1 / 32

Achille Stocchi (LAL Orsay/IN2P3-CNRS)

Évidence de Nouvelle Physique dans les transitions b→s. Achille Stocchi (LAL Orsay/IN2P3-CNRS). arXiv:0803.0659v1 [hep-ph] 5 Mar 2008 Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. 8 may 2008 Catholic University of Louvain,

louannk
Download Presentation

Achille Stocchi (LAL Orsay/IN2P3-CNRS)

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. Évidence de Nouvelle Physique dans les transitions b→s Achille Stocchi (LAL Orsay/IN2P3-CNRS) arXiv:0803.0659v1 [hep-ph] 5 Mar 2008 Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. 8 may 2008 Catholic University of Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve

  2. ρ η (bu)/(bc) 2+2 f+,F(1),… ρ η md (1– )2 +2 fBd BBd 2 md/ ms (1– )2 +2 ξ ρ η K [(1–)+ P] BK η ρ a + b + g = p - b - g The Unitarity Triangle The CKM is unitary * * * VudVub + VcdVcb + VtdVtb = 0 1

  3. funtion(r,h….) Fit with the Standard Model (SM) Angles Sides + eK ρ = 0.172 ± 0.037 η = 0.365 ± 0.026 r = 0.120 ± 0.038 h = 0.332 ± 0.021

  4. SM Fit Global Fit Dmd,Dms,Vub,Vcb,ek + cos2b + b + a + g + 2b+g r = 0.147 ± 0.029 h = 0.342 ± 0.016

  5. How to look for NP ? And in case of no observation to establish how much room is left for NP effects…? Long story… Some example in next 3 transparencies..

  6. SM predictions of Dms CDF 2006 LEP/SLD 2002 Dms some specific example of NP tests.. SM expectation Δms = (17.5 ± 2.1) ps-1 LEP/SLD 1999 CDF only : signal at 5s Δ ms = (17.77 ± 0.12) ps-1

  7. 1s 3s 5s 2s 4s 6s g Direct measurement From fit γ = (80 ± 13)o(up to π ambiguity) γ = (65.1 ± 6.5)o Viola Sordini @ Moriond EW Summer 2007 Legenda agreement between the predicted values and the measurements at better than : Winter 2008

  8. Vub Elisabetta Barberio @ La Thuille 2008 Summer 2007 incl. sin2b=0.668 ± 0.028 From direct measurement we have a weak sign of a disagreement sin2b =0.736 ± 0.042 from indirect determination (all included by sin2b)

  9. Flavour Physics measure NP physics could be always arround the corner WHAT IS REALLY STRANGE IS THAT WE DID NOT SEE ANYTHING…. coupling With masses of New Particles at few hundred GeV effects on measurable quantities should be important Mass scale Problem known as the FLAVOUR PROBLEM Leff <~ 1TeV + flavour-mixing protected by additional symmetries (as MFV) Couplings can be still large if Leff > 1..10..TeV d

  10. Today we concentrate on a Model Independent fit to DF=2 observable which show a more than 3s evidence of NP in the bs transitions

  11. DF=2 Fit in a NP model independent approach Parametrizing NP physics in DF=2 processes

  12. Using the example of the Supersymmetry To help with a more specific example : Example for B oscillations (FCNC-DB=2) : dbd prupper limit of the relative contribution of NP dbdNP physics coupling LeffNP scale (masses of new particles) Minimal Flavour Violation If couplings ~ 1 all possible intermediate possibilities dbq ~ 1 Leff ~ 10/pr TeV (couplings small as CKM elements) Leff ~ 2/pr TeV dbs ~1 dbq ~ 0.1 Leff ~ 1/pr TeV Leff ~ 0.08/pr TeV Leff ~ 0.2/pr TeV dbs ~0.1

  13. Tree processes 13 family Constraints 23 family 12 familiy Today : fit possible with 10 contraints and 7 free parameters (r, h, Cd,jd ,Cs,js, CeK) 5 new free parameters Cs,js Bs mixing Cd,jd Bd mixing CeK K mixing

  14. Bd fBd = -(3.4 ± 2.2)o CBd = 1.04± 0.34 ANP/ASM vs fNP With present data ANP/ASM=0 @ 1.5s ANP/ASM ~1 only if fNP~0 ANP/ASM ~0-40% @95% prob.

  15. Bd Actual sensitivity for a generic NP phase in the Bd sector r=ANP/ASM~20% This is not yet a prove that if NP should be MFV violating Just for showing the link between precision and mass scale r upper limit of the relative contribution of NP dbdNP physics coupling LeffNP scale (masses of new particles) