Latest CLEOc Results. . K . K +. . e +. OUTLINE The role of charm in particle physics Testing the Standard Model with precision quark flavor physics Direct Searches for Physics Beyond the Standard Model. Ian Shipsey, Purdue University CLEOc Collaboration.
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
K
K+

e+
OUTLINE
The role of charm in particle physics
Testing the Standard Model with precision quark flavor physics
Direct Searches for Physics Beyond the Standard Model
Ian Shipsey, Purdue University
CLEOc Collaboration
Dynamics of flavor?
Why generations?
Why a hierarchy of masses
& mixings?
Origin of Baryogenesis?
Sakharov’s criteria: Baryon number violation
CP violation Nonequilibrium
3 examples: Universe, kaons, beauty but Standard Model CP
violation too small, need additional sources of CP violation
Connection between flavor physics & electroweak symmetry breaking?
Extensions of the Standard Model (ex: SUSY) contain flavor &
CP violating couplings that should show up at some level in
flavor physics, but precision measurements and precision theory
are required to detect the new physics
B
n
p
Bd
Bd
Precision Quark Flavor Physics
The discovery potential of B physics
is limited by systematic errors from
QCD:
l
l
B
B
n
n
p
p
Bd
Bd
Precision Quark Flavor Physics
The discovery potential of B physics
is limited by systematic errors from
QCD:
l
D system CKM elements known to <1% by unitarity
l
l
D
D
n
constants & form factors to test and hone QCD techniques into precision theory
which can be applied to the B system enabling improved determination of the apex (ρ,η)
+ Br(B D)~100% absolute D hadronic rates normalize B physics
important for Vcb (scale of triangle)  also normalize D physics
Precision theory + charm = large impact
Now
Theoretical
errors
dominate
width of
bands
few % on B system decay
Plot uses
Vub Vcb
from
exclusive
decays
only
Precision theory? In 2003 a breakthrough in Lattice QCD
Recent revolutionary
progress in algorithms
allows inclusion of QCD vacuum polarization
LQCD demonstrated
it can reproduce a wide range of mass differences
& decay constants. These
were postdictions
More
Quantities
added
2007
BEFORE
Quenched
1015%
precision
This dramatic
improvement needs
validation
Charm decay constants
fD+ & fDs
Charm semileptonic
Form factors
Understanding strongly coupled systems is important beyond flavor
physics. LHC might discover new strongly interacting physics
Key leptonic, semileptonic & hadronic modes:
Circa 2004 (preCLEOc)
100
Experiment : Theory
80
Poorly known
Br %
error
40
Measured very
precisely
0.40.8%
20
Before CLEOc precise measurements of charm decay constants and form factors did not exist, because at Tevatron/FT/ B factories:
Backgrounds are large.
#D’s produced is
usually not well known.
CLEO III detector CLEOc
PDG2006
CLEOc: World’s largest data sets at charm threshold
E (GeV)
X84 MARK III
X42 BES II
Expect to collect x2 by
end of running
(3770) Analysis Strategy
(3770) is to charm
what Y(4S) is to beauty
Compared to ~0.1% of B’s at the Y(4S)
A little luminosity goes a long way:
Tagging ability:
# D tags in 300 pb1 @ charm factory
~ # B tags in 500 fb1 @ Y(4S)
CLEOc DATA
Absolute Charm Branching Ratios at Threshold
281/pb
1D+ & 1D reconstructed in same event
1 D reconstructed (a tag)
15120±180
D candidate mass (GeV)
D candidate mass (GeV)
Independent of
L and cross
section
B(D+Kp+p+)
Sets scale of bd triangle
BABAR
Previous best:
CLEOc
arXiv:0704.2080
CLEOc
Wrong sign
Syst. limited: 2%
CLEOc & BABAR agree vastly superior S/N
at CLEOc
CLEOc x 3.5
More precise
than PDG
charm hadronic scale
is finally on a SECURE
FOUNDATION
Accepted by PRD arXiv:0709.3783
Analysis technique same as for DDbar at 3770
Ds Hadronic BRs
NEW
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
Errors already << PDG
CLEOc, 4170MeV, 298pb1
K+K+π+ in good agreement with PDG
We do not quote B(Ds→ φπ+)
Requires amplitude analysis
Results soon
VCKM2
fD2
l
n
Bd
Bd
Check lattice calculations of decay constants
1
2
Improve constraints from B mixing
~10% (HPQCD)
PRL95 212001 (2005)
fDCLEOc and (fB/fD)lattice fB
(And fD/fDs CLEOcchecks fB/fBs)lattice
3
In 2HDM effect is largest
for Ds
Sensitive to new physics
Importance of absolute charm leptonic branching ratios 2
A new charged Gauge Boson
SM Ratio of leptonic decays could be modified (e.g.)
