1 / 27

Testing New Physics with the U nitarity T riangle Fit

Testing New Physics with the U nitarity T riangle Fit. Collaboration. http://www.utfit.org. M. Bona, M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Parodi, M. Pierini, P. Roudeau, C. Schiavi, L. Silvestrini, A .  Stocchi, V.Vagnoni. Recent papers:

naava
Download Presentation

Testing New Physics with the U nitarity T riangle Fit

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. Testing New Physics with the UnitarityTriangle Fit Collaboration http://www.utfit.org M. Bona, M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Parodi, M. Pierini, P. Roudeau, C. Schiavi, L. Silvestrini, A. Stocchi, V.Vagnoni Recent papers: M. Bona et al. hep-ph/0509219 in publication M . Bona et al. (hep-ph/0501199) JHEP 0507 (2005) 028

  2. Total Fit Dmd,Dms,Vub,Vcb,ek+ cos2b + b +a +g + 2b+g r = 0.216 ± 0.036 [0.143, 0.288] @ 95% Prob. h = 0.342 ± 0.022 [0.300, 0.385] @ 95% Prob.

  3. Sides + eK r = 0.224 ± 0.042 [0.136, 0.306] @ 95% Prob. h = 0.381 ± 0.030 [0.,320, 0.437] @ 95% Prob. sin(b+g) cos2b UT with angles only g a r = 0.193 ± 0.057 [0.083, 0.321] @ 95% Prob. sin(2b) h = 0.321 ± 0.027 [0.266, 0.376] @ 95% Prob. b

  4. Test of SM (I) The presence of New Physics might appear as a disagreement between the new measurements and what the fit predicts (given by the color code). aandg (for the moment) are OK. The next validation will come from Dms for the bs sector. SM solution only ? SM solution only

  5. Test of SM (II) sin2b=0.687±0.032 From direct measurement we have a weak sign of a disagreement sin2b =0.791±0.034 from indirect determination

  6. Tension in the fit exclusive: BRs from HFAG; form factor from quenched LQCD Vub=(3.80±0.27±0.47)10-3 inclusive from HFAG Vub=(4.38±0.19±0.27)10-3 It can be interpreted as a problem with data, but it could be evidence of New Physics incl.+excl. Vub = (4.22 ± 0.20) 10-3 from all the other inputs: Vub = (3.48 ± 0.20) 10-3

  7. Where do we really are on our knowledge of UT ? Fit with NP independent variables Fit in a NP model independent approach

  8. Fit with NP independent variables If we use only Tree level processes -which can be assumed to be NP free- It is very important to improve Vub/Vcb from s.l decays g from tree level proceses (similar plot in Botella et al. hep-ph/0502133)

  9. Fit in a NP model independent approach DF=2 Parametrizing NP physics in DF=2 processes 5 new free parameters Cs,js Bs mixing Cd,jd Bd mixing CeK K mixing Constraints Not yet available Today : fit possible with 6 contraints and 5 free parameters (r, h, Cd,jd ,CeK)

  10. Fit in a NP model independent approach Using Vub/Vcb Dmd ACP (J/Y K) g (DK) eK ASL a cos2b large NP with arbitrary phase NP solution 4% SM-likesolution 96% SM or small NP with arbitrary phase or large NP with SM phase. NLO effects included

  11. Fit in a NP model independent approach fBd = -(4.7 ± 2.3)o Ce = 0.95 ± 0.18 CBd = 1.27± 0.44 NP in DB=2 and DS=2 could be up to 50% wrt SM only if has the same phase of the SM

  12. ANP/ASM vs fNP With present data ANP/ASM=0 @1s ANP/ASM ~1 only if fNP~0 ANP/ASM ~0-40% @95% prob. sensitive to small effects Artificially removing the present disagreement ~20% @ 95% prob for generic fNP

  13. TWO POSSIBLE SCENARIOS MFV New CP in bs What to do ? - Improvements existing measurements - DF=1 Penguins transitions (not discussed in this talk) - The Bs physics (LHCb/Tevatron) - Rare decays (not discussed in this talk)

  14. h = 0.319 ± 0.039 UUTfit UniversalUTfit Buras et al. hep-ph/0007085 MFV = CKM is the only source of flavour mixing.eKandDmd are not used (sensitive to NP). r = 0.258 ± 0.066 UUTfit Starting point for studies of rare decays see for instance : Bobeth et al. hep-ph/0505110 Almost as good as the SM !!

