Conference Summary

B. Grinstein FPCP, Daegu Oct 9,

2004 1

Conference Summary

Flavor Physics and CP Violation

Daegu, Republic of Korea, Oct 9, 2004


2004 2

Thanks for dinner. Mr. chairman …


2004 3

Flavor Physics Deep Questions Generations? Three? Hierarchy of masses? Texture of mixings? Is flavor physics tied to EW symmetry

breaking? CP violation for baryogenesis? Quarks vs Leptons?


2004 4

What flavorists do to answer these Invent constructs that answer one or more questions, eg

Many species of SUSY/SUGRA (actually, do these answer any flavor Qs?)

Mass matrix textures Brane overlaps, extended technicolor, preons, leptoquarks,…

If construct is … predictive → Test by precise measurement not predictive → Ignore it

Fix construct. If fix is Ugly (eg, SUSY) → swallow hard, reinvent construct and repeat

from top Discusting (eg, SUSY) → swallow hard, reinvent construct and

repeat from top Unavailable (e-technicolor?) → swallow hard, reinvent construct

and repeat from top


2004 5

What flavorists really do to answer these Most of the work goes into tests It is not fruitful to test constructs individually Ever more precise results are collected in a

model that does not address flavor

• What if the model cannot accommodate some results?• What if the model can always accommodate results?

But …


2004 6

If the “standard” cannot accommodate results Stockholm Adopt a new standard. The new standard may or

may not address the questions If it does → success! If it does not → repeat from top

If the “standard” accommodates results … Little thought has been expended here. The

answer could be weird indeed (eg, anthropic principle/quantum cosmology)


2004 7

Goals revisited

While answering the “deep questions” remains the primary goal, the daunting task of determining the (possibly changing) “standard” is interesting enough in its own right.

We should succeed at describing the universe in detail, if not in explaining why the universe is that way!


2004 8

The flavor of leptons …

Neutrino mass and mixing


2004 9

Neutrino masses: mfirmly established Dirac mass

Like quark sector New fields: right handed ’s. How many? Active

vs inactive. CKM naturally appears (PMNS†) L=Le+L+L=0 but Li 0 CP → new cosmic avenues, eg, leptogenesis Quark-like questions: Spectrum? Texture?

† Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata


2004 10

Majorana mass New phenomenon → new questions New scalars/VEVs? If so, what new scale? L|=2 Active (Iw=1)

Triplet higgs Dim 5 see-saw

Sterile+active Bare mass/singlet higgs


2004 11

Neutrino mass evidence

•Confirmed•Atmospheric:

• m2 ~ 210-3 eV2 • near- maximal

•Solar:• m2 ~ 8 10-5 eV2 • non-maximal

•Unconfirmed•LSND:

• m2 ~ 0.1-10 eV2

• Small angle

P→sin22sin2(1.27m2L/E)


2004 12

PatternsMaximal 2-3 mixing:

NormalHierarchy

Inverted Hierarchy

0 rate tinyQuark-like

0 rate larger (if Majorana) SN1987A (if 13 0)?


2004 13

With LSND

•Z width → exactly 3 active ’s with m<MZ/2 → sterile•Pure -s mixing excluded for atmosferic (SK, MACRO)•Pure e-s mixing excluded for solar (SK, SNO)


2004 14

3-Flavor Analysis result

no

rmal

inve

rted

Best fit: m2 = 2.7x10-3ev2, sin223 = 0.5, sin213 = 0.0

m3

m2

m1

m3

m2

m1

sin223

sin2

13

m2

sin213m

2

sin2

13

(Y. Wang, ICHEP04,preliminary)


2004 15

A busy future

Confirm/refute LSND →MiniBooNE Detect 1-3 mixing Find CP violation Lot’s of experiments continuing and proposed

Reactor (Angra dos Reis, Braidwood, Chooz-II, Diablo Canyon, Daya Bay, Kashiwazaki, Krasnoyarsk) (show next)

CUORE, GENIUS, Majorana, super-NEMO, MOON,EXO)

LBL (K2K-II, MINOS, CNGS, NOvA, T2K)

[Kobayashi, S K Kang]


2004 16

Sensitivities to sin2213 @ 90%CL

Double Chooz

KASKA

BraidwoodDaya Bay

PowerBaselineDetectorOverburden


2004 17

The CKM matrix

Never leave important measurements un-re-measured [Glazov]


2004 18

Status: individual elements(unitarity not assumed)

K3,Ke3: 1%Nuc-


2004 19

A tremendous effort:

CKM unitarity alive!Need theory for FFUse quenched lattice QCD:

Obtain

Average

[Glazov]


2004 20

With apologies to experts

Two new calculations of FF1. Quenched lattice QCD2. Chiral perturbation theory

Only 1 agrees with old FF calculation, use that one (democracy gone mad?!)

2(0) 1 0 ( )f O Ademollo-Gatto theorem

: sym bkg = QCD/ 1/ 3sm 2 2/ 1/ 4Km ( for chiral pert. Thy.)

Quenched error 20% of 2 is 2%


2004 21

Status: individual elements(unitarity not assumed)

K3,Ke3: 1%Nuc-

B → Xcl

B → Xul

+d→c+X: 5%

W → cX: 10%

Really? Never leave important measurements un-re-measured!