Hewett [hepph/9505246]
Hou, PRD 48, 2342 (1993).
In 2HDM predict
SM decay width is x by
Akeryod [hepph/0308260]
Since md is ~0, effect can be seen only in Ds
fD+2
l
n
fD+from Absolute Br(D+ m+n) at (3770)
Tag D
fully
reconstructed
Mark III PRL 60, 1375 (1988)
~9pb1 2390 tags
1 additional track
(consistent with a muon)
Zero additional photons
Compute missing mass2:
peaks at 0 for signal
MM2
BES II hepex/0410050
~33pb1
5321 tags
S=3 B=0.33
MM2
D+→μ+ν
fD+from Absolute Br(D+ m+n)
Data 281 pb1 at (3770)
MC
6 x
data
D+→π+K0
D+→μ+ν
1st observation
of D+→μ+ν
Mode Events
Data 50
D+p+p0 1.4
D+ Klongp+ 0.33
D+t+nt 1.08
Total Bck: 2.81
PRL 95, 251801 (2005)
π+ (ECal > 300 MeV)
8 evts
D+→π+K0
B(D+ t+nt)< 2.1 x 103
In SM:
Signal region
First measurement of R
lepton universality in purely leptonic D+ decays is satisfied at the
level of current experimental accuracy.
PRD73 112005 (2006)
# Ds tags 31302+472
Cabibbo allowed decay compensates for smaller
cross section @ 4170 MeV
@4170 Ds Ds*,Ds*→Dsγ
Calculate MM2 for Ds tag
plus photon.
Peaks at Ds mass.
N(tag+g)=18645+426
* For the signal: require one additional track and
no unassociated extra energy
* Calculate missing mass (next slide)
PRL 99 071802 (2007)
PRD 76 072002 (2007)
Track consistent with μ+
(E < 300 MeV)
mostly
Ds→μ+ν
Three cases depending on particle type:
accepts 99% of μ+ and 60% of π+
AB(Ds→μ+)
92 events (3.5 bkgd)
B(Ds→μ+)= (0.597 ± 0.067 ± 0.039)%
B
A
31 events
92
events
accepts 1% of μ+
and 40% of π+
Track consistent with π+
(E > 300 MeV)
B+C B(Ds→+):
31+25 = 56 events (3.6+5= 8.6 bkgd)
B(Ds→+)= (8.0 ± 1.3 ± 0.4)%
mostly
Ds→τ+(π+ν)ν
C
25 events
A+B+C: By summing both cases and
using SM τ/μ ratio
Beff(Ds→μ+) = (0.638 ± 0.059 ± 0.033)%
fDs = (274 ± 13 ± 7) MeV
Track consistent with e+
B(Ds→e+) < 1.3x104
400 MeV
300/pb @4170 MeV
Require Ds tag
Require 1 electron and no other tracks
Primary bkgd semileptonic (Ds X e n).
Suppress X by requiring low amount of extra energy in calorimeter. Shown on right.
Signal region Ecc(extra)< .4 GeV.
Backgrounds from scaled MC.
