1 / 51

New Physics CP Violation in b → s & b s ↔ s b Transitions

New Physics CP Violation in b → s & b s ↔ s b Transitions. September 5, 2008, Beyond 3SM @ CERN. Outline. I. II. Consistence and 4 x 4 CKM III . and Large IV. A FB (B  K*l + l - ) and Other Predictions V. Conclusion. I. 275M BB New.

wan
Download Presentation

New Physics CP Violation in b → s & b s ↔ s b Transitions

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. New Physics CP Violation in b → s & bs↔ sb Transitions September 5, 2008,Beyond 3SM @ CERN

  2. Outline I. II. Consistence and 4 x 4 CKM III. and Large IV. AFB(B  K*l+l-) and Other Predictions V. Conclusion

  3. I.

  4. 275M BB New ACP(B  K+p0 ) Sakai Kp0 : 728 53 ACP(Kp0) = 0.04  0.05  0.02 hint thatACP(K+p- ) ¹ACP(Kp0 ) ? (2.4s) [also seen by BaBar] d p0 Large EW penguin (Z0) ? New Physics ? _ d B- b s K- u u ICHEP 2004, Beijing

  5. Belle 2004 PRL: Seed Y. Chao, P. Chang et al. by “yours truly” PEW Z’

  6. Belle 2008 Nature: Simple Bean Count DA =AK+p0-AK+p-=+0.1640.037 4.4s +0.070.03vs-0.0940.020

  7. +0.0500.025 -0.0970.012 ? A lot of (hadronic) finesse d p0 _ d b s B- K- u u World = +0.1470.028> 5s Experiment is Firm Difference is Large! DAKp~ 0 expected Why aPuzzle ? Large C ? Large EWPenguin? Baek, London, PLB653, 249 (2007) Need NP CPV Phase PEW has practically no weak phase in SM t, ?

  8. My first B (and 4th gen.) paper dimensions nondecoupling

  9. +0.0500.025 -0.0970.012 ? A lot of (hadronic) finesse d p0 _ d b s B- K- u u World = +0.1470.028> 5s Experiment is Firm DAKp~ 0 expected Why aPuzzle ? Large C ? Large EWPenguin? Baek, London, PLB653, 249 (2007) Need NP CPV Phase PEW has practically no weak phase in SM t, ? t, t’ 4th Gen. in EWP Natural nondecoupling

  10. Effective b  s Hamiltonian: t Effect andt’ SM 3 lt lc

  11. GIM Respecting Arhrib and WSH, EPJC’03 t➯t, t’ SM 4 CPV Phase t, t’ t, t’

  12. d p0 _ d t, t’ b s B- K- u u NLO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen. WSH, Li, Mishima, Nagashima, PRL’07 weakened @ ICHEP DA 15% DS  -0.11 vs -0.340.2x (data) SM3 input DS DA Both and in Right Direction ! DA= AK+p0-AK+p- ~ 15% and LO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen. WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 DA 12% vs 15% (data) Joining C & PEW

  13. II. Consistence and 4 x 4 CKM

  14. Consistency and b  sg Predictions PDG ’06 SM3 SM3 BR OK ACP ~ 0 far away beyond SuperB Heavy t’ effect decoupled for b  sg

  15. _ Z bb b  d x ~ 0.22 4 x 4 Unitarity ➯Z/K Constraints “Typical” CKM Matrix WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’05 s b d s Satisfy b  d: ✓ Cannot tell triangle from quadrangle b  s

  16. ~ SM3 Strength and Size of b → d “Triangle” andb → s Quadrangle b → d negligible b → s b → s Quadrangle Area ~ (-)30x b → d Triangle (almost Triangle)

  17. On Boxes and Z Penguins GIM, charm,K small ’/, K  pnn (still waiting) heavy top, sin2f1/b Z dominance for heavy top 1986  2002 Most Flavor/CPV learned from these diagrams/processes

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

  19. II.and Large

  20. Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 Large CPV in Bs Mixing WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 SM (high) rsb Bs Mixing Measured @ Tevatron in 4/2006 • Fixed rsb➯ Narrow fsb Range • destructive with top • For rsb ~ 0.02 – 0.03, [Vcb ~ 0.04 • fsb Range ~ 60°-70° CDF2srange FiniteCPV Phase sin2FBs ~ -0.5 - -0.7 ?

