1 / 53

Two Important Experimental Novelties:

Aspetti teorici della Fisica del Sapore. + 0.56. + 0.39. - 0.49. - 0.46. Two Important Experimental Novelties:. CDF Δ m s = (17.77 ± 0.10 ± 0.07) ps -1. + 0.68. BaBar : (0.88 ± 0.11) x 10 -4. Belle : (1.79 ) x 10 -4. - 0.67.

myra-carver
Download Presentation

Two Important Experimental Novelties:

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. Aspetti teorici della Fisica del Sapore + 0.56 + 0.39 - 0.49 - 0.46 Two Important Experimental Novelties: CDF Δms= (17.77 ± 0.10 ± 0.07) ps-1 + 0.68 BaBar: (0.88 ± 0.11) x 10-4 Belle: (1.79 ) x 10-4 - 0.67 Average: (1.31± 0.48) x 10-4 sin 2 measured = 0.726  0.0370.675  0.026 Dipartimento di Fisica di Roma La SapienzaGuido Martinelli Napoli 11/4/2007

  2. STANDARD MODEL Generalities Predictions vs Postdictions Lattice vs angles Vub inclusive, Vub exclusive vs sin 2 Experimental determination of lattice parameters Flavor Physics Beyond the SM

  3. N(N-1)/2 angles and (N-1)(N-2)/2 phases N=3 3 angles + 1 phase KM the phase generates complex couplings i.e. CP violation; 6 masses +3 angles +1 phase = 10 parameters

  4. NO Flavour Changing Neutral Currents (FCNC) at Tree Level (FCNC processes are good candidates for observing NEW PHYSICS) CP Violation is natural with three quark generations (Kobayashi-Maskawa) With three generations all CP phenomena are related to the same unique parameter (  )

  5. Quark masses & Generation Mixing e- -decays | Vud | = 0.9735(8) | Vus | = 0.2196(23) | Vcd | = 0.224(16) | Vcs | = 0.970(9)(70) | Vcb | = 0.0406(8) | Vub | = 0.00409(25) | Vtb | = 0.99(29) (0.999) W e down up Neutron Proton | Vud |

  6. The Wolfenstein Parametrization Vub + O(4) Vtd Sin12 =  Sin23 = A 2 Sin13 = A 3(-i )  ~ 0.2 A ~ 0.8  ~ 0.2  ~ 0.3

  7. The Bjorken-Jarlskog Unitarity Triangle | Vij | is invariant under phase rotations a1 b1 a1 = V11 V12* = Vud Vus* a2 = V21 V22* a3= V31 V32* d1 a2 b2 e1 a1 + a2 + a3 = 0 (b1 + b2 + b3 = 0 etc.) a3 b3 c3  a3 a2 Only the orientation depends on the phase convention a1  

  8. Physical quantities correspond to invariants under phase reparametrization i.e. |a1 |, |a2 |, … , |e3 | and the area of the Unitary Triangles a precise knowledge of the moduli (angles) would fix J J = Im (a1 a2 * ) = |a1 a2 | Sin  CP  J Vud*Vub+ Vcd*Vcb+Vtd*Vtb = 0  Vud*Vub Vtd*Vtb  = CKM   Vcd*Vcb

  9. From A. Stocchi ICHEP 2002

  10. For details see:UTfit Collaborationhep-ph/0501199hep-ph/0509219hep-ph/0605213hep-ph/0606167http://www.utfit.org

  11. sin 2 is measured directly from B J/ Ks decays at Babar & Belle (Bd0 J/ Ks , t) - (Bd0 J/ Ks , t) AJ/ Ks = (Bd0 J/ Ks , t) + (Bd0 J/ Ks , t) AJ/ Ks = sin 2 sin (md t)

  12. DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THEORETICAL UNCERTAINTIES (STRONG INTERACTIONS) First class quantities, with reduced or negligible uncertainties 2) Second class quantities, with theoretical errors of O(10%) or less that can be reliably estimated 3) Third class quantities, for which theoretical predictions are model dependent (BBNS, charming, etc.) In case of discrepacies we cannot tell whether is new physics or we must blame the model

  13. Classical Quantities used in the Standard UT Analysis levels @ 68% (95%) CL eK Vub/Vcb Dmd/Dms Dmd UT-LATTICE Inclusive vs Exclusive Opportunity for lattice QCD see later NEW !! before Only a lower bound

