1 / 63

Search for TeV Scale Physics in Heavy Flavour Decays

Search for TeV Scale Physics in Heavy Flavour Decays. July 28, SUSY 2007 @ Karlsruhe. Child Eating Giant (LHC/ILC?). the (un) Heavenly Things. e. v. v. Higgs Castle. c l o u d s. http://pbjc-lib.state.ar.us/mural.htm. Down to Earth. Flavour/TeV ≅ Loops. Outline.

soyala
Download Presentation

Search for TeV Scale Physics in Heavy Flavour 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. Search for TeV Scale Physics in Heavy Flavour Decays July 28, SUSY2007 @ Karlsruhe

  2. Child Eating Giant (LHC/ILC?) the(un)Heavenly Things e. v. v. Higgs Castle c l o u d s http://pbjc-lib.state.ar.us/mural.htm Down to Earth Flavour/TeV ≅ Loops

  3. Outline 0 “Forward to the Past” as Intro — What if ? sin2FBd ca. 2000; DmBd, top and Vtd I CPV in b  s w/ Boxes and Penguins DS; DAKp;sin2FBs; ACP(B+  J/yK+) II H+ Probe: b  sg;B (D(*))tn III Electroweak Penguin: AFB(B K*ℓℓ);B K(*)nn IV RH Currents and Scalar Interactions TCPV in B X0g;Bs  mm V D/K: Box and EWP Redux — D0 mixing;Rare K VI t: LFV and (B-L)V t ℓg, ℓℓℓ’;t Lp, pp0 VII Conclusion

  4. Strategy and Apologies • Pertinent to BSM • Physics (vs Expt’l detail — not always most up-to-date) • [3 TH talks to follow • Short-term impact and not too tricky ... • “Traditional” on BSM topics • Cannot cite all TH work, • but unabashedly promote own pheno work

  5. 0. “Forward to the Past” as Intro Search for Future Influence from L.H.C Authors:Holger B. Nielsen, Masao Ninomiya (Submitted on 13 Jul 2007) SuperPowered Theorists ? or Wormhole to the Future? Wormhole from/to the Future?

  6. What If ? sin2b history (1999-2005) b/f1=-argVtd Discovery claimed R. Cahn -- SSI-2006

  7. What if argVtd ~ 0? Babar Physics Book Would have heard more about it.

  8. CPV Phase Nondecoupling— lt~ 1 DmBd, top and Vtd t b=-argVtd “Higgs Affinity” top, a v.e.v. scale quark, “discovered” 20 years ago (ARGUS) Loops

  9. b  d transitions consistent with SM Our Main Theme What about b  s transitions ?

  10. I. CPV in b  s w/ Boxes and Penguins The Current Frontier tm Echoes

  11. Belle B0 or B0 The $1B Question: Mixing-dep. CPV in B→J/yKS B decays in ~ picosecond One B Decay Tag Flavor Other B Decay CP Eigenstate Measure Both Decay Vertex J/yKS, p+p-, h’KS, fKS, KSp0 2001 ! Dz Dt

  12. KEKB/Belle PEP-II/BaBar The Two B Factories Mt. Tsukuba KEKB PEP-II BaBar Belle Tag Flavor Differ only in PID DIRC vs Aerogel Cherenkov + ToF

  13. Belle B0 or B0 The $1B Question: Mixing-dep. CPV in B→J/yKS B decays in ~ picosecond One B Decay Tag Flavor Other B Decay CP Eigenstate Measure Both Decay Vertex J/yKS, p+p-, h’KS, fKS, KSp0 2001 ! Dz Dt

  14. SM (KM) Prediction SfKS= sin2f1 b Possible SUSY FCNC/CPV Loop Can Break Equality b  sPenguins (Vertex Loops) Real ~ J/yKS(Tree)

  15. Smaller than bgccs in almost all modes Theory Expect sin2f1 > sin2f1 s-penguin cc(bar)s DS = Ssqq- Sccs< 0 “Problem” Probably Need Super B Factory to Resolve ! Naïve average of all b g s modes sin2beff = 0.56 ± 0.05 2.1s deviation (was 2.6)btwn b g sqq and b g ccs New Physics !? Even deviation of ~ few deg indicate NP Need More Data ! Sinha, Misra, WSH, PRL 97, 131802 (2006)

  16. Belle B0 or B0 The $1B Question: Mixing-dep. CPV in B→J/yKS B decays in ~ picosecond One B Decay Tag Flavor Other B Decay CP Eigenstate Measure Both Decay Vertex J/yKS, p+p-, h’KS, fKS, KSp0 2001 ! Lack of Vertex in LHCb Dz Dt

