1 / 82

New Physics Hints in B Decays and Collider Outlook

New Physics Hints in B Decays and Collider Outlook. January 7, 2006, WHEPP9 @ Bhubaneswar. Outline. Intro: S f in b  sqq and A K + p - - A K + p 0 Hints Collider Links (Reveal Culprit at LHC) ; Jungle Law (Survive Constraints) S f K S Saga and S trange B eauty Squark

breck
Download Presentation

New Physics Hints in B Decays and Collider Outlook

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 Hints in B Decays and Collider Outlook January 7, 2006, WHEPP9 @ Bhubaneswar

  2. Outline • Intro: Sfinb sqqandAK+p--AK+p0 Hints • Collider Links (Reveal Culprit at LHC) ; Jungle Law (Survive Constraints) • SfKS Saga and StrangeBeautySquark • RR Sector (Flavor ⊕SUSY) ; Kinder, Gentler (Scenarios; Bs; SK*g) • AK+p0 Puzzle, PEW and4th Generation • ∗ Tailor-made: nondecoupled t’ and NP Phase • ∗ PQCD at LO w/ 4th Generation: Workable • ∗ SpKS, SfKS w/ 4th Generation: Robust (against hadronic) • ∗ Impact: Bs; Digression • Collider Link: Bs; ; b’, t’ and FCNC • Summary 11 11 32 8 w/ A. Arhrib, C.K. Chua, M. Nagashima, G. Raz and A. Soddu references given at appropriate places

  3. Introduction

  4. Impossible to Review

  5. Not of this school (too restrictive)

  6. b sCPV Phenomena Is Current NP Frontier • Sfinb sqq • AK+p--AK+p0 Puzzle • (VV polarization likely hadronic origin) Two Hints

  7. CPV in bsss transitions and sin2b/f1 • Since winter 2005 : • improved accuracy • better agreement between BABAR and BELLE • all systematically below sin2b/f1 • QCD corrections : sin2b/f1(penguin) > sin2b/f1(tree) All modes (except ’Ks and p0 p0 Ks) are less than 1.5 s away from sin2b/f1 from J/ Ks recent QCD factorization estimates : [Beneke, hep-ph/0505075] [Cheng,Chua,Soni, hep-ph/0506268] sin2b/f1(penguin)-sin2b/f1(tree)

  8. CPV in B0→ B0Mixing V*2 td No CPV in B → J/yKSDecay J/y Vcb B0 KS  J/y V* Vtb td B0 B0 KS Vtb V* td M12 George W.S. Hou (NTU)

  9. Penguins (Vertex Loops) Real SM (KM) Prediction SfKS= sin2f1 b Possible SUSY FCNC/CPV Loop StrangeBeauty George W.S. Hou (NTU)

  10. 2 08 ~5s Puzzle persists, @ > 3.8s

  11. Why a Puzzle ? ? Large C ? Large EWPenguin? Suppress Tree CPV Phase Need NP CPV Phase ∵ T and PEW ≈ same strong phase

  12. Aim • Collider Links: • ∗Bs at TeV/LHC • ∗ Direct Production of Culprits • ⇨Flavor Scale ≲ TeV • Jungle Law: • To Eat, Not Get Eaten (Constraints)

  13. SfKSSaga andStrangeBeautySquark

  14. Mass/Mixing Hierarchy & R.H. FlavorSector mass VCKM no r.h. force Ansatz Commuting Charges Motivation: Abelian Flavor Symmetry • Nir-Seiberg, PLB’93; Leurer-Nir-Seiberg, NPB’94 George W.S. Hou (NTU)

  15. Alternative Picture: Chang, Masiero, Murayama Mass/Mixing Hierarchy & R.H. FlavorSector no r.h. force Ansatz Commuting Charges Motivation: Abelian Flavor Symmetry Prominent r.-h. elements • Nir-Seiberg, PLB’93; Leurer-Nir-Seiberg, NPB’94 • Chua-WSH, PRL’01: Because of FCNC, Need 4 Texture Zeros(decouple s flavor) • Arhrib-Chua-WSH, PRD’01:Decouple d flavor Focus: s-b GUT George W.S. Hou (NTU)

  16. Assume Right-handed QuarksInert in SM  Right-handedSquarks SUSY also important 6 x 6 RR Sector Impact b ⇄s thru SUSY George W.S. Hou (NTU)

  17. 1, 0.5 TeV 2, 0.5 1, 0.8 TeV 2, 0.8 Level Splitting by Large Mixing  Could Drive One State Light Strange-Beauty squark 1 CP Phase s • Survive b sg Constraint !! Arhrib-Chua-WSH, PRD’01 w/ Large Flavor Violation Strong Dynamics George W.S. Hou (NTU)

  18. A Little Note on Formalism … • Besides O1,2Tree • O3-6Strong Penguin • O7-10EM/EW Penguin • alsoO11,12g/g Dipole main effect Matrix Elements evaluated via Naïve Factorization George W.S. Hou (NTU)

