Vision Rare b ↔ s/CPV George W.S. Hou (NTU) LHCb/IC 17/05/07 1 New Physics Visions of New Physics...

Vision Rare b ↔ s/CPV George W.S. Hou (NTU) LHCb/IC 17/05/07 1

Visions of New PhysicsNew Physicson

Rare B Decays and CP Violation

May 17, 2007, Rare LHCb @ Imperial College

— Starting from AAFBFB in in B B K K**ℓℓℓℓ


I AAFBFB in in B B K K**ℓℓℓℓ — Probe Complexity w/o CPV

Complex C7, C9, C10 vs MFV What else?

Outline

4th generation as existence proof

andSS

II Why 4th Generation Revisit? ACP(K) ≠ ACP(K) Z Penguin and Boxes

Accounting for Accounting for AA and and S S (in NLO PQCD)

III Bs Mixing vs B Xsℓℓ — Large CPV in BLarge CPV in Bss Mixing Mixing

Large CPV Phase or Nil [Bs related effects

IV DCPV in DCPV in BB++ J/ J/KK++ ? ?

[V K/D AsideK/D Aside — Enhanced Enhanced KKLL and D and D Mixing Mixing

VI Conclusion


I. AAFBFB in in B B K K**ℓℓℓℓ

Probe Complexity w/o CPV


M. Iwasaki @ CKM06

+ Box


M. Iwasaki @ CKM06


AAFBFB in in B B K K**ℓℓℓℓmade easy made easy

B - K*

– Z interference with MZ brought low !

ee hadrons


M. Iwasaki @ CKM06

C7, C9, C10 taken REAL Whyshouldtheybe ?


hep-ph/0612156

Theory “Guidance”Theory “Guidance” Why Real?

KEKCT ‘07 Adrian Bevan

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

BK(*)ll

~57 events

~114 events

PRL96 (2006) 251801PRD73 (2006) 092001

A. Hovhannisvan et al. hep-ph/0701046

BaBar: 229106 B pairsBelle: 386106 B pairs

Limit on first q2 at 95% CL.

y Hovhannisyan, WSH and Mahajan


Quark level QuantumQuantum amplitude: )(99 sYCC eff

8,7

88777j

jjeff CCCC

Real by convention

No Reason a priori why C7, C9, C10 should be Real

To be Probed BY EXPERIMENT

4-FermiInter

-action


Form factors induce some level of theoretical uncertainty

Use form factors calculated within LCSR – Ball & Zwicky

Forward-backward asymmetry

Form FactorProducts

Richer Interference


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

Parameterization at weak scale

N.B. Wilson coeffs. becoming complex is already present in SM

(not via New Phys corrections)

: B tbtdubud VVVV **

#99 uCC


SM like : &

Constrained to 1 experimental range forexclusive radiative and semi-leptonic rates

a: SM b: 4 Gen.

shaded: rough boundaries (for illustration only )data: LHCb MC (2 fb)

Due to assumed equality

Jeremy Dickens

BBdd K K**: FBA sensitivity: FBA sensitivity 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

Fitted zero-point (GeV2)

With 10 fb-1Example 2 fb-1

experiment

M2

(GeV2)@ CKM06


b s DCPV can be tested at SuperB

a: SMb: 4 gen.d: ruled oute: disfavoured

c: ~ SM, even the zero, different for large q2

General: Both Zero & Shape Sensitive to NP

data: LHCb MC (2 fb)

Early LHCb Data

Can Tell


What else?

• LH-SM, RH/complex bs• LH-SM, RH-General ...


afbrightphase.eps

LH-SM, RH/complex bs

Non-distinct

• ~ Lunghi-Matias, hep-ph/0612166, but do not agree with LR SUSY approach• Motivated by TCPV in B K* Super B Factory • Will LHCb have resolution in AATTii ?

same thing

Jeremy Dickens

AT(2)

BBdd K K**: Transversity angles: Transversity angles Toy MC created to describe l, K* and 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)

M2 range

Resolutions

AT(2) FL

0.05 0.49 0.180 0.037

0.49 1.96 0.400 0.033

1.96 6.25 0.470 0.018

6.25 9.0 0.31 0.020FL

A possible 2fb-1 measurement


LH-SM, RH-General ...

