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

NP b → s CPV George W.S. Hou (NTU) Beyond 3SM, Sept. 5, 2008 1

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

September 5, 2008, Beyond 3SM @ CERN


I.

II. Consistence and 4 x 4 CKM

III. and Largeand Large

IV. AAFBFB(B K*l+l) and Other Predictions

V. Conclusion

Outline

0AAΔAπKBπKBKπ 0

0sin2ΦsB


I.

0AAΔAπKBπKBKπ 0

ICHEP 2004, Beijing

ACP(B K)ACP(B K)

ACP(K) = 0.04 0.05 0.02

275M BB New

K: 728 53

hint that ACP(K) ACP(K) ? (2.4)

Large EW penguin (Z0) ?

New Physics ?

[also seen by BaBar]

_d

d

K

u u

B sb

Sakai


PEW

Z’

Belle 2004 PRL: Seedby

“you

rs tr

uly”

Y. Chao, P. Chang et al.


Belle 2008 Nature: Simple Bean Count

AA = = AAKK AAKK == 0.1640.164 0.0370.037 4.4 4.4 0.07 0.03 vs 0.094 0.020


0πππ 0 KBKBK AAA

Experiment is Firm

A K ~ 0 expected

0.097 0.012 0.050 0.025

0.1470.147 0.0280.028 > 5> 5

Why a Puzzle ?

?

_d

d

Ku u

Bsb

Large C ?

Large EWPenguin ?

A lot of (hadronic) finesse

Need NP CPV Phase

PEW has practically no weak phase

in SM

t, ??

Baek, London, PLB653, 249 (2007)

World

Difference is Large !


My first B (and 4th gen.) paper

nondecoupling

2

Z

FF GG

2tm

dimensionsdimensions


0πππ 0 KBKBK AAA

Experiment is Firm

A K ~ 0 expected

0.097 0.012 0.050 0.025

0.1470.147 0.0280.028 > 5> 5

Why a Puzzle ?

?

_d

d

Ku u

Bsb

Large C ?

Large EWPenguin ?

A lot of (hadronic) finesse

t, ??

Baek, London, PLB653, 249 (2007)

World

Need NP CPV Phase

PEW has practically no weak phase

in SM t, t’ 4th Gen. in EWP Natural

nondecoupling


Effective b s Hamiltonian: t Effect

t

c

SM 3

and t’


t ➯ t, t ’

t, t’

}

{

],[

],[),(M

),(),(2)(

),()(2

0002

0002

12

2

'''

'

'

'

ttSttSλ

ttSλλλ

ttS

ttSttSBf

t

tccBB ss

GIM Respecting

Arhrib and WSH, EPJC’03

CPV Phase

SM 4

t, t’


_d

d

Ku u

Bsb t, t’

WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05LO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen.

A 12% vs 15% (data)

NLO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen.

A 15% S 0.11

SM3 input

vs 0.340.2x (data)

WSH, Li, Mishima, Nagashima, PRL’07

A = AK+ AK+~ 15% and

Joining C & PEW

Both and in Right Direction !A S

sb P

EW

ion)(illustrat

GeV 030t'm

weakened

@ ICHEP


Consistency and b s Predictions

BR OK ACP ~ 0 far away

beyond SuperB

PDG ’06

SM3

SM3

Heavy t’ effectdecoupledfor b s


tbtsVV

btst VV

cbcsVV ubusVV

“Typical” CKM Matrix

b s

4 x 4 Unitarity ➯ Z/K Constraints

tbtdVV

btdt VV

cbcdVV

ubudVV

x ~ 0.22

b d

Satisfy b d: ✓ Cannot tell trianglefrom quadrangle

WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’05

s b

Z bb_

d s


btst VV

tbtsVV

cbcsVV

cbcdVV-

ubudVV

ubusVV

OS

Q

b →→ d “Triangle” and b →→ s Quadrangle

b b →→ s s

b →→ s Quadrangle Area ~ ()30x b →→ d Triangle

Strength and Size of sB2sin

~ SM3

negligible

b →→ d

(almost Triangle)


On Boxes and Z Penguins

GIM , charm, K

small ’/, K (still waiting)

heavy top , sin2

Z dominance for heavy top1986 2002

Most Flavor/CPV learned from these diagrams/processes


GIM , charm, K

small ’/, K (still waiting)

heavy top , sin2

Z dominance for heavy top1986 2002

All w/ 3-generations, Just wait if there’s a 4th

D ! D !

b’, t ’ @ LHC

BBss

AAFBFB

Nondecoupling∵ ∵ Large Yukawa !

On Boxes and Z Penguins


II. and and LargeLarge

0sin2ΦsB


• Fixed rsb ➯ Narrow sb Range destructivedestructive with top• For rsb ~ 0.02 – 0.03, [Vcb ~ 0.04

sb Range ~ 60 ° - 70

° Finite CPVCPV

Phase

Bs Mixing Measured @ Tevatron in 4/2006

?