  21. Large CPV in Bs Mixing WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 SM (high) rsb DAKp, DS CDF2srange Can Large CPV in Bs Mixing Be Measured @ Tevatron ? Sure thing by LHCb ca. 2009-10 Sign Predicted ! sin2FBs ~ -0.5 --0.7 ? Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05

  22. sin2FBs~ -0.5 --0.7 WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 arXiv:0712.2397 [hep.ex] arXiv:0802.2255 [hep.ex] 3.7s +0.16 -0.14 sin2FBs=-0.64 UTfit arXiv:0803.0659 [hep.ph] talk by Juan Fernandez (CDF) Further ICHEP’08 Updates (CDF/DØ/fitters): Strengthen ! ~2.5s ± ? Incredible !!!

  23. WSH,Nagashima,Soddu, PRD’07 (hep-ph/0610385) 4th Generation ? Did not ask for this ! Tevatron can compete w/ LHCb iff |sin2FBs|> 0.4

  24. ICHEP update Increased dataset still hints at larger than SM values! Consistency with SM decreased 15%  7% (~1.8σ) ICHEP update 0.28 < βs < 1.29at 68% CL -pi/2 < βs < -1.45 OR -1.01 < βs < -0.57 OR -0.13 < βs < pi/2at 95% CL www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/bottom/080724.blessed-tagged_BsJPsiPhi_update_prelim/ Will shrink further with PID in the whole dataset D. Tonelli- Fermilab

  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. IV.AFB(B  K*l+l-) and Other Predictions

  27. Fourth Generation PRD 77, 014016 (2008) Quoted byTsybychev at FPCP08 a: SM; b: 4 Gen. better data: LHCb MC (2 fb-1) (FL and)AFB (and AI) favor the “opposite-sign C7 model” Ali, Mannel, Morozumi, PLB273, 505 (1991) Eigen at FPCP08 349 fb-1 386M 229M

  28. complex wilson coefficients SM 4th generation (SM4) 2fb-1 MC study of LHCb (~7000 K*ll events) (=s/mB2=q2/mB2) Instead flipped C7 ... Deviation from SM3Strengthened ! W.-S. Hou, A. Hovhannisyan, and N. Mahajan, PRD 77, 014016 (2008) Belle 657M Preliminary 386M BABAR, arXiv:0804.4412

  29. D Mixing (Short-distance Only) PDG06 310 270 From 4 x 4 Unitarity mb’ = 230 GeV x = Dm/G ~ 1 - 3 plausible w/ Sizable (but not huge) CPV in Mixing ~ -15% N.B. SM LD could generate y ~ 1%, x ≈ y [Falk, Grossman, Ligeti, (Nir,) Petrov]

  30. Implication for Current E391A U.L. Grossman-Nir Very hard to measure enhanced to or even higher !! In general larger than !! SM 3 Ratecould be enhanced up to almost two orders !! ∵ Large CPV Phase

  31. Even ifO(1) 10+15 VI. Conclusion ~ 10+15 Gain 10+13 Enough CPV for B.A.U. Maybe there is a 4th Generation !

  32. I. II. Consistence and 4 x 4 CKM III. and Large IV. AFB(B  K*l+l-) and Other Predictions CDF/D0 LHCb Even ifO(1) 10+15 D mixing, KL p0nn V.Conclusion ~ 10+15 Gain 10+13 Enough CPV for B.A.U.