• Wild Behavior. Anything possible! (Too much “Freedom”)


In general 10 operators ⇨ 2020 parametersparameters

Impractical for early fit;When Very Large Dataset, Why Not ?


Why Real WC’s ?


SM Pattern —Suppressed FCNC

at L.E. !

t


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


4th Generation the epitome

Sheldon


• Sf in b sqq

• AK+- AK+0 Puzzle

Two Hints TCPVDCPV

Mixing-dep.

Direct

b s CPV Phenomena Is Current NP Frontier

Will address these soon


Do not consider scalar int.

Study 4th Generation from Now on

D Mixing


4th Generation !?


Ben Grinstein @ CKM06


Ben Grinstein @ CKM06

Close to what we’ll see !


- N counting? 4th “neutrino” heavy Massive neutrinos call for new PhysicsMassive neutrinos call for new Physics

4th Generation Still?


- N counting? 4th “neutrino” heavy Massive neutrinos call for new PhysicsMassive neutrinos call for new Physics

- Disfavored by EW PrecisionEW Precision (see e.g. J. Erler hep-ph/0604035; PDG06

But that’s “old” But that’s “old” ......; ; Overconstrain ourselves, or look forward to LHC ? Overconstrain ourselves, or look forward to LHC ?

4th Generation Still?


http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/top/2005/ljets/tprime/gen6/public.html

CDF Continues to Search

!Softening of Bound


In era of LHC, can Directly Search for b’, t ’ Once and For All !

CMS/ATLAS Duty.

A set goal at NTUHEP


II Why 4th Generation Revisit?

ACP(K) ≠ ACP(K)Personally !

Personally !


3.82005


Sakai


...

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

...

2006/11/01 DPF/JPS

Acp (Bhh) Black 449 MBB Blue 535 MBB Green 535 MBB

Time-dep. analysis

Significant DCPV in K+π- and π+π-

Acp(K+π-) - Acp(K+π0) 4.4σ

Prelim

inary

AShen-Wen Lin


Smaller than bccs in all 9 modes

Smaller than bccs in all 9 modes

Naïve average of all b s modes

sin2eff = 0.52 ± 0.052.62.6 deviation btwnb sqq and b ccs

Naïve average of all b s modes

sin2eff = 0.52 ± 0.052.62.6 deviation btwnb sqq and b ccs

2006: 1 with b s Penguins

Theory Expect sin 21

> sin 21

s-penguin

cc(bar)s

New Physics !?

Need More Data !

SS = Ssqq Sscc < 0 ProblemAlso


Why A = AK+ AK+ > 0 a Puzzle ?

?

A ~ 0 expected

9.31.5 % 4.72.6 %


Large C ?

Suppress Tree CPV Phase


?

A ~ 0 expected

9.31.5 % 4.72.6 %

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)

Outlook/Golutvin/FPCP07


DCPVth/Gronau/FPCP07

Really?


Baek-London, hep-ph/0701181v2

Neubert@FPCP07: Just a fit, cannot sustain from computation.

This is the start of our Vision Thing.


Large C ?

Large EWPenguin ?



?

A ~ 0 expected

9.31.5 % 4.72.6 %

HF & BPh -4 George W.S. Hou (NTU) ISSMB06, 9/28/06 46

_d

d

Ku u

Bsb

Large C ?

Large EWPenguin ?


Need NP CPV Phase∵ T and PEW

≈ same strong phase

t, t’ 4th Gen. in EWP Natural


?

A ~ 0 expected

9.31.5 % 4.72.6 %

Why ?


