GeV @ 95% CL talk by Alison Lister (CDF) also, Regina Demina (Dzero) Vincenzo Vagnoni (LHCb) talks by Erkcan Ozcan (ATLAS) Yuan Chao (CMS)

  39. Even ifO(1) 10+15 VI. Conclusion ~ 10+15 Gain 10+13 Enough CPV for B.A.U. Maybe there is a 4th Generation !

  40. Universe (Genesis) CPV BAU Earth (EW + KM4)

  41. Backup

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

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

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

  45. _ 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

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

  47. Hot off the press…2.8/fb update! Same-side tagger NOT yet used in second half of sample. PID calibrations still to be finalized. Equivalent to reduced sample size 2.8/fb  2/fb ICHEP update 3200 decays, S/B~2 www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/bottom/080724.blessed-tagged_BsJPsiPhi_update_prelim/ Once the SST will be calibrated have: +20% signal events – by using PID info in selection x3 tagging power in second-half of the sample D. Tonelli- Fermilab

  48. ICHEP update Increased dataset still hints at larger than SM values! Consistency with SM decreased 15%  7% (~1.8σ) ICHEP update 0.28 < βs < 1.29at 68% CL -pi/2 < βs < -1.45 OR -1.01 < βs < -0.57 OR -0.13 < βs < pi/2at 95% CL www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/bottom/080724.blessed-tagged_BsJPsiPhi_update_prelim/ Will shrink further with PID in the whole dataset D. Tonelli- Fermilab

  49. 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

More Related