B A B AR Physics Program

1. BABAR Physics Program Jeffrey D. Richman BABAR Physics Coordinator UC Santa Barbara and SLAC DOE High Energy Physics Program Review,June 3, 2004

2. Outline • Major physics goals • Physics productivity, organization, planning • Physics progress: a sampling • CP violation in B decays: a brief primer • The new sin2b program: the charmonium benchmark vs. the penguins • Quest for alpha: a new approach • Rare decays: a growth industry • B “beams” & their applications—CKM elements and the dynamics of B decay • Surprising spectroscopy: the new charm-strange mesons • Prospects for summer 2004 and beyond • Conclusions

3. BABAR Physics Goals • Perform comprehensive set of measurements of CP-violating asymmetries in B meson decays. Test the SM and search for CP-violating amplitudes from processes beyond the SM. • Systematically map out the new territory of rare B decay processes, including all that have sensitivity to new physics. (Also probe new physics in t and charm decays.) • Measure the rates for all processes that can be used to extract the magnitudes of CKM elements and other well-defined theoretical parameters. • Perform detailed studies to elucidate the decay dynamics and spectroscopy of particles containing b or c quarks. • Perform studies of other accessible physics processes allowed by the broad acceptance of the BABAR trigger: t-lepton physics, physics utilizing ISR processes (including R-related measurements at low energy), searches for new states such as pentaquarks, etc.

4. Publications: BABAR vs. Belle(published or submitted) • BABAR papers are labeled according to the date the paper goes into 2-week Collaboration Wide Review (CWR). • At time of Jan IFC meeting: 75 (BABAR) vs. 77 (Belle). • Analyses now in CWR or FN/FR:(1) B f0 KS, (2) BK*g, (3) BD*ln: Vcb, (4) Btn, (5) B a0 X (charmless) • Other papers nearing completion:(1) BK2*(1430)g, (2) BD(*)DsJ, (3) B J/y Kp: cos(2b), (4) BD*D* and related modes • GOAL: submit 100th paper by the July collaboration meeting!

5. Some recent physics highlights - June 2004 • Br+r-: 1st observation of mode; demonstrated that polarization is almost 100% longitudinal  CP=+1, not a mix. (PRL accepted.) • B r+r- : 1st time-dependent CP asymmetry: presented at La Thuile and Moriond. Since G-Q bound is 13 degrees, this measurement provides a much better constraint on a than Bp+ p -. Belle has not yet produced a branching fraction measurement. Submitted to PRL. • BKS p0: 1st time-dependent CP analysis; b measurement using beam constraint to get B vertex. Submitted to PRL. • BK*0 (KSp0) g:1st time-dependent CP analysis of an electroweak penguin mode. Submitted to PRL. • Bf0(980)KS: 1st time-dependent CP analysis (b) and observation of new mode. PRL draft in Final Notice. • BJ/y Kp : 1st ambiguity-free measurement of cos2b and strong phases using s-wave Kpinterference with p-wave (K*). Preliminary result presented at Moriond EW. PRD in progress.

6. Some recent research highlights - June 2004 • |Vcb| from inclusive B decays, hadron spectrum moments, lepton spectrum moments: 2 PRDs accepted and 1 PRL submitted. Uncertainty on |Vcb| is significantly reduced. • BfKS, BfKL: final Run 1-3 result, submitted to PRL • BK+K- KS with m(K+K-) above the f mass (sin2b measurement consistent with BJ/yKS ). BABAR and Belle agree above the f mass! PRL submitted. • B h w (4.3s), hh, hh’, h’h’, h f, h’w, h’f , ff : PRL submitted. • BD(Kp) K (Atwood Dunietz Soni method) –limit: submitted to PRL • Observation of X(3872) in BX(3872)K; presented at Moriond QCD, PRL in Final Notice. • Observation of DsJ(2317) and DsJ(2460) in B decay. Presented at Moriond QCD. Several new modes observed. PRD in preparation. • Angular analysis of Bf K* preliminary result presented at Moriond. Mystery of the very low longitudinal polarization (52%) compared to other BVV modes. Will be updated with Run 4 before publication.