My first B paper

nondecoupling


GIM , charm , K

small ’K , K (still waiting)

heavy top , sin2

Z dominance for heavy top1986 2002

K

B

On Boxes and Z Penguins


On Boxes and Z Penguinsnondecoupling

GIM , charm , K


heavy top , sin2


All w/ 3-gen., Just wait if there’s 4th

D !D !

b’ , t ’ @ LHC

BBss

t, t’


Accounting for Accounting for AAKK, , S S


SM 3

Effective b s Hamiltonian and t’ Effect


t ➯ t, t ’

t t

}

{

],[

],[),(M

),(),(2)(

),()(2

0002

0002

12

2

'''

'

'

'

ttSttSλ

ttSλλλ

ttS

ttSttSBf

t

tccBB ss

GIM Respecting


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


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


_d

d

Ku u

Bsb t, t’

LO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen.A 12% vs 14% (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+~ 14%

Joining C & PEW

Both and in Right Direction !A S


Opposite Sign


III. Prediction: Large CPV in BPrediction: Large CPV in Bss Mixing Mixing

WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, hep-ph/0610385


and Prospects

Just Around Corner!(SM3-like)

~ to !Defintely BSMif measured !

Phase



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

sb Range ~ 60 ° - 70

° Finite CPVCPV

Phase

Consistent w/ B(bsll) SM-like !

Large CPV Possible !

Despite mBs, B(bsll) SM-like

03.0

02.0

01.0

CDF range

SM (high)

01.0

02.0

03.0

HFAG range

rsb



sin2Bs ~ 0.4 - 0.7


03.0

02.0

01.0

CDF range

SM (high)

01.002.0

03.0

rsb• 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

Can Large CPV in Bs Mixing Be Measured @ Tevatron ?

Sure thing by LHCb ca. 2008

?

Large CPV in BLarge CPV in Bss Mixing Mixing



Sign Predicted !

sin2Bs ~ 0.4 - 0.7


03.0

02.0

01.0

CDF range

SM (high)

01.002.0

03.0

rsb

Can Large CPV in Bs Mixing Be Measured @ Tevatron ?

Sure thing by LHCb ca. 2008

?

A K,

S


Large CPV in BLarge CPV in Bss Mixing Mixing


CKM workshop, Nagoya 2006 F. Bedeschi, INFN-Pisa

Sin 2s expectations

J/ triggers986 events in 1 fb-1

SVT triggers672 events in 1 fb-1

Use CP asymmetry in Bs! CP-even

Reduced asymmetryS = 60% sin 2s

Tevatron could reach (sin2s) < 0.2/exp.

~ early LHC-B

back

Also, K. Pitts

private comm.


Bs related effects: another avenue

hep-ex/0702030

J. Piedra

WSH & Mahajanhep-ph/0702163


IV. DCPV in DCPV in BB++ J/ J/KK++ ? ?


Demanded by Kevin

Pitts


InterferenceInterference

Intriguing “Prediction”: AJ/K + 0 ?

_c

cJ/

Ku u

Bsb t, t’

• B J/K+ dominated by color suppressed b ccs (a2) - Inclusion of SM3 Penguin does not alter Weak Phase ~ 0 [hard to predict

• The amplitude above likely has Strong Phase Strong Phase - ALL “color-suppressed” processes turned out Enhanced ~ some effective strong phase Examples: * B Dand D➯ ° in D system * B and ➯ ° in system (Belle vs BaBar) - B - B J/ J/KK+ + Rate is enhanced: “hadronic”Rate is enhanced: “hadronic” Analogous to enhancement seen in B J/K* ➯ Strong Phase Diff. in Helicity Amplitudes: °

• Enter t’: Weak PhaseWeak Phase ee

ii sbsb

Factorized amplitude : J/spits off from virtual Z

➯ ° Likely Retained

Expt

Making of DCPV !


Another hint: Low SJ/K ?

0.685 ± 0.0320.685 ± 0.032 HFAG 0.790 ± 0.031 UTfit

CKMfit0.752 0.0570.035 vs.

indirect Belle/BaBar

AJ/K + 0 ?

PDG ’06

°

small effect small

similar dipas S

Cannot tellin b d


PDG ’06

• AJ/K + is getting serious• Systematics Control! — Needed towards SuperB !!

Better than A and S ?Could be seen by 2008 ?!

Prognosis for AJ/K + Measurement

Sign flip

ICHEP06: AJ/K 0 0.018 0.021 0.014 Belle0.07 0.028 0.018

BaBar

124M

32M10M

89M

BaBar/BelleShould Update !