Large CPV in BLarge CPV in Bss Mixing Mixing


03.0

02.0

01.0rsb

CDF range

SM (high)

01.002.0

03.0sin2Bs ~ 0.5 - 0.7

Despite mBs, B(bsll) SM-likeWSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05


Sure thing by LHCb ca. 2009-10

Sign Predicted !

sin2Bs ~ 0.5 - 0.7

Despite mBs, B(bsll) SM-like

03.0

02.0

01.0

CDF range

SM (high)

01.002.0

03.0

rsb

?

A K,

S

WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05

Large CPV in BLarge CPV in Bss Mixing Mixing


Can Large CPV in Bs Mixing Be Measured @ Tevatron ?


arXiv:0712.2397 [hep.ex]arXiv:0802.2255 [hep.ex]

Further ICHEP’08 Updates (CDF/DØ/fitters): Strengthen !

sin2Bs ~ 0.5 - 0.7


arXiv:0803.0659 [hep.ph]

UTUTfitfit

IncredibleIncredible !!! !!!sin2Bs 0.64

0.16 0.14

3.73.7 ~2.5

± ?

talk by Juan Fernandez (CDF)


WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 (hep-ph/0610385)

4th Generation ?

Did not ask for this !

Tevatron can compete w/ LHCb

iff |sin2Bs|

ICHEP08 - July 31, 2008 D. Tonelli- Fermilab

ICHEP update

ICHEP update

Increased dataset still hints at larger than SM values!

Consistency with SM decreased 15% 7% (~1.8σ)

Will shrink further with PID in the whole dataset

0.28 < βs < 1.29 at 68% CL

-pi/2 < βs < -1.45 OR

-1.01 < βs < -0.57 OR

-0.13 < βs < pi/2 at 95% CLwww-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/bottom/080724.blessed-tagged_BsJPsiPhi_update_prelim/

Flavor/TeV George W.S. Hou (NTU) SUSY’07, 07/07 25

BBssProspect (short term)

Bs J/ analogous to Bd J/ KS

V V Angular & Vertex Resolved Analysis to disentangle CP components

• CDF/DØ : 8 fb projected

(sin 2BBss) ≃ 0.2 (?)/exp

similar • LHCb : 0.5 fb(2008 ?)

(sin 2BBss) ≃ 0.04

• ATLAS : 2.5 fb(2008 ?)

(sin 2BBss) ≃ 0.16

CMS ?

$$ Tevatron could get lucky

ifif sin 2BBss largelarge New Physics !New Physics !

€ LHCb the winner if ~ SM

sin 2BBs s in SM

Could Tevatron run beyond 2008 ?

But 2009 looks interesting !

Nakada @ fLHC 3/07

229M386M

Ali, Mannel, Morozumi, PLB273, 505 (1991) (F(FLL and) and) AAFBFB (and A (and AII) ) favor the “opposite-sign Cfavor the “opposite-sign C77 model” model”

Fourth Generation PRD 77, 014016 (2008)

Quoted by Tsybychev at FPCP08

Eigen at FPCP08

349 fb-1

data: LHCb MC (2 fb)

a: SM; b: 4 Gen.

better

2008/07/31 ICHEP2008

J.-T. Wei

Instead flipped C7 ...

BABAR, arXiv:0804.4412

PreliminaryW.-S. Hou, A. Hovhannisyan, and N. Mahajan, PRD 77, 014016 (2008)

657M

386M

(=s/mB2=q2/mB

2)

complex wilson coefficients

SM

4th generation (SM4)

2fb-1 MC study of LHCb

(~7000 K*ll events)

BelleDeviation from SM3 Strengthened !


dbibtdt dbVV

er

cb'ub'VV

PDG06

mb’ = 230 GeV

270310

From 4 x 4 Unitarity

x = m/ ~ 1 - 3 plausible

w/ Sizable (but not huge) CPV in Mixing ~ 15%

D Mixing (Short-distance Only)

N.B. SM LD could generate y ~ 1%, x ≈ y [Falk, Grossman, Ligeti, (Nir,) Petrov]


enhanced to or even higher !!

In general larger than !!

Implication for

Rate could be enhanced up to almost two orders !!

Grossman-Nir

Current E391A U.L.

Very hard to measure

SM 3

∵ Large CPV Phase

CPV for BAU George W.S. Hou (NTU) Beyond 3SM, Sept. 4, 2008 31

VI. Conclusion

~~ 10 101515 Gain Gain

10101313GeV 300 tb m ,mGeV 600~ 10101515

Even if O (1)Enough CPV for B.A.U.

Maybe there is a 4th Generation !


V. Conclusion

~~ 10 101515 Gain Gain

10101313GeV 300 tb m ,mGeV 600~ 10101515

Even if O (1)Enough CPV for B.A.U.

I.


III. and Largeand Large


0AAΔAπKBπKBKπ 0

0sin2ΦsB

D mixing, KL

CDF/D0

LHCb


Backup


sin2Bs ~ 0.5 - 0.7


arXiv:0712.2397 [hep.ex]arXiv:0802.2255 [hep.ex]

sin2Bs 0.640.16 0.14

arXiv:0803.0659 [hep.ph]

UTUTfitfit

IncredibleIncredible !!! !!!