  15. MFV In models with one Higgs doublet or low/moderate tanb (D’Ambrosio et al. hep-ph/0207036) NP enters as additional contribution in top box diagram L0 is the equivalent SM scale dS0 = -0.03 ± 0.54 [-0.90, 1.79] @95% Prob. To be compared with tested scale using for instance b->sg (9-12Tev) D’Ambrosio et al. hep-ph/0207036

  16. L > 2.6 TeV @ 95% for dS0(xt) > 0 L > 3.2 TeV @ 95% for dS0(xt) > 0 L > 4.9 TeV @ 95% for dS0(xt) < 0 L > 4.9 TeV @ 95% for dS0(xt) < 0 MFV 2Higgs + large tanb also bottom Yukawa coupling must be considered dS0B≠dS0K dS0B dS0K Could give infomation on the tanb regime …not yet at the present Correlation coefficient =0.52

  17. CKM2010 CKM Matrix in ≤2010-where we will be We have supposed that - B Factories will collect 2ab-1 - two years data taking at LHCb (4fb-1) Inputs • b < 1° from charmonium • ~ 7 ° • ~ 5° (half B-factories/half LHCb) fBBB ~ 5% x ~ 3% BK ~ 5% Vub ~ 5% Vcb ~ 1% Dms at 0.3ps-1 (Tevatron or/and LHCb) sin2c ± 0.045 Outputs

  18. CKM2010 In the « sad » hypotesis the SM still work in 2010…. φBd = (-0.1 ± 1.3)o CBd = 0.98 ± 0.14 φBs = (0.0 ± 1.3)o CBs = 0.99 ± 0.12 in ≤2010 : same and impressive precision on b d and b s transitions VERY IMPORTANT

  19. Conclusions UTfits are in a mature age with recent precise measurement of UT sides and angles The SM CKM picture of CP violation and FCNC is strongly supported by data Generic NP in the b  d start to be quite constrained fBd ~ 0 At least in this sector, we are beyond the alternative to CKM picture, and we should look at « corrections ».

  20. Studied predented in MFV. We start to test interesting NP scales. Bd sector CKM2010 We need precision measurements to test NP and to push the NP scale in interesting ranges and to play the complementarity at LHC Bs sector CKM2010 What about the bs DB=2 sector ? Still large room for NP. LHCb plays the central role on it.

  21. and if SuperB….. Plots from preliminary work from M.Pierini,MCiuchini….

  22. BACKUP SLIDES

  23. Next Step: Rare Decays (I) B → tn < 1.8 10-4 @ 90% CL Assuming fB : Constraint on Rb=r2+h2 Rb= 0.37 ±0.13

  24. Next Step: Rare Decays (II) BR(B → rg) BR(B → K*g) caveat: * SU(3) breaking effect * LQCD/mb correctionsB(~cosa) to r/wg ( smaller for B0 than B+) Using the |Vtd/Vts| value from the SM, we can extract DR. |Vtd/Vts| = 0.10 ± 0.45 [0.02,0.18] @ 95% Prob. DR = -0.67 ± 0.24 [-0.99, 0.10] @ 95% using only B → r0g

  25. Next Step: Rare Decays (III) D'Ambrosio, Isidori hep-ph/0112135 K±p±nn with 3 signal events } ellipse centered in (r0, 0) latest result from E949: BR(K± p±nn) = 1.47 10-10 +1.30 - 0.89 10% error with UTfit central value (BR = 0.83 10-10) 10% error with current central value

  26. Using Fit in a NP model independent approach Vub/Vcb Dmd ACP (J/Y K) g (DK) eK a a SM-like a a

  27. CKM2010 In MFV Now  0.54 2010  0.26

More Related