7. Current analysis status- June 2004 Research highlights, continued • B h’(K*,r, p0)+(w,f) p0 : PRD submitted • B Xs l+ l-:PRL submitted • B Xs g direct CP: PRL submitted • BK*g branching fractions and direct CP search:PRL in Final Notice. • B a0(K, K0, p): now in CWR • B K0 p+p- : preliminary result • New results for APS! BppK; Bwr, K*w; Bfg; 1st results from pentaquark searches.

8. Other recent physics papers • B+h p+, h K+, B0wK0 1st observations: accepted • Color suppressed B decays: BD*0h, D*0w, D0h’ 1st observations: accepted • BJ/y h K 1st observation: submitted • DG and CPT limits from BJ/y K0: PRL and PRD submitted • sin(2b+g): inclusive & exclusive BD*p: 2 papers submitted • B p p search accepted • t3 leptons (limits): accepted (Belle paper followed) • Ds(2458): accepted • Mass and width of Y(4S): submitted

9. BABAR Physics Planning Fall 2003/Winter 2004 CKM Angles, Recoil Workshops t, Vxb Workshops Spectroscopy workshop: charm, charmonium, pentaquarks May PAC/Convener Regular Meetings Stage 1 Review Stage 2BAIS AWGs, Conveners, PAC Physics Advisory Group AWGs, Conveners (many new), PAC • BAD 736 • BAD 780 • Enter active & summer 2004 analyses • in BAIS Fall Physics Harvest Winter Conference Prep AWGs, Conveners, PAC, Pub Board, Speakers Bureau; see links on BABAR home page & Physics page. AWGs, Conveners, PAC, Pub Board Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

10. Physics Organization: Working Groups

11. Powerful physics organization • AWG Leadership has broad geographical base • Conveners: many leadership opportunties for postdocs • 21 new Physics/Tools Group conveners since Sept 03 • Formal links between Tools groups and Physics Groups

12. Comments on Physics Productivity • We are working to increase physics productivity even more: • Maintain very strong emphasis on physics planning. • We are working towards making the review process more efficient, while maintaining the quality of our results. • Steady stream of theorists interacting with physics analysis groups. Series of physics workshops to generate ideas and facilitate planning. • New “interdisciplinary” meetings across analysis working groups. PAC Champagne Challenges

13. Data Quality Group • In fall 2003, we greatly strengthened our effort to monitor and control data quality. • Have always had online data quality monitoring & a small number of people looking at data quality offline. • Offline effort is now much larger (about 20 people) and has leadership from senior physicsists. Coordinated effort of Detector, Computing, and Physics organizations. This is essential, given how rapidly we take data. • The DQG monitors several different data streams: • Run 4 data & Run 4 reprocessing with final constants • Run 1—3 conversion to CM2 • Trickle injection monitoring • Overall rates from physics skims • Data quality protocol based on rapid data processing in Padova & SLAC • Tues morning: run list up to Mon is defined • by Weds night: subsystem experts define individual bad run lists • Thurs weekly meeting: define official good run list

14. Run 4 Data History PEP-II delivered BaBar logged (>97%) Processed Data Quality Run List Data Quality Good Final Runlist (reprocessed) Physics Skims in CM2

15. Physics Analysis Database: new starting Jan 2004 Already has 235 analyses entered! Sorting and searching Access to supporting documentation and publication, review committees, data samples used, code releases used, status history.

16. Physics Analysis Database: Info for one Analysis Working Group Analysis name: link to details Status code

17. Physics Analysis Database: Analyses in Final Stages In Collab Wide Review: 12 institutions Authors responding to collab wide review Final 1 week notice to collab Submitted but not yet accepted Accepted but not yet published

18. Physics Analysis Database: Info on an analysis Data samples and code release Authors & review committee Links to supporting documentation, drafts, and publication Most of our physics analyses are performed by a small group of authors. Huge number of opportunities for graduate students and postdocs!

19. CP Violation Primer • CP violation can be observed by comparing decay rates of particles and antiparticles • The difference in decay rates arises from a different interference term for the matter vs. antimatter process. Analogy to double-slit experiment: Classical double-slit experiment: Relative phase variation due to different path lengths: interference pattern in space source B system: extraordinary laboratory for quantum interference experiments: many final states, multiple “paths.”