Results:
B(Ds→+)= (6.17 ± 0.71 ± 0.36)%
[PDG06: B(Ds→+) = (6.4 ± 1.5)%]
fDs = (273 ± 16 ± 8) MeV
arXiv:0712.1175
(Submitted to PRL Dec 12 2007)
This is the most precise determination of
B(Ds→+)
lepton universality in purely leptonic Ds decays is satisfied at the
level of current experimental accuracy.
Importance ofCharm Semileptonic Decays
VCKM2
f(q2)2
l
l
B
B
n
n
p
p
Vub
b
Assuming th ffVcs and Vcd
1
Assuming Vcs and Vcd known, we can check theoretical calculations of the form factors
2
Potentially useful input to Vub from exclusive B semileptonic decays
3
(HFAG
(2007)
16% HPQCD
heplat/0601021
Expt. 3%
Related at
same invariant
4 velocity
HQS
D
Absolute Semileptonic Branching Fractions
K
K+

e+
The neutrino direction is determined to 10
no kinematics ambiguity
S/N ~300/1
(~7000 events)
Tagging creates a single D beam
of known 4momentum
CLEOc
69928
S/N ~40/1
S/N ~1/3
Dm
Compare to:
state of the
art measurement
at 10 GeV (CLEO III)
PRL 94, 11802 (2004)
U = Emiss– Pmiss (GeV)
Note:
kinematic
separation.
Only other high statistics measurement is from Belle
282/fb (x1,000 CLEOc) 222± 17 events S/N 4/1
CLEOc semileptonic tagging analysis technique: big impact
Precision Measurements:
1st Observations:
+
Normalized to PDG
CLEO’s measurements most precise for ALL modes; 4 modes observed for the first time
PRL 95, 181801 (2005);
PRL 95, 181802 (2005)
PRL. 99, 191801 (2007)
Preliminary results FPCP 2006 now superseded
[analogous toneutrino reconstruction @ Y(4S)]
ArXiv 0712.1020 and 0712.1025
Uses neutrino reconstruction:
Identify semileptonic decay.
Reconstruct neutrino 4momentum from
all measured energy in the event.
Use K(p), e, and missing 4momentum and require consistency in energy and beamenergy constrained mass.
Higher efficiency than tagging but larger backgrounds
PPmiss=Pevent – Pvisible
q2=(Pe+P’miss)2
P’miss=Pmiss ( gives E=0)
132548
14356132
44729
584688
E = EK + Ee + pmiss  Ebeam
Mbc = E2beam – (pK + pe + p’miss)2
Mbc distributions fitted simultaneously in 5 q2 bins to obtain d(BF)/dq2. Integrate to get branching fractions and fit to get form factors
D → K e+ ν
D → π e+ ν
preliminary
preliminary
Precision measurements from BABAR/Belle/CLEOc.
CLEOc most precise. Theoretical precision lags experiment.
Form factor measures probability hadron will be formed
FNALMILCHPQCD
Assuming Vcs=0.9745
CKM Unitarity
Modified pole model used as example
Normalization: experiments (2%) consistent with
LQCD (10%). Theoretical precision lags.
CLEOc prefers smaller value for shape parameter, α
Assuming
Vcd = 0.22380.0029
(CKM Unitarity)
Modified pole model used as example
Normalization experiments (4%) consistent with LQCD (10%). CLEOc is most precise.Theoretical precision lags.
The data determines Vcdf+(q2). To extract Vcd we fit to Vcdf+(q2), determine Vcdf+(0) & use f+(0)from theory (FNALMILCHPQCD.) Same for Vcs
*
CLEOc: the most precise direct determination of Vcs
CLEOc:
νN remains most precise determination (for now)
Tagged/untagged consistent
40% overlap, DO NOT AVERAGE
We measure Vcxf+(0) using BecherHill parameterization
& f+(0) from FNALMILCHPQCD.