  14. 2005 Unitary Triangle SM semileptonic decays K0- K0 mixing B0d,s - B0d,s mixing Bd Asymmetry

  15. New Quantities used in the UT Analysis UT-ANGLES

  16. THE COLLABORATION M.Bona, M.Ciuchini, E.Franco, V.Lubicz, G.Martinelli, F.Parodi,M.Pierini, P.Roudeau, C.Schiavi,L.Silvestrini, V.Sordini, A.Stocchi, V.Vagnoni Roma, Genova, Annecy, Orsay, Bologna THE CKM 2006 ANALYSIS • New quantities e.g. B -> DK included • Upgraded exp. numbers (after ICHEP) • CDF & Belle new measurements www.utfit.org

  17. With the constraint fromms Results for  and  & related quantities contours @ 68% and 95% C.L.  = 0.163 ± 0.028 • = 0.193  0.029  = 0.355  0.019 • at 95% C.L.  = 0.344 ± 0.016  = (92.7  4.2)0 sin 2  = 0.701  0.022

  18. A closer look to the analysis: Predictions vs Postdictions Lattice vs angles Vub inclusive, Vub exclusive vs sin 2 Experimental determination of lattice parameters

  19. CKM origin of CP Violation in K0 K0 Mixing εK UTsites Ciuchini et al. (“pre-UTFit”),2000

  20. Comparison of sin 2  from direct measurements (Aleph, Opal, Babar, Belle and CDF) and UT analysis sin 2 measured = 0.675  0.026 correlation (tension) with Vub , see later sin 2 UTA = 0.755 ± 0.040 sin 2 UTA = 0.698 ± 0.066 prediction from Ciuchini et al. (2000) sin 2 UTA = 0.65 ± 0.12 Prediction 1995 from Ciuchini,Franco,G.M.,Reina,Silvestrini sin 2 tot = 0.701  0.022 Very good agreement no much room for physics beyond the SM !!

  21. Theoretical predictions of Sin 2 in the years predictions exist since '95 experiments sin 2 UTA = 0.65 ± 0.12 Prediction 1995 from Ciuchini,Franco,G.M.,Reina,Silvestrini

  22. NEWS from NEWS (Standard Model) ms Probability Density

  23. Theoretical predictions of msin the years predictions exist since '97 CDF A GREAT SUCCESS OF (QUENCHED) LATTICE QCD CALCULATIONS

  24. A closer look to the analysis: Predictions vs Postdictions Lattice vs angles Vub inclusive, Vub exclusive vs sin 2 Experimental determination of lattice parameters

  25. The UT-angles fit does not depend on theoretical calculations (treatement oferrors is not an issue) Comparable accuracy due to the precise sin2 value and substantial improvement due to the new ms measurement Crucial to improve measurements of the angles, in particular  (tree level NP-free determination) UT-angles UT-lattice Still imperfect agreement in  due to sin2 and Vub tension  = 0.171 ± 0.041  = 0.188 ± 0.036  = 0.371 ± 0.027  = 0.387 ± 0.031 ANGLES VS LATTICE

  26. A closer look to the analysis: Predictions vs Postdictions Lattice vs angles Vub inclusive, Vub exclusive vs sin 2 Experimental determination of lattice parameters

  27. ~2σ Correlation of sin 2  with Vub sin 2 measured = 0.675  0.026 sin 2 UTA = 0.755 ± 0.040 Although compatible, these results show that there is a ``tension” . This is due to the correlation of Vub with sin 2 

  28. S.Hashimoto@ICHEP’04 VUB PUZZLE Inclusive: uses non perturbative parameters most not from lattice QCD (fitted from the lepton spectrum) Exclusive: uses non perturbative form factors from LQCD and QCDSR

  29. 1) Use only exclusive and predict inclusive 2) Use only inclusive and predict exclusive pre-ichep

  30. Tension between inclusive Vub and the rest of the fit post-ichep INCLUSIVE EXCLUSIVE

  31. + 0.56 + 0.39 + 0.68 - 0.67 - 0.49 - 0.46 Belle: (1.79 ) x 10-4 BaBar: (0.88 ± 0.11) x 10-4 From BR(B→τντ) and Vub(UTA): B→τντ Average: (1.31± 0.48) x 10-4 Potentially large NP contributions(i.e. MSSM at large tanβ, Isidori & Paradisi) fB= (190 ± 14) MeV [UTA] Vub = (36.7 ± 1.5) 10-4 [UTA] (Best SM prediction) fB= (189 ± 27) MeV [LQCD] Vub = (35.0 ± 4.0) 10-4 [Exclusive] (Independent from other NP effects) fB= (189 ± 27) MeV [LQCD] Vub = (44.9 ± 3.3) 10-4 [Inclusive] INFN Roma I 11/06/2001