20. Conditions for CP violation • Two amplitudes, A1 and A2, with a relative CP-violating phase (f2) only. • No CP violation: the magnitudes of A and A are the same! • Two amplitudes, A1 and A2, with both a relative CP-violating phase and CP-conserving phase (d2). • Now have CP violation!

21. A dictionary of CP violating effects in decay processes • CP violation in the interference between two decay amplitudes (“Direct CP violation”) • Decay amps must have different CP violating and CP conserving phases. • CP conserving phase from strong, final-state interaction, so difficult to interpret results in terms of CKM parameters • Can measure in both B0/B0 and B+/B- decays (time-indep); tagging not needed • CP violation in mixing • Interference is between bundle of amplitudes with on-shell (real) intermediate states and bundle of amplitudes for off-shell (virtual) intermediate states. • CP conserving phase from mixing • B mixing is completely dominated by processes with virtual intermediate states, so there is very little CP violation in mixing (q/p). • CP violating in the interference between mixing and decay amplitudes • Tagging required • CP conserving phase from mixing • If only one direct decay amplitude, has clean CKM interpretation

22. Looking for the perfect way to study CP violation In the SM, the CKM matrix is the only source of CP violating phases.

23. Time-dependent CP asymmetries from the interference between mixing and decay no net oscillation net oscillation Requires tagging and measurement of time dependence.

24. Calculating the CP Asymmetry If single direct-decay amp, hadronic matrix element divides out, leaving pure phase. Pure phase factor in B decays since mixing is dominated by M12(virtual intermediate states).

25. The magic of having just one direct decay amplitude Even through we are using hadronic final states, the complexities of QCD interactions are completely avoided! For the modes BJ/y KS (J/y KL) • If CP violation is due to interference between mixing • and one direct decay amp: • Pure sin(Dm t) time dependence • No dependence of asymmetry on hadronic physics

26. Tag B sz ~ 170 mm CP B sz ~ 40-80 mm J/y U(4s) K0 bg = 0.56 Dz Dt @Dz/gbc gbctB@ 250 mm The Lorentz Boost • The asymmetric beam energies of PEP-II allow us to measure quantities that depend on decay time. e- e+ 9.0 GeV 3.1 GeV

27. Innermost Detector Subsystem: Silicon Vertex Tracker Installed SVT Modules Be beam pipe: R=2.79 cm (B mesons move 0.25 mm along beam direction.)

28. The sin2b program: thecharmonium benchmark vs. the penguins • sin2b from bccs modes was last published by BABAR with Runs 1-2 (88 M BB events). Published in PRL, 89, 20182 (2002). • We will add Runs 3-4 for ICHEP’04 and then publish. sin2b is becoming a precision measurement. • We have also improved our tagging software, so there should be some modest additional improvement beyond the added statistics. • Theory error < 1%.

29. sin2b signal and control Samples (88M BB) CP=-1 J/Y Ks (Ks p+p-) J/y Ks (Ksp+p-) (974evts, P=0.94) Bflav control sample mistag, Dt res. (25375evts, P=0.85) y(2s) Ks J/y KL (988evts, P=0.55) J/Y Ks (Ksp0p0) J/y Ks (Ksp0p0) CP=+1 J/Y K*0 (K*0  Ksp0) c1 Ks J/y K*0 (K*0  Ksp0)

30. sin2b from Bcharmonium K0 (88M BB) Control sample ACP = -0.004  0.027 both uncertainties are data driven (consistent with unityno direct CPv)

31. Testing the assumptions in the extraction of sin2b extraction from charmonium modes • The extraction of sin(2b) assumes • DG/G=0 (no lifetime difference between neutral B mass eigenstates) • |q/p|=1 (checked with dilepton CP asymmetry measurement.) • CPT is conserved • We have performed a detailed study to check these assumptions: • 2 papers accepted: PRL and PRD

32. r-h plane with all constraints (sin2b not combined with others) cos2b<0 cos2b>0

33. Determination of the sign of cos(2b) with BJ/y (Kp) • From BJ/yKs, we are used to seeing the sin(2b)sin(Dmd t) term. • In BJ/y K*0 (K*0Ksp0), terms with cos(2b)sin(Dmdt) appear due to interference between CP-even and CP-odd amplitudes. • Problem: there is a sign ambiguity associated with the strong phases! • Solution • Measure magnitudes of strong phases from angular analysis • Signs of phases determined from Kp s-wave/p-wave interference • t-dependent CP analysisexcludes cos2b=-0.68 @89% C.L. BABAR 131±14 evts BJ/y K+p- L = 82 fb-1 Rel s-p wave phase vs. M(Kp) BABAR, soln 1 BABAR, soln 2 LASS expt: KpKp(n)