Unitarity Test: Compatibility of charm & beauty sectors of CKM matrix
CLEOc
Now
CLEOc full data
set + Few % theory
uncertainties
D semileptonic decay with theory uncertainties comparable to experimental uncertainty
may lead to interesting competition between direct and indirect constraints
Plots by Sebastien DescortesGenon & Ian Shipsey
See also talk by DescotresGenon at joint BABARBelleBESIIICLEOc Workshop 11/07, Beijing
Many new modes: most promising in SM: Ds Cabibbo suppressed
If CPV seen in Cabibbo allowed or DCSD it would be new physics
DS→PP
PRL 99 191805 (2007)
ACP
1st Observation
of the Cabibbo
suppressed
decays
(Mostly) Cabibbo Allowed:
arXiv:0709.3783
arXiv 0801.0680
.No statistically significant ACP for any mode. CLEOc best measurement all modes except
D+KKpi. δACP ~1% (best case) for Cabibbo allowed, larger for Cabibbo suppressed
D→Xl+l
D+p+e+e–
LD
No FCNC in kaons charm,
Bmixing heavy top
How about charm?
If new particles are to appear
onshell at LHC
they must appear in virtual loops
and affect amplitudes
SM+SUSY
SM
M(e+e–)
In the SM
B (D+ +e+e) ~ 2 x 106
Rparity violating SUSY:
~ 2.4 x 106
CLEOc
Ds+K+e+e–
ΔMbc
M(p+e+e–)
Statistics limited
ΔE
Bkgd limited
Tevatron may glimpse, study @ BES III, super B factories
lepton universality in D, Ds decays is satisfied
Best limits on direct CPV for many D modes
by summer. Longer term the charm factory mantle passes to BES III.
Precision theory + charm = large impact
Now
Theoretical
errors
dominate
width of
bands
few % on B system decay
Plot uses
Vub Vcb
from
exclusive
decays
only
Search for a nonSMlike pseudoscalar Higgs
Preliminary
lepton universality in purely leptonic Ds decays is satisfied at the
level of current experimental accuracy.
New Physics searches in D mix, D CPV & D rare are just beginning at CLEOc Searches at
BABAR,/Belle /CDF/D0/FOCUS have become considerably more sensitive.
All results are null. As Ldt rises CLEOc (& BES III) will become significant players.
In charm’s role as a natural testing ground for QCD techniques there has been
solid progress. The precision with which the charm decay constant fD+ is known has already improved
from 100% to ~8%. And the DK semileptonic form factor has be checked to 10%. A reduction
in errors for decay constants and form factors to at five  few % level is promised.
This comes at a fortuitous time, recent breakthroughs in precision lattice QCD
need detailed data to test against. Charm is providing that data. If the lattice passes
the charm test it can be used with increased confidence by:
BABAR/Belle/CDF/D0//LHCb/ATLAS/CMS to achieve improved precision in
Determinations of the CKM matrix elements Vub, Vcb, Vts, and Vtd thereby maximizing
the sensitivity of heavy quark flavor physics to physics beyond the Standard Model.
Charm is enabling quark flavor physics to reach its full potential. Or in pictures….
Precision theory + charm = large impact
Now
Theoretical
errors
dominate
width of
bands
few % on B system decay
Plot uses
Vub Vcb
from
exclusive
decays
only
Precision theory + charm = large impact
Theoretical
errors
dominate
width of
bands
Now
few % on B system decay
Plot uses
Vub Vcb
from
exclusive
decays
only
+
500 fb1 @ BABAR/Belle
Precision theory + charm = large impact
Theoretical
errors
dominate
width of
bands
Now
few % on B system decay
Plot uses
Vub Vcb
from
exclusive
decays
only
+
500 fb1 @ BABAR/Belle
2 D’s reconstructed
3 D0 Modes
6 D+ Modes
13575±120
(combined)
PRELIMINARY
8867±97
(combined)
(log scale)!