  19. History of SfK0 and Sh’K0 Belle BaBar 2002 2003 2004 SfK0 ~ -1 in 2003 … George W.S. Hou (NTU)

  20. Frenzied work post summer 2003 Chua-WSH-Nagashima, PRL’04 • SfKs≲ 0 • ➯ SKsp0,Sh’Ks≅sin2FBd • Anticorrel. : Khalil & Kou ’03 for Sh’Ks • [Murayama et al. ’03] • Fine Tuned Light • Lower gluino masslowers SfKs • Prefer to keep gluino mass • above 500 GeV (L.E. Constraints) 0.5 TeV Preferred mES Data was extreme … faded since. Simpler(vsSh’Ks) George W.S. Hou (NTU)

  21. Kinder, Gentler Benchmarks (SM-like) WSH-Nagashima, in prep.

  22. Scenario 3 cannot accommodate due to the anti-correlation Natural TeV Scale Squark/Gluino w/ Flavor Viol. Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Anti-correlation tolerated for now Check in future. Scenario 4

  23. Clean Probe for Bd Valid Probe of right-handed dynamics Can be tested at SuperB B.Grinstein et al BaBar hep-ex/0507038 Belle hep-ex/0507059 discriminate btwn SM and sb~ model

  24. Scenario 4 Scenario 4 can lead to surprises Litmus Test with Bs Pin down Model parameters by Bsmeasurements to be covered @ LHCb!! e x c l u d e d

  25. AK+p 0Puzzle, PEWand4th Generation

  26. Need both CP Violating/Conserving Phase (Direct) CP Violation Primer

  27. AKp0≠AKp? Large C ? Large EWPenguin? d p0 _ d b s B- K- u u ACP(Kp0)- ACP(Kp) ~ +0.16 > 3.8s ACP(K+p0) ~0.04 ACP(K+p-) ~ -0.12 Ligeti (and SCET) Charng, Li He, McKellar Wu, Zhou Gronau, Rosner Kim, Oh, Yu Previous talk by H.n. Li PQCD Naively ACP(Kp0) ~ ACP(Kp) Will focus on EWP, by adding t’, of a sequential 4th gen., in PQCD framework

  28. Buras @ CKM05 Z’ hep-ph/0412086 emphasized likely New Physics in EWP

  29. Why 4th Generation? Natural Impact on EWP w/ CPV Phase

  30. Set safe CKM Unitarity measured from unitarity Return to later Phase

  31. Effective Hamiltonian and t’ Effect SM 3 SM 4 new unitarity condition new penguin from t’

  32. Wilson Coefficients at MW Scale (No New Operators) Tree QCD penguin SM4 naturally Impact on EWP EW penguin

  33. Effective SD Couplings

  34. Problem with 4th Generation ? • Natural to have particles with mass ~ EW scale, • to keep t, W, Z, H company • Existence of a 4th generation: U (t’), D (b’), N, E • Fit to EW precision data still not good. • 4th generation has trouble with S parameter, but • - Two heavy generations excluded at more than 3s • - Two and even three extra generations allowed • when neutral leptons relatively light disfavored allowed (Maltoni,) Novikov, Okun, Razanov, Vysotsky • Unitarity demands only. Quite generous.

  35. PDG04 Anyway, Should avoid Precision EW “Overkill” e.g. Higgs

  36. AKpand AKp0in PQCDF at LO SM 3

  37. PQCD Factorizable Non- Factorizable Pa P T Penguin Annihilation w/ Phase

  38. PQCD Factorizable Non- Factorizable PEW C (Ta)

  39. B- K0- • 0.01 • - 0.01 • ~ - 0.02 • B0 K00 • - 0.04 • - 0.02 • 0.02  0.13 • B- K- 0 • 0.08 • - 0.10 • ~ 0.04 • B0 K- + • 0.04 • - 0.16 • ~ - 0.12 AKpandAKp0in PQCDF at LO 2001 2005 But

  40. AKpand AKp0with 4th Generation SM 4 WSH-Nagashima-Soddu, PRL’05

  41. EWP t’ Effect through EWP

  42. ~ 0.04 ACP(K+p-) ~ -0.12, ACP(K+p0) ~ +0.04 ? • ☞ACP(K+p-) almost independent of t’ • ☞ACP(Kp0)- ACP(Kp) > 0.1 demands • fsb~ +p/2 • Large mt’ and rsb Large Effect

  43. (default) Vary ~ changing Varyd : ACP(K+p-) ~ -0.12 Possible N.B. d ~ p,∵ T-P sign diff. ∴ p - d perturbative ACP(Kp0) ~ 0 from Cancellation btwn fsb andf3 d “adjustable”

  44. and Constraints SM 4

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

  46. ACP(K+p-) ~ -0.12, ACP(K+p0) ~ +0.04 ? From Constraints • Some parameter space allowed • fsb~ +p/2 favored by both ACP(K+p0) • and ⊕

  47. Predictions:,, SK0p0, AK0p0 SM 4

  48. N.B. (RH probe) is like SM3 BR well satisfied New Avg. PDG04 ~ 0.4  3.6 % SM 3 exp Difficult even at SuperB (SM 3 sensitivity)

More Related