2004 22

Over-constrain unitarity triangle

… a test of CKM theory of flavor


2004 23

Sides


2004 24

Vcb from inclusive semileptonic decays Theory

is the decay of a free quark vanishes Local quark-hadron duality used mildly

6 parameters


2004 25

Moment Analysis

Lepton Energy

Hadronic Mass

Photon Energy

where


2004 26

BaBaR fit P.Gambino, N.Uraltsevhep-ph/0401063, 0403166

[Barberio]

2/dof =20/15 Red line: HQE fit

Yellow band: theory errors

3exp 10)6.04.04.04.41(|| theoryHQEcbV


2004 27

Global analysis

Data: BaBar, BELLE, CDF, CLEO, DELPHI

With/without 1/mc expansion Compare mass schemes: 1S, PS, … Half integer hadronic moments

error badly behaved

Bauer et alhep-ph/0408002

Yellow/green:


2004 28

Vcb from exclusive semileptonic decays

HQET Luke’s Thm:

Extrapolation to w = 1 constrained by unitarity/analiticity (Boyd et al)

Largest uncertainty:

BELLE

w

w

hA

1(w

) |V

cb|

x 1

0-3 BABA

R


2004 29

Vcb Results

F (1)|Vcb|=(37.8 0.9) x10-3

2 =1.54 0.14

inclusive

exclusive BABAR (D*l )


2004 30

Vub from inclusive semileptonic decays Theory as in b→c Signal swamped by Kinematic cuts:

Effect of shape function (model)

better

Best:CombinemX and q2


2004 31

Vub from inclusive semileptonic decay

Shape function f(x) from b→s Universality of f(x) and WA uncertainties ~10% (Bauer et al)

[Simonetto]

Belle: (5.54 0.42 0.55 0.42 0.27) x 10-3

BaBar: (5.18 0.41 0.40 0.23 0.27) x 10-3

stat exp fit OPE

5% !(by decree?)

Y.Kwon: What are we gonna do about this?


2004 32

Vub from exclusive semileptonic decay Need form factors

Use lattice QCD

[Okamoto]

CLEO


2004 33

Vub HFAG summary

No LEP

No exclusives

Overall consistency

Vub(endpoint) < Vub(mX-q cut)

|Vub|=(4.70 0.44) x 10-3


2004 34

Angles


2004 35

Unitarity triangle angles

CP in interference between decay and mixing

Theoretically clean if common final state is a CP eigenstate one weak phase only (or dominant)


2004 36

Notation (plagiarized from Ligeti@ICHEP04)

With apologies to T. Gershon


2004 37

sin(21) from b →ccs

1sin 2 0 722 0.040 0.023/ 0.950 0.031 0.013

.A A

1sin 2 0 728 0.056 0.023/ 1.007 0.041 0.033

.A A

0

0

( ) +( )

S

L

cc Kcc K

[Trabelsi]


2004 38

Over-constrain, finally!

CKM works! Keep piling on observables cos(21) cute, but adds little to this program Precision physics: need clean observables Vub best direction to test this

Best direction:┴ to sin(21)is 1-(+i)→Vtd •B→Xd (B→x10-6)• M(Bs)M(Bd)•sin

Future of precise determination:


2004 39

Progress!

Note: same scale


2004 40

sin(21) from b →ccd, b →qqs Ligeti Theo-guess| –f Sf – sin(21) |

Note in particular New: FPCP04


2004 41

New physics? Model builder heaven…

SK and S’K can be accommodated (unlike O(1) deviations)

Take, eg, SUSY B→Xs constrains LR mass insertions LL/RR penguins → sizeable b→s

Start to be constrained by6Br( ) (4.5 1.0) 10sB X

[Yoshikawa, Kwon, Ko]


2004 42

B factories have measured 2,

3 Sin(22)

B→ Br(00), C00 measured Isospin analysis

B→ Br(00)/Br(+-)<0.04 (90% CL) – eff small!

B→ Dalitz plot Pentagon analysis Needs Br and ACP for B→+-, 00, -+

Instead: SU(3)+ factorization assumptions

[Gershon, Bevan, Albert, Hazumi, Zupan]

o

2 ( ) ( ) ( ) 96 10 4 11 stat sys peng

o2

27(113 6)17 o

2 (102 11 15)

o

2

From combined , , results:

12100 11

o indirect constraint fit:

98 16CKM


2004 43

sin(3) Interference between

common D0, D0 final state

Asymmetry depends on

Dalitz: difference in errors fromdiffering rB determination

0 0and B D K B D K

0CPB D K

(*)0B D K K (*)0 0

SB D K K

Color suppressed

*cb usA V V

*ub csA V V

cbV

*usV

ubV

*csV

3

3 2 2 ie

FPCP04 updated

BaBar Bound (B→DK)

Belle central value (B→DK)


2004 44

Direct CP Violation: The last nail onthe superweak coffin! Superweak: CP in B=2 only (or S=2) CP in decay (B=1): weak (k) and strong (k) phases, different

Theory can accommodate this (not explain it)

[Lange,Graziani]


2004 45

Many other ACP in charmless decays

New FPCP04: B0 KS(incl. K*KS) S = -0.58 0.11; C = +0.03 0.34 0.11

+0.46–0.38


2004 46

Summary of the summary?

CKM, a precision science PMNS, like CKM 20 years ago Break with paradigm?

Neutrino masses Hints in b→sss?

Baby steps towards answering the “deep questions”!

Lot’s of work ahead [Iijima, Menzemer, Dornan] Thank you!


2004 47

Mark your calendars

CKM 2005

March 15 through 18

La Jolla (San Diego), California

La Jolla Shores Beach

UCSD

Conference Summary

Documents

Transcript of Conference Summary