34. The next step for sin2b: search for phases from new particles & couplings in loop processes SUSY contribution with new phases

35. Belle Results for BfKS BELLE 140 fb-1 Signal

36. BABAR results for Bf KS, f KL (Runs 1-3) Bf KS Bf KL

37. BK+K- KS andB+K+ KSKS branching fractions and CP asymmetry • There is a substantial rate for BK+K- KS for M(K+K-) outside the f mass region. • The CP eigenvalue of the final state is not a priori known, but it can be measured from • For the non-fregion, B0→K+K-KS 201±16 evts B+→K+KSKS 122±14 evts

38. BK+K- KS time-dependent CP asymmetry

39. B f0 (980)KS observation and CP asymmetry BABAR Presented at Moriond EW. PRL now submitted. CP(f0 KS)=+1 CP(J/y KS)=-1 93.6±13.6 (stat)±6.3 (syst) evts L=111.2 fb-1 Total Continuum All bgk. Total Continuum All bgk. BABAR

40. B f0 (980)KS observation and CP asymmetry • Branching fraction • f0(980) resonance parameters • Systematic errors • Dominant sys. errors on branching fraction: fit procedure (0.26), B background (0.30), Q2B approx (1.21) in units of 10-6. • Dominant sys. errors on S: fit procedure (0.06) and B background (0.05); Q2B approx is (0.04) so this does not dominate. • Comments on S and C • S is 1.2s from physical limit and is 1.7s from SM; no CP violation is excluded at 2.7s • C is 0.8s from SM

41. y z BABAR measurement of sin2b from BKSp0 p+ • Special vertexing approach Constrain in x-y to beam-spot p- Ks Beam e+ e- p0 Btag- Standard Method

42. The sin2b program: thecharmonium benchmark vs. the penguins BABAR only

43. The Quest for Alpha • Significant progress in constraining a using Br+r- • The angle a enters into the CP asymmetries for bu modes: • Assuming the bu tree diagram dominates • But penguin amplitude is sizeable

44. Coping with penguins: isospin analysis • Gronau-London isospin analysis: J=0 two-pion state has no I=1, so Bpp can be described in terms of two I-spin amplitudes. • A+0 has no gluonic penguin base is common to B+ and B- • Grossman-Quinn bound: 2 - • Useful if p0p0 is small. • Does not require p0p0 events to be tagged since uses sum.

45. BABAR results related to a • Intensive effort in BABAR to explore all modes that can constrain a. All of the following will be updated for ICHEP’04.

46. BABAR and Belle on Bp+p- • Belle observes a rather large negative value of spp. • Another analysis to watch closely! 2004 update 2004 update

47. Observation of Br+ r– and polarization measurement • From the BABAR Physics Book, 1998 • At first glance, the decays Brr appear to be completely analogous to Bpp. However, there is an important difference. Because the r is a vector meson, the rrpair can be in a state of angular momentum L=0, 1, or 2. States of even and odd angular momentum correspond to states of even and odd CP, respectively… • After discovering Br+r- , we measured the polarization Nearly pure CP even eigenstate!

48. Measurement of CP asymmetry in Br+ r- From L. Roos Moriond talk

49. Plots from CKM fitter group: I-spin analysis of Br+r- • Presented by Lydia Roos at Moriond EW

50. Rare Decays: A Major Growth Industry • BABAR has five separate analysis groups focussed on rare B (or charm) decays. (t group also looks at rare decays.) • rare hadronic decays (3 groups), electroweak penguins, leptonic decays (discussed many hadronic rare decays earlier) • We have pushed our sensitivity to the 10-6 level for many processes and even lower for some processes. • Main goal is to search for effects of new physics in processes with Flavor Changing Neutral Currents (FCNC). Due to the presence of loops, such processes can be sensitive to new physics. • Large industry of theoretical predictions for SM and SUSY models. • Branching fractions, CP asymmetries, kinematic distributions, I-spin relations can all be affected by new physics.