1 / 91

Visions of New Physics on Rare B Decays and CP Violation

Visions of New Physics on Rare B Decays and CP Violation. — Starting from A FB in B  K * ℓ + ℓ -. May 17, 2007, Rare LHCb @ Imperial College. II Why 4th Generation Revisit? A CP (K + p 0 ) ≠ A CP (K + p - ) Z Penguin and Boxes Accounting for D A and D S (in NLO PQCD)

varen
Download Presentation

Visions of New Physics on Rare B Decays and CP Violation

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. Visions of New Physics on Rare B Decays and CP Violation — Starting from AFB in B  K*ℓ+ℓ- May 17, 2007, Rare LHCb @ Imperial College

  2. II Why 4th Generation Revisit? ACP(K+p0) ≠ ACP(K+p-) Z Penguin and Boxes Accounting for DA andDS (in NLO PQCD) III Bs Mixing vsB  Xsℓ+ℓ- — Large CPV in Bs Mixing Large CPV Phase or Nil [DGBs related effects IV DCPV in B+ J/yK+ ? [V K/D Aside — Enhanced KLp0nn and D0 Mixing VI Conclusion and DS Outline I AFB in B  K*ℓ+ℓ- — Probe Complexity w/o CPV Complex C7, C9, C10 vs MFV What else? 4th generation as existence proof

  3. I.AFB in B  K*ℓ+ℓ- Probe Complexity w/o CPV

  4. + Box M. Iwasaki @ CKM06

  5. M. Iwasaki @ CKM06

  6. AFB in B  K*ℓ+ℓ- made easy g– Z interference with MZ brought low ! g e+e-  hadrons B - K*

  7. C7, C9, C10taken REAL Why should they be ? M. Iwasaki @ CKM06

  8. Theory “Guidance” Why Real? hep-ph/0612156

  9. BK(*)ll PRL96 (2006) 251801 PRD73 (2006) 092001 • First AFB measurements from the B-factories are compatible with SM. • Ci could be complex BSM: should test this in the future. • Also measured FL to be • compatible with SM ~57 events ~114 events Limit on first q2 at 95% CL. A. Hovhannisvan et al.hep-ph/0701046 Hovhannisyan, WSH and Mahajan y BaBar: 229106 B pairs Belle: 386106 B pairs AdrianBevan

  10. Real by convention Quark level Quantum amplitude: 4-Fermi Inter -action No Reason a prioriwhy C7, C9, C10should be Real To be Probed BY EXPERIMENT

  11. Form factors induce some level of theoretical uncertainty Use form factors calculated within LCSR – Ball & Zwicky Forward-backward asymmetry Form Factor Products Richer Interference

  12. N.B. Wilson coeffs. becoming complex is already present in SM (not via New Phys corrections) Parameterization at weak scale Such an introduction of complexity is beyond MFV and may look very outrageous at first glance, though not impossible, e.g. in generic Z’ models or more than 3 generations

  13. Due to assumed equality SM like : & a: SM b: 4 Gen. shaded: rough boundaries (for illustration only ) data: LHCb MC (2 fb-1) Constrained to 1s experimental range for exclusive radiative and semi-leptonic rates

  14. Bd K*mm: FBA sensitivity With 10 fb-1 Fitted zero-point (GeV2) • Generator zero-crossing point: s0 = 4.10 GeV2 • From 1000 experiments of 2 fb-1: • No background s0 = 4.17 ± 0.38 GeV2 • With background s0 = 4.11 ± 0.52 GeV2 • With 10 fb-1(with background) s0 = 4.17 ± 0.28 GeV2 Example 2 fb-1 experiment Mmm2 (GeV2) Jeremy Dickens @ CKM06

  15. General: Both Zero & Shape Sensitive to NP a: SM b: 4 gen. d: ruled out e: disfavoured c: ~ SM, even the zero, different for large q2 data: LHCb MC (2 fb-1) b  sg DCPV can be tested at SuperB Early LHCb Data Can Tell

  16. What else? • LH-SM, RH/complex bsg • LH-SM, RH-General ...

  17. same thing LH-SM, RH/complex bsg Non-distinct • ~ Lunghi-Matias, hep-ph/0612166, but do not agree with LR SUSY approach • Motivated by TCPV in B  K*0g  Super B Factory • Will LHCb have resolution in ATi ?