Signal shape: y(3770) line shape,
ISR, beam energy spread
& momentum resolution, Bgkd: ARGUS
Global fit pioneered by MARK III 2x9 = 18 single & 45= (32 + 62 ) double tag yields (c2 minimization technique, syst, errors included) NDD & 9 Bi’s
φ
f0(980)
K*
φ
CLEOc is most precise result to date for fDs & fD+
& is an absolute measurement, specifically it does not depend on an external normalizing mode i.e B(Ds→Φπ)
2
?
2
?
D p/Ken Which Form Factor Parameterization?
Need to select 1 parameterization to measure intercept & determine f+(0)Vcx, then use theory value of f+(0) to obtain Vcx
Form factor fits to partial branching fraction results in
five q2 ranges normalized to Hill series parameterization
(Untagged shown)
DATA CROSS CHECK : ISOSPIN INVARIANCE
Removing the kinematic terms
reveals the form factor
Isospin
invariance
The q2 spectra for isospin conjugate pairs are consistent a, unique to CLEOc, powerful cross check of our understanding of the data
Compatibility between charm and beauty sectors of CKM matrix
Theory errors reduce to 12%
B factoroes
and full CLEO data set
Results: x 106 (90% CL) CLEOc 0.28/fb BABAR 288/fb
B (D+ +e+e) (prev. 45) 7.411.2
(stat, limited) (background limited)
Limits are ~x4 above SM rates
G. Burdman and I. Shipsey
Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 53 431
(2003) arXivhepph/0310076
Superflavour facility @ 10GeV large backgrounds BUT @ψ(3770)
D+ +e+e~3000 events (low bkgd) also D0 0e+e accessible.
e+e is unique probe of the rare
decay frontier
B
n
p
Bd
Bd
Precision Quark Flavor Physics
The discovery potential of B physics
At BABAR/Belle/CDF/D0/ LHCb
is limited by systematic errors from
QCD:
l
Precision theory + charm = large impact
Now
Theoretical
errors
dominate
width of
bands
few % on B system decay
Comparison to other measurements
THEN:
CLEO & ALEPH
D*+p+Do, Do Kp+
compare to:
D*+p+Do, Do unobserved
(Q~6MeV)
p+
thrust
arXiv:0709.3783 to appear in PRD
Systematics limited 2%
NOW:
CLEOc
CLEOc (not in
PDG04 average)
Measurement of fDS+ (at 4170 MeV)
Here expect in SM
PRL 99 071802 (2007)
PRD 76 072002 (2007)
arXiv:0712.1175
(Submitted to PRL Dec 12 2007)
Unitarity Test: Compatibility of charm & beauty sectors of CKM matrix
B physics global fit
indirect
Few % theory
uncertainties
Nucleon & Kaon
Vcd neutrinos
Vcs W decays
D semileptonic with theory uncertainties comparable to experimental uncertainty
May lead to interesting competition between direct and indirect constraints
Plots by Sebastien Descortes Genon & Ian Shipsey
CLEO at 800/pb Vcs 0.9% Vcs 2.3% , lattice 6%
Summer 2007 Vcs Vcd neutrino
Vcs Vcd CLEOc now + lattice 0%
Vcs Vcd CLEOc now + lattice 11%
Flavor physics is in the “sin 2 era’ akin to precision Z.
Over constrain CKM matrix with precision measurements
Discovery potential is limited by systematic errors
from nonperturbative QCD
This
Decade
LHC may uncover strongly coupled sectors in the physics
Beyond the Standard Model. The ILC will study them.
Strongly coupled field theories an outstanding challenge
to theory. Critical need: reliable theoretical techniques
& detailed data to calibrate them
2008
& beyond
Complete definition of pert. and nonpert. QCD Goal:
Calculate B, D, Y, to 5% in a few years, and a few %
longer term.