  32. Hadronic Parameters From UTfit A closer look to the analysis: Predictions vs Postdictions Lattice vs angles Vub inclusive, Vub exclusive vs sin 2 Experimental determination of lattice parameters

  33. The new measurements allow the analysis WITHOUT THE LATTICE HADRONIC PARAMETERS (eventually only those entering Vub) pre-ichep with Vub Without Vub

  34. IMPACT of the NEW MEASUREMENTS on LATTICE HADRONIC PARAMETERS Comparison between experiments and theory

  35. exps vs predictions fBs √BBs = 262  35 MeV lattice fBs √BBs=261  6 MeV UTA 2% ERROR !! • = 1.23  0.06 lattice  = 1.24  0.09 UTA BK = 0.75  0.09 BK = 0.79  0.04  0.08 Dawson fB = 187  0.13 MeV fB = 189  27 MeV SPECTACULAR AGREEMENT (EVEN WITH QUENCHED LATTICE QCD)

  36. exps vs predictions Using the lattice determination of the B-parameters BBd = BBs = 1.28  0.05 0.09 fB = 190  14 MeV fB = 189  27 MeV fBs = 229  9 MeV fBs= 230  30 MeV

  37. NEW OLD

  38. Only tree level processes CP VIOLATION PROVEN IN THE SM !! = 65 ± 20 U -115 ± 20 = 82 ± 19 U -98 ± 19 pre-ichep post-ichep

  39. CP Violation beyond the Standard Model

  40. Only tree level processes r = 0.00 ± 0.23 h = ± 0.40± 0.06 very important to improve: Vub/Vcb from semileptonic decays  from tree level processes CP VIOLATION PROVEN IN THE SM !!

  41. Even in the favourable case in which the theory above the cutoff is weakly coupled, such as in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), large contributions to FCNC and CP processes are expected contrary to the increasigly precise experimental measurements. FLAVOUR PUZZLE

  42. FLAVOUR PUZZLE Model Independent Analysis of F = 2 transitions

  43. SM prediction (-1.06±0.09)10-3 Direct measurement (-0.3±5.0)10-3 SM peak NP contribution Additional contraints Semileptonic decay asymmetry Sensitive to both CBd and phase shift Bd Not precise enough to bound CKM in SM(experimental error too large)… … but good for reducing NP allowedparameter space

  44. SM peak NP contribution Additional contraints CP aymmetry in dimuon events fd~0.4, fs~0.1production fractions of Bd and Bs Admixture of Bd and Bs charge asymmetries Sensitive to CBd, Bd, CBs, Bs!

  45. Additional contraints s/s The experimental measurement of s actually measures scos(s+Bs)(Dunietz et al., hep-ph/0012219)  NP can only decrease the experimental result with respect to the SM value Since all the other parameters are fixed by other constraints, this gives thefirst available bound on NP phase in Bs mixing!

  46. Bounds on C and  parameters CK = 0.91 ± 0.15 Bd = -3.0 ± 2.0 CBd = 1.24 ± 0.43 CBs = 1.15 ± 0.36 Bs = (-3 ± 19)o U (94 ± 19)o All C parameters compatible with 1 and  with 0 SM works just fine 1.5 shift of Bd due to the Vub vs sin2 bare agreement UPGRADED

  47. Using all available constraints in NP generalized analysis Even including NP we are still on the SM solution  = 0.20 ± 0.07 ( = 0.166 ± 0.029 in SM)  = 0.37 ± 0.04 ( = 0.340 ± 0.017 in SM)

  48. MFV: Universal Unitarity Triangle Fit Just using constraints which are insensitive to NP in MFV scenarios Output of UUT fit  = 0.153 ± 0.030 ( = 0.166 ± 0.029 in SM) In MFV extensions of the SM one can determine CKM parameters independently of NP constributions, but using angles, tree level processes and mixing amplitudes ratio  = 0.347 ± 0.018 ( = 0.340 ± 0.017 in SM)

More Related