  17. 0707.2798 [hep-ex] ACP(K+p0) = +0.030 ± 0.039 ± 0.010 strengthen conclusion Acp on B → Kp DAKp Problem Experiment is Firm Belle +0.007 Acp = -0.107±0.018 -0.093±0.018±0.008 -0.086±0.023±0.009 -0.004 Direct CPV established in B system (2004) !  World Average including CLEO: Acp(K+p-) = -0.097±0.012  Acp(K+p0) = +0.047±0.026  DA(Kp) = 0.144 ± 0.029 @5s  Need to explain the deviation. Hadronic effect or new physics?  A(K0p0) = -0.12±0.11; S(K0p0) = +0.33±0.21  Super B factory! P. Chang 0707.2980 [hep-ex] A(K0p0) = -0.24 ± 0.15 ± 0.03, S(K0p0) = 0.40 ± 0.23 ± 0.03 6

  18. Suppress Tree CPV Phase d p0 _ d b s B- K- u u Why DAKp = AK+p0- AK+p-> 0aPuzzle ? -9.71.2 %+4.72.6 % ? DAKp~ 0 expected Large C ? Large EWPenguin? C/T > 1 needed ! Baek, London, hep-ph/0701181 EWP not so easy for SUSY Need NP CPV Phase ∵ PEW and T ≈ same strong phase in SM t, ? Neubert, Rosner, PRL’98

  19. DmBs • DGBs In Search ofNew Physics b  sCPVPhenomena Is Current NP Frontier • Sfinb sqq • AK+p--AK+p0 Puzzle Two Hints TCPV Mixing-dep. DCPV Direct sin2FBs CPV ? SM-like cos2FBs

  20. 3 fb-1

  21. FBs≡-argVts ~ -0.02 SM b/f1=-argVtd⇨FBd ~0.37 measured CDF 1 fb-1 e.g. PRL 97, 242003 (2006) ms = 17.770.10(stat)0.07(sys) ps-1 Window on BSM CPV ? ~ real a bit “smallish”, if take nominal fBs

  22. Concerted Effort [ASL advantage — periodical reversal of magnetpolarity hep-ex/0702030 cos2FBs Lifetime, but not Oscillations + hep-ex/0701012 (ASL) PRL 98, 121801 (2007) SM: Lenz, Nierste, hep-ph/0612167 For pheno digest, see WSH, Mahajan, PRD 75, 077501 (2007) cos2FBs somewhat a blunt instrument. Parallel talk 31/7 ?

  23. CDF/DØ: 8 fb-1 projected • s(sin2FBs) ~ 0.2 (?)/exp • similar • LHCb : 0.5 fb-1 (2008 ?) • s(sin2FBs) ~ 0.04 • ATLAS : 2.5 fb-1 (2008 ?) • s(sin2FBs) ~ 0.16 • CMS ? Parallel talks 31/7 FBsProspect (short term) Bs J/ analogous toBdJ/KS VVVertex& Angular Resolved Analysis to disentangle CP +/- components Nakada @ fLHC 3/07

  24. LHC Physics Run Starts 2008 Forward Design

  25. 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

  26. d _ d p0 • DmBs • DGBs t,t’? b s B- K- u u In Search ofNew Physics b  sCPVPhenomena Is Current NP Frontier Can sin2FBs belarge? • Sfinb sqq • AK+p--AK+p0 Puzzle Two Hints TCPV Mixing-dep. DCPV Direct EWPenguin WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 t’ non decoupled WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, hep-ph/0610385 Boxes CPV ? sin2FBs ~ -0.5–-0.7 SM-like in SM4

  27. 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

  28. J/yK* DCPV inB+ J/yK+ ? WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, hep-ph/0605080 SM4 c _ c J/y d ~  30° d t, t’ _ d p0 b s B- K- t,t’? u u b s PDG ’06 B- K- u u In Search ofNew Physics b  sCPVPhenomena Is Current NP Frontier lack firm SM prediction

  29. 7 ICHEP06:AJ/yK0 0.018  0.021  0.014Belle -0.07  0.028  0.018 BaBar Better thanDA and DS? Could be seen by 2008 ?! Prognosis for AJ/yK+ Measurement PDG ’06 BaBar/Belle Please Update ! + 124M 32M 10M 89M flipped back Sign flip • AJ/yK+is getting serious: careful studies started • Systematics Study becomes future Theme • — Needed towards SuperB !!

  30. DØ New PDG ’06 PDG ’07 AJ/yK+: Calibration Mode turns Active d ~  30° WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, hep-ph/0605080 H+ effect of Wu, Soni PRD’00 Ruled Out test (+CDF) ±0.0033 @ 8 fb-1 DØnote 5405-CONF 1.6 fb-1 +0.0067 ± 0.0074 ± 0.0026 • AJ/yK+is getting serious: Tevatron! • Larger Statistics (so just you wait for LHCb) • Better Systematics: Larger Control Sample Correct for K± asymm. +0.0139±0.0013±0.0004 matter effect

  31. II. H+ Probes -b  sg -B (D(*))tn

  32. Btag p e- D* e+ Bsignal Eg > 1.9 GeV g Xs Eg > 1.8 GeV b sg ~ B  Xsg TH still unfinished, but ball in Exp court. Full Reconstruct other B?