3.73.7

Added 4/2008


103.02.0 10)1.5(

n

nB

WMAP

2010 KM ~

Too Small in SM

B.A.U. from Electroweak BaryogenesisElectroweak Baryogenesis ?

Why? Jarlskog Invariant in SM3 (need 3 generation in KM)

Normalize by T ~ 100 GeV

1033 ~ A is common (unique) area of trianglein SM

masses too small !

CPV


If shift by One Generation in SM4 (need 3 generation in KM)

103.02.0 10)1.5(

n

nB

WMAP

2010 KM ~

Too Small in SM

Only fac. 30 in CPV per se

~~ 10 101515 Gain Gain

Gain mostly in Large Yukawa Couplings !Gain mostly in Large Yukawa Couplings !

CPV



Order of Phase Transition


Too much equlibration in SM washes away B.A. at high T

Cubic term too smallExtra Heavy Bosons (usual approach)

Carena, Megevand, Quirós, Wagner, NPB’05

Upshot: relativistic d.o.f. g* become g*(), effective reheating by

F decoupling around Tc Stronger Transition

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*(), effective reheating by

F decoupling around Tc Stronger Transition

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

Used Higgsino/Wino Model w/ 12 d.o.f. >> 2.1

Comment that top (also 12 d.o.f.) w/ ≅ 1 is too smallCarena, Megevand, Quirós, Wagner, NPB’05

Observation: ∃∃ 4th Generation, then t < b’ < t’ ~ 300 GeV may be sufficient for ?!

If numerics of CMQW can be used




Can 4th Generation Restore Electroweak Baryogenesis ?

CPV

Can we use this to DemandDemand to see NP b → s CPV ?


V. Discussion and Conclusion

• 4th generation 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 !t’ & b’ can be discovered at LHC !


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 BaryogenesisElectroweak Baryogenesis

sb P

EW

s b

box Μ

sBmsBf

sB2sin

sBm

4th Generation

Conclusion on New Physics b →→ s CPV

0πππ 0 KBKBK AAA

and Largeand Large

02sin sB

and (distant) Past

Experiment is Firm

Soon !


Backup


Smaller than bccs in almost all modes

Smaller than bccs in almost all modes

Naïve average of all b s modes

sin2eff = 0.56 ± 0.052.2.11 deviation (was 2.6) btwn

b sqq and b ccs

Naïve average of all b s modes

sin2eff = 0.56 ± 0.052.2.11 deviation (was 2.6) btwn

b sqq and b ccs

Theory Expect sin 21

> sin 21

s-penguin

cc(bar)s

New Physics !?

Need More Data !

SS = Ssqq Sccs < 0 “ Problem”

Probably Need Super B Factory to Resolve !

Even deviation of ~ few Even deviation of ~ few deg indicate NPdeg indicate NP Sinha, Misra, WSH, PRL 97, 131802 (2006)

RareB/CPV-BSM George W.S. Hou (NTU) KEKTC6 2/8/07 44

Box/EWP Sensitivity to 4th Gen.Box/EWP Sensitivity to 4th Gen.

nondecoupling

),(2)(),(

)(),(

0000

000

,

,)2(

)1(

'''

'

ttSttS

ttS

ttSS

ttSS

QCD penguin

EW penguin

(No New Operators)g less sensitiveg less sensitive

RareB/CPV-BSM George W.S. Hou (NTU) KEKTC6 2/8/07 45

WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05

ACP(K) ~ 12, ACP(K) ~ +0.04 ?

☞ ACP(K) almost independent of t’☞ ACP(K) ACP(K) > 0.1 demands

• sb ~ /2

• Large mt’ and rsb

LargeEffect

LO PQCD

New Solution for BAU George W.S. Hou (NTU) 2nd Open sBelle, 7/3/08 46

Opposie Sign

4th generation George W.S. Hou (NTU) Flavour/LHC 2/06 47

4th generation not excluded

favored

allowed

Arhrib and WSH

YanirHattori, Hasuike and Wakaizumi

Independently

4th generation George W.S. Hou (NTU) Flavour/LHC 2/06 48

and Prospects

Just Around Corner!(SM3-like)

~ to !Defintely BSMif measured !

Phase

mBs/mD/AJ/K George W.S. Hou (NTU) ICHEP’06, 7/29/06 49

4 x 4 Unitarity ➯ Constraints

We need to deal with mixing matrix in detail to keep Unitarity

From b → s study

SM3

Kaon b s

b dimpose

Cross Check !


Constrain s d from K Physics

(J. Bijnens et al.)

(E. Pallante et al.)

Therefore….

well-satisfy !

“Standard”

No SM3 solution

(shaded)


well-satisfy

Hard to tell apart (non-trivial) with present precision∵ stringent s d

vs Vub ~ 0.01 e-i

Disfavored

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

Documents

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