  33. Backup

  34. sin2FBs~ -0.5 --0.7 Added 4/2008 WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 arXiv:0712.2397 [hep.ex] arXiv:0802.2255 [hep.ex] 3.7s +0.16 -0.14 sin2FBs=-0.64 Incredible !!! UTfit arXiv:0803.0659 [hep.ph]

  35. Normalize by T ~ 100 GeV in SM is common (unique) area of triangle B.A.U. from Electroweak Baryogenesis? CPV Too Small in SM WMAP Why? Jarlskog Invariant in SM3 (need 3 generation in KM) masses too small !

  36. Only fac. 30 in CPV per se B.A.U. from Electroweak Baryogenesis? CPV Too Small in SM WMAP If shift by One Generation in SM4(need 3 generation in KM) ~ 10+15 Gain Gain mostly in Large Yukawa Couplings !

  37. Carena, Megevand, Quirós, Wagner, NPB’05 • Fermion • Couple Strongly to Higgs Can “Boil” Higgs Soup • mF/T Not small Cannot use above m/T expansion • Not too large Does not decouple too early Upshot: relativistic d.o.f. g* become g*(f), effective reheating by F decoupling around Tc Stronger Transition B.A.U. from Electroweak Baryogenesis? Order of Phase Transition Too much equlibration in SM washes away B.A. at high T Cubic term too small Extra Heavy Bosons (usual approach)

  38. Fermion • Couple Strongly to Higgs Can “Boil” Higgs Soup • mF/T Not small Cannot use above m/T expansion • Not too large Does not decouple too early Upshot: relativistic d.o.f. g* become g*(f), effective reheating by F decoupling around Tc Stronger Transition B.A.U. from Electroweak Baryogenesis? Order of Phase Transition Observation: ∃ 4th Generation, then t < b’ < t’ ~ 300 GeV may be sufficient for ?! If numerics of CMQW can be used Used Higgsino/Wino Model w/ 12 d.o.f. l> 2.1 Comment that top (also 12 d.o.f.) w/ l≅ 1 is too small Carena, Megevand, Quirós, Wagner, NPB’05

  39. B.A.U. from Electroweak Baryogenesis? CPV Order of Phase Transition Can 4th Generation Restore Electroweak Baryogenesis ? Can we use this to Demand to see NP b → s CPV ?

  40. V. Discussion and Conclusion • 4thgeneration not in such great conflict with EWPrT • Kribs, Plehn, Spannowsky, Tait, PRD’07 • Issue of “UV completion” for EWBG picture (vacuum stability) • Heavy 4th generation above 600 GeV (unitarity limit) • could lead to EWSB No Higgs ? Holdom, JHEP’06 • t’ & b’ can be discovered at LHC !

  41. and Large Conclusion on New Physics b → s CPV I. Intro: BAU ➯ Need New Physics CPV II. Hints in b → s * * vs III.New Large Yukawa Couplings: CPV in and * kaon constraint * refinement IV. Proof: (near) Future * @ Tevatron & LHC(b) * BAU from Electroweak Baryogenesis Experiment is Firm 4th Generation and (distant) Past Soon !

  42. Backup

  43. 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)

  44. Box/EWP Sensitivity to 4th Gen. g, g less sensitive (No New Operators) EW penguin QCD penguin nondecoupling

  45. ~ 0.04 ACP(K+p-) ~ -0.12, ACP(K+p0) ~ +0.04 ? WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 LO PQCD • ☞ACP(K+p-) almost independent of t’ • ☞ACP(Kp0)- ACP(Kp) > 0.1 demands • fsb~ +p/2 • Large mt’ and rsb Large Effect

  46. Opposie Sign

  47. Arhrib and WSH Hattori, Hasuike and Wakaizumi Yanir 4th generation not excluded Independently favored allowed

  48. and Prospects Just Around Corner! (SM3-like) Phase ~ -0.2 to -0.7! Defintely BSM if measured !

  49. b  d impose From b → s study 4 x 4 Unitarity ➯ Constraints SM3 We need to deal with mixing matrix in detail to keep Unitarity b  s Kaon Cross Check !

  50. (E. Pallante et al.) (J. Bijnens et al.) well-satisfy ! Constrain s  dfrom K Physics (shaded) “Standard” No SM3 solution Therefore….

More Related