  33. WSH, Willey, PLB 202, 591 (1988); NPB’89 H+ mimic fW Constraint from b sgon H+ Misiak et al. PRL’07 Misiak et al. PRL’07 Exp NNL HFAG (exp ave) Current NNLO < Exp ! ⇨ bound of 295 GeV ⇨favor 650 GeV !? MSSM type H+always enhanceb sg regardless of tanb Also Grinstein, Wise, PLB’88

  34. fW the cousin of H+ rH Trick/Cost: Full Reconstruct Tag side B @ 0.1~0.3% Two n’s BG !! B tn Amazing: Tree level H+ Effect “Higgs Affinity” , PRD48, 2342 (1993)

  35. hep-ex/0608019 0705.1820 [hep-ex] 320M Dℓn tag Dℓn tag 383M no clear signal (0.9 0.6  0.1) x 10-4 evts hadronic tag ~ (1.20.4stat0.3bkg 0.2eff) x10-4 PRL97, 251802 (2006). hadronic tag 449M background signal First evidence,3.5s 2.6s

  36. b  sg rH tanb/mH+ Constraint from B tn on H+ exl.

  37. 232M 0707.2758 [hep-ex] Ns~65 sys. norm. Ns~105 H+sensitive 535M +12 -11 Ns=60 0706.4429 [hep-ex] submitted to PRL SM~1.4 % 5.2s Firstobservation Curious:2%, now ... More TH (SM) needed for BSM interpretation [polarizations] @ EPSHEP07 “Vcb” talk

  38. III. Electroweak Penguin -AFB(B K*ℓℓ) -B K(*)nn

  39. Ali, Mannel, Morozumi, PLB273, 505 (1991) 2s from SM ? 386M 229M

  40. Example 2 fb-1 experiment SM4 2s from SM ? LHCb MC, J. Dickens @ CKM06 Mmm2 (GeV2) No Reason a prioriwhy C7, C9, C10 should be Real Ali, Mannel, Morozumi, PLB273, 505 (1991) Hovhannisyan, WSH and Mahajan, hep-ph/0701046 Probe Complexity w/o CPV ~ Early LHCb data

  41. 0707.0138 [hep-ex] Probe Loop 535M SM B 20 DAMA CDMS <3.4 x 10-4 < 1.4x10-4 Bird et al., PRL 93, 201803 (2004) < 1.4x10-5 < 1.6x10-4 submitted Light Dark Matter Still 3x SM Full Recon Other B

  42. IV. RH Currents and Scalar Interactions -TCPV in B X0g -Bs  mm

  43. gL - - - - + B0 K*0 TCPV in B0 (KSp0)K*g: Probe RHCurrents KS vertexing gRms/mb suppressed M12 Interference suppressed in SM gLms/mb suppressed B0 gR K*0 Atwood, Gershon, Hazumi, Soni, PRD71, 076003 (2005) Atwood, Gronau, Soni, PRL79, 185 (1997) 535M Consistent with zero. Future probe at SuperB -0.09±0.24 -0.28±0.26 explore also e.g. B  Kfg Also, angular probes FL, AT(2) in B  K*ℓ+ℓ- 232M

  44. CMSSM Bs  mm ~ 3.5 x10-9 in SM Buchalla, A. Buras, NPB398,285 (1993) Babu, Kolda, PRL84, 228 (2000) Winter 07 2 fb-1 DØnote 5344-CONF combined

  45. Limit at 90% C.L. (only bkg is observed) LHCb Sensitivity (signal+bkg is observed) BR (x10–9) BR (x10–9) Expected final CDF+D0 Limit 5 Uncertainty in background prediction SM prediction 3 SM prediction 1 year of LHCb Integrated Luminosity (fb-1) Integrated Luminosity (fb-1) 0.05 fb–1 overtake CDF+D0 0.5 fb–1 exclude BR values down to SM 2 fb–1 3 evidence of SM signal 10 fb–1 >5 observation of SM signal BSm+m- sensitivity 0.5fb–1 exclude BR values down to SM Stephan Eisenhardt

  46. V. D/K: Box and EWP Redux -D0 Mixing -Rare K

  47. (x,y)=(0,0) excluded by >5s Falk et al. PRD’02,’04 Unfortunately, all can arise from y, or DG, or long distance. Recall DmK, however, Comparable BSM allowed To be unequivocal: CPV Observed Recently D0Mixing: D0 → K+K-/p+p- D0 → KSp+p- Dalitz D0 → K∓p± 540 fb-1 Combined Results 384 fb-1 400 fb-1 Assuming no CPV (no evidence yet) To be unequivocal: CPV

  48. E391A P326 CPV 10-11 10-10 E14 ?

  49. VI. t: LFV and (B-L)V -t ℓg, ℓℓℓ’ -t Lp, pp0 b  s echoes ?

  50. Many Models

More Related