260 likes | 344 Views
Belle results relevant to LHC. & BaBar v. S.L. Olsen U of Hawai’i. Pheno-07 May 8, 2007 Madison Wisc. CKM with trees. CKM Global Fit (Sep.2006). SM+CKM is “correct” at tree level. Next Step. Check the Unitary Triangle with Penguins. SM FCNC:. NP:. QCD-vertices. EW-vertices. ~.
E N D
Belle results relevant to LHC & BaBar v S.L. Olsen U of Hawai’i Pheno-07 May 8, 2007 Madison Wisc.
CKM with trees CKM Global Fit (Sep.2006) SM+CKM is “correct” at tree level
Next Step Check the Unitary Triangle with Penguins
SM FCNC: NP: QCD-vertices EW-vertices ~ c- g ~ ~ ~ c ~ s t b x t x huge effects are possible (but not seen) This mixing matrix is 6x6 (lots of CP phases) at least V i.e. > 0.1 for MNP accessible @ LHC ~
sin21from BfCP + BBfCPinterf. J/y Vcb B0 KS V*2 no CP phase td J/y V* Vtb td B0 B0 KS Vtb V* td Sanda, Bigi & Carter:
sin2f1 with bs penguins (SM) Example: no CP phase f1 * Vtd , h’, K+K- , h’, K+K- + B B * Vtd f1 SM: sin2f1 =sin2f1 from BJ/y KS (bc c s) _ eff
Smaller than bgccs in all of 9 modes Theory tends to predict positive shifts (originating from phase in Vts) 2006: f1 with bgs Penguins Naïve average of all b g s modes sin2beff = 0.52 ± 0.05 2.6 s deviation between penguin and tree (b g s) (b g c)
eff History of sin2f1 2.8s 2.6s 2.6s 3.1s 3.9s sin2f1 from bccs decays (2007) D 0.15 sin2f1 (bqqs decays) (Belle&BaBar average) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
How to make D small? ~ g ~ ~ s b x • Tune the squark mixing terms • is there enough freedom to do this? • Make the squark masses degenerate • invoke a GIM-like mechanism • Make the SUSY mass scale very high (~few TeV) • not much fun for LHC experimenters
Parameters are already constrained by KK & DD mixing Same diagrams contribute NP: SM: ~ ~ c s d u c d,s u x X X X X ~ ~ W W g,c- g,c- K & D mixing are consistent with 2nd order SM EW
B Decays w/ “Missing E(>1n)” SM : B decay constant Lattice QCD BSM : sensitive to New Physics from H
449M BB B tn(nearly invisible decays) tn signal B e- (8GeV) e+(3.5GeV) Υ(4S) p B Tag-side: Full reconstruction N= 680k eff.= 0.29% purity = 57% 4-momentum determined B meson beam ! Charged B
B candidate event Missing momentum
B gtn results Belle BaBar PRL97, 251802 (2006). hep-ex/0608019 Belle Hadronic tag D l n tag e+nn (3.6%) m+nn (2.4%) p+n (4.9%)p+p0n(2.0%) pppn (0.8%) t+ e+nn (eff: 4.1%), m+nn (2.4%), p+n (4.9%), p+p0n (1.2%) No clear signal First evidence, 3.5 s
We measure Branching fraction Babar preliminary Product of B meson decay constant ƒB and CKM element |Vub | Compare with
Constraints on H mass Use known fB and |Vub |Ratio to the SM BF. excluded rH=1.130.51 excluded
BXsg W+, H+
NNLO theory Theory News M. Misiak et al, hep-ph/0609232, PRL 98,022002(2007) NNLO calculation (29826) x 10-6
95% CL lower limit on H+ mass from exp and NNLO 300 GeV Error on BF BaBar/Belle/CLEO avg M(H+)>295 GeV Central value of BF M. Misiak et al, hep-ph/0609232, PRL 98,022002 (2007)
LHC People: or here 350- look here BXsg Btn
Summary Any “new physics” that is seen at the LHC is very carefully hidden from the Flavor Sector
Validate the EECL simulation using double-tagged events (with on the signal side) Extra Calorimeter Energy Signal reconstruction (purity ~ 90%) MC: B+B–: 494 ± 18 B0B0: 8 ± 2 Combined: 502 ±18 Data: 458 _
SM NP? ~ g ~ ~ s b t x i.e. > 0.1 for MNP accessible @ LHC ~