  18. Bd K*mm: Transversity angles AT(2) FL • Toy MC created to describe ql, qK* and f distributions • SM predictions used as input values • Inputs are averaged (weighted by cross-section in each bin) • Background distributions added (without non-resonant component) • Analysis performed in 4 bins of s (0 < s < 9 GeV2) A possible 2fb-1 measurement Jeremy Dickens

  19. LH-SM, RH-General ... • Wild Behavior. Anything possible! • (Too much “Freedom”)

  20. In general 10 operators ⇨20parameters Impractical for early fit; When Very Large Dataset, Why Not ?

  21. Why Real WC’s ?

  22. t SM Pattern — Suppressed FCNC at L.E. !

  23. 4th Gen. is non-MFV, SM-like

  24. 4th Generation the epitome Sheldon

  25. b  sCPV Phenomena Is Current NP Frontier • Sfinb sqq • AK+p--AK+p0 Puzzle Two Hints TCPV Mixing-dep. DCPV Direct Will address these soon

  26. Study 4th Generation from Now on D0 Mixing Do not consider scalar int.

  27. 4th Generation !?

  28. Ben Grinstein @ CKM06

  29. Ben Grinstein @ CKM06 Close to what we’ll see !

  30. 4th Generation Still? - Nn counting? 4th “neutrino” heavy Massive neutrinos call for new Physics

  31. - Disfavored by EW Precision (see e.g. J. Erler hep-ph/0604035; PDG06 4th Generation Still? - Nn counting? 4th “neutrino” heavy Massive neutrinos call for new Physics But that’s “old” ...; Overconstrain ourselves, or look forward to LHC ?

  32. CDF Continues to Search http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/top/2005/ljets/tprime/gen6/public.html Softening of Bound !

  33. In era of LHC, can Directly Search for b’, t’ Once and For All ! CMS/ATLAS Duty. A set goal at NTUHEP

  34. Personally ! II Why 4th Generation Revisit? ACP(K+p0) ≠ ACP(K+p-)

  35. 3.8s 2005

  36. Sakai

  37. ... ... It was the handiwork of “yours truly” ...

  38. Acp(Bhh) • Black 449 MBB • Blue 535 MBB • Green 535 MBB • Time-dep. analysis Preliminary • Significant DCPV in K+π- and π+π- • Acp(K+π-) - Acp(K+π0)  4.4σ DA Shen-Wen Lin

  39. Smaller than bgccs in all 9 modes Theory Expect sin2f1 > sin2f1 s-penguin cc(bar)s 2006: f1 with bgs Penguins DS = Ssqq- Sscc< 0Problem Also Preliminary Naïve average of all b g s modes sin2beff = 0.52 ± 0.05 2.6s deviation btwn b g sqq and b g ccs New Physics !? Need More Data !

  40. Why DA = AK+p0- AK+p-> 0a Puzzle ? -9.31.5 %+4.72.6 % ? DA ~ 0 expected

  41. Why DA = AK+p0- AK+p-> 0a Puzzle ? -9.31.5 %+4.72.6 % ? DA ~ 0 expected Large C ? Suppress Tree CPV Phase

  42. Outlook/Golutvin/FPCP07 K decays: direct CPV asymmetries Direct CPV asymmetries in K-+ and K-0 channels differ by 4.4  • Various interpretations (unlikely to be a “puzzle”) : • factorization in SCET • Large color suppressed tree contribution • pQCD NLO (see Mike Gronau, Iain Stewart, Hsiang-nan Li)

  43. DCPVth/Gronau/FPCP07 Really?

  44. Baek-London, hep-ph/0701181v2 Neubert@FPCP07: Just a fit, cannot sustain from computation. This is the start of our Vision Thing.

  45. Why DA = AK+p0- AK+p-> 0a Puzzle ? -9.31.5 %+4.72.6 % ? DA ~ 0 expected Large C ? Large EWPenguin? Suppress Tree CPV Phase

  46. d p0 _ d b s B- K- u u Why DA = AK+p0- AK+p-> 0a Puzzle ? -9.31.5 %+4.72.6 % ? DA ~ 0 expected Large C ? Large EWPenguin? Suppress Tree CPV Phase Need NP CPV Phase ∵ T and PEW ≈ same strong phase t, t’ 4th Gen. in EWP Natural Why ?

  47. My first B paper nondecoupling

  48. On Boxes and Z Penguins K GIM, charm,K small ’K, K  pnn (still waiting) B heavy top, sin2f1/b Z dominance for heavy top 1986  2002

  49. GIM, charm,K small ’K, K  pnn (still waiting) heavy top, sin2f1/b Bs Z dominance for heavy top 1986  2002 All w/ 3-gen., Just wait if there’s 4th D ! b’, t’ @ LHC On Boxes and Z Penguins nondecoupling t, t’

  50. Accounting for DAKp, DS

More Related