The
Lattice
Charm can provide data to test & calibrate nonpert. QCD techniques such as the lattice (especially true at charm threshold) CLEOc
e+
W+
Squared
4momentum
transfer
In D rest frame
Vcq
K,p
D
Matrix element expressed as formfactors (for DPseudoscalar l+n) simplest case for expt. and theory
For l = e, f(q2)0:
form factor measures probability final state hadron will be formed
In general:
Models
Model
independent
(Allows for additional poles)
Hill & Becher, Phys. Lett. B 633, 61 (2006)
Experiment probes both the form factor magnitude & parameterization
For fds we are ~3σ above the most recent & precise LQCD calculation (Follana) HPQCD. Possibilities:
The calculation is not correct
This is evidence for new physics that interferes constructively with SM
Note: 2HDM is always destructive int. so no value of MH is allowed in 2HDM @99.5% CL
Comparing measured fDs/fD+
with Follana, and taking the 90% CL lower limit we find mH>2.2 GeV tanβ
Using Follana ratio find
Vcd /Vcs=0.217±0.019 (exp)±0.002(theory)
CLEO statistically limited – more data is on the way!
Lattice Prediction shape and absolute normalization
FNALMILCHPQCD
FNALMILCHPQCD
uses mod. pole model
To fit for form factor from
“calculated”points
at fixed q2
Curve courtesy Andreaas Kronfeld
Comparison to other measurements
NOW:
Systematics limited 2%
arXiv:0704.2080
arXiv:0709.3783
CLEOc
Wrong charge
CLEOc (not in
PDG04 average)
BABAR must know background shapes well
decay width is x by
Since md is ~0, effect
can be seen only in Ds
rs
Meas rate/
SM rate
From Akeroyd
Akeryod [hepph/0308260]
tanb/mH
μ+(ECal < 300 MeV)
12 evts
BR(D+ t+nt)< 2.1 x 103
In SM:
Track consistent with
π+ (ECal > 300 MeV)
8 evts
First measurement of R
lepton universality
in purely leptonic D decays is satisfied at the
level of current experimental accuracy.
PRD73 112005 (2006)
Require one additional track and no extra shower in CC with > 300 MeV
Calculate missing mass in the event to infer the neutrino(s):
Ds→μ+ν
Ds→τ+(π+ν)ν
MC
MC
MM2 (GeV2)
Note different scale
CLEO fd consistent with calculations
CLEO fds is higher than mos calculations indicating an absence of the suppression expected for a H+
i.e. 2HDM is always destructive int. so no value of MH is allowed in 2HDM @99.5% CL
Our fds is ~3σ above the most recent & precise LQCD calculation (Follana) HPQCD.
This discrepancy should be watched
Comparing measured fDs/fD+
with Follana
mH>2.2 GeV tanβ @90% CL
Using Follana fDs/fD+ find:
Vcd /Vcs=0.217±0.019 (exp)±0.002(theory)
CLEO fd consistent with calculations
CLEO fds is higher than mos calculations indicating an absence of the suppression expected for a H+
i.e. 2HDM is always destructive int. so no value of MH is allowed in 2HDM @99.5% CL
Our fds is ~3σ above the most recent & precise LQCD calculation (Follana) HPQCD.
This discrepancy should be watched
Comparing measured fDs/fD+
with Follana
mH>2.2 GeV tanβ @90% CL
Using Follana fDs/fD+ find:
Vcd /Vcs=0.217±0.019 (exp)±0.002(theory)
 1st presentation of final results this talk
Untagged CLEOc analysis:
[analogous toneutrino reconstruction @ Y(4S)]
ArXiv 0712.1020 and 0712.1025
PPmiss=Pevent – Pvisible
q2=(Pe+P’miss)2
P’miss=Pmiss ( gives E=0)
132548
14356132
44729
584688
E = EK + Ee + pmiss  Ebeam
Mbc = E2beam – (pK + pe + p’miss)2
Mbc distributions fitted simultaneously in 5 q2 bins to obtain d(BF)/dq2. Integrate to get branching fractions
679684
291055
29520
U = Emiss– Pmiss (GeV)
2) Untagged CLEOc analysis:
[analogous toneutrino reconstruction @ Y(4S)]
ArXiv 0712.1020 and 0712.1025
132548
14356132
44729
584688
The untagged analysis has larger signal yields
and larger backgrounds.