K. Pitts

CDF could reach 0.3%Dzero could be better

B. Casey


IV. Prediction: Enhanced Enhanced KKLL and D and D Mixing Mixing


tbtsVV

btst VV

cbcsVV ubusVV

“Typical” CKM Matrix

b s

Digression 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


enhanced to or even higher !!

In general larger than !!

Prediction 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 WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’05


(Too)

Large/Imaginary“Typical” CKM Matrix

4 x 4 Unitarity ➯ Z/K/D Connections

Data Driven

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


(Too)

Large/Imaginary“Typical” CKM Matrix

4 x 4 Unitarity ➯ Z/K/D Connections

0 cb'ub'cbubcsuscdud VVVVVVVV

ee

ii

SM LD NP SD

Data Driven

RareB/CPV-BSM George W.S. Hou (NTU) KEKTC6 2/8/07 73

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%

Short-distance Only

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


RareB/CPV-BSM George W.S. Hou (NTU) KEKTC6 2/8/07 74

Data (PDG06)

• Hint for D mixing• No evidence for CPV

Need more data !Promising !

Real interest is x (probe New Physics)


D. Asner


dbibtdt dbVV

er

cb'ub'VV

PDG06

mb’ = 230 GeV

270310

From 4 x 4 Unitarity



Short-distance Only




PDG06

mb’ = 230 GeV

270310

xSD = m/ ~ 1 - 3 plausible

Sizable (but not huge)CPV in Mixing ~ 15% to 20%

Short-distance Only



Nir: xLD opposite sign to y (assumptions)

but x, y expt same sign



When can be tested ?


V. Conclusion


On Boxes and Z Penguins

GIM , charm , K


heavy top , sin2


nondecoupling

All w/ 3-gen., Just wait if there’s 4th

D !D !

b’ , t ’ @ LHC

BBss


I AAFBFB in in B B K K**ℓℓℓℓ — Probe Complexity w/o CPV

Complex C7, C9, C10 vs MFV What else?

Outline

4th generation as existence proof

andSS

II Why 4th Generation Revisit? ACP(K) ≠ ACP(K) Z Penguin and Boxes

Accounting for Accounting for AA and and S S (in NLO PQCD)

III Bs Mixing vs B Xsℓℓ — Large CPV in BLarge CPV in Bss Mixing Mixing

Large CPV Phase or Nil [Bs related effects

IV DCPV in DCPV in BB++ J/ J/KK++ ? ?

[V K/D AsideK/D Aside — Enhanced Enhanced KKLL and D and D Mixing Mixing

VI Conclusion

Prospects for New Physics

New Physics Effect in b b s Good ! s Good !

RH ?


Neubert


Consistency and b s Predictions

BR OK ACP ~ 0 far away

beyond SuperB

PDG ’06

SM3

SM3

Heavy t’ effectdecoupledfor b s


AK+ AK 14%0.020.040.020.13 HFAG

K0 Predictions

Not in good agreement — Await further test

Rc ≲ Rn ≈ 1.08 R ≈ 0.94

(0.11 0.18 0.08) Belle

ICHEP06: ~ 0 ~ 0.12

✓ ✓

2006/11/01 DPF/JPS

New Electroweak Penguins in the Ratios Rn and Rc

SM

Old WA Data

New Belle Data w/414 fb-1

q: measures the importance of the EW penguins with respect to the tree-diagram-like topologies: CP-violating weak phase

Buras, Fleischer et al, APO B36(2005)2015-2050

NLO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen.


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


AJ/K + 0 ? Mechanism Generic

e.g. Z’ model of Barger, Chiang, Langacker, Lee, PLB’04

Less constrained !

AJ/K + ~ few % possible

Vision Rare b ↔ s/CPV George W.S. Hou (NTU) LHCb/IC 17/05/07 1 New Physics Visions of New Physics...

Documents

Transcript of Vision Rare b ↔ s/CPV George W.S. Hou (NTU) LHCb/IC 17/05/07 1 New Physics Visions of New Physics...