D → K e+ ν
PRELIMINARY
[CLEOc no tag used
in world average]
FNALMILCHPQCD
uses mod. pole model
To fit for form factor from
“calculated”points
at fixed q2
D → K e+ ν
Assuming
Vcs=0.9745
(CKM
Unitarity)
[CLEOc no tag used
in world average]
CLEO prefers smaller slope α
Normalization: experiments (2%)
consistent with LQCD (10%)
Theoretical precision lags
Test of shape and absolute normalization f+(q2)
FNALMILCHPQCD
Shape: Experiments compatible with LQCD
Normalization: experiments (4%)
consistent with LQCD (10%) Theoretical precision lags
Assuming Vcd = 0.22380.0029
(CKM Unitarity)
BecherHill Parameterization
Hill & Becher, Phys. Lett. B 633, 61 (2006)
*Physical basis of pole and modified pole models not supported by data
BecherHill adavantages: model independent,
*shape variable “physically meaningful” slope at q2=0
(1) Facilitates: future expt. test of LQCD (FNALMILCHPCQD now using it) .
(2) D/B Measurements: the ai in Dπ constrain class of form factors
needed to fit Bπ hence improve determination of Vub
(3) In HQET direct relations between ai in D and B
0.17 z 0.17 0.05  z 0.05
Parameterization describes data well Quadratic a2 not well determined with current statistics.
ArXiv 0712.1020
ArXiv 0712.1025
Simple pole
Modified pole
1st measurement
1st measurement
Vcs Result (if zero theory uncertainty)
Combine measured Vcxf+(0) values using BecherHill parameterization with (FNAL_MILCHPQCD) forf+(0)
Removing the dominant theoretical uncertainty stresses
the experimental precision and underlines how
eagerly we are awaiting new calculations from LQCD
( expect LQCD df+(0)/f+(0) ~6% by Summer ’08) and few % longer term
CLEO
Full data
set
(Projection: Shipsey @ LQCD
meet Expt Workshop 12/2007)
Combine measured Vcxf+(0) values using BecherHill parameterization with (FNAL_MILCHPQCD) forf+(0)
Tagged/untagged
consistent, 40% overlap
DO NOT AVERAGE
CLEOc & PDG consistent
CLEOc: dominant
uncertainty LQCD
νN remains most precise
determination (for now)
( expect LQCD df+(0)/f+(0) ~6% by Summer ’08) and few % longer term
CLEO
Full data
set
(Projection: Shipsey @ LQCD meet Expt
Workshop 12/2007)
More Lattice checks: fD & semileptonic form factors
A quantity independent of Vcd allows a CKM independent lattice check:
Experiment
Lattice
~8% uncertainty
(CLEO):
Theory & data consistent within large uncertainties
With 0.8fb1 @ y(3770) Rlslexp ~5% uncertainty
Tested lattice for exclusive Vub determination at B factories
uc*=0
2nd row: Vcd2 + Vcs2 + Vcb2 = 1 ?? (can only be tested
with direct determination of each element)
CLEOc now: 1 {Vcd2 + Vcs2 + Vcb2} = 0.012±0.181
Could be tested now to few% (if theory was good to few %)
As Vcd precision improves 1st column:
Vud2 + Vcd2 + Vtd2 = 1 ?? similar precision to 1st row
VubVcb*
VudVcd*
uc*
VusVcs*
Compare ratio of long sides to few %
3 types (1) mixing, (2) decay amplitude (direct) or interference between (1) & (2) Small D mixing best bet direct CP violation
In SM only possible in singly Cabibbo suppressed decays.
( ACP ~0.001 SM, larger NP). Direst CPV so time independent: event counting. Many limits from CDF/FOCUS/CLEOII/BABAR/BELLE some of the recent ones are shown here typical limits ACP <~1%)
Note: if CP violation seen in Doubly Cabibbo suppressed or Cabibbo favored D decays it would be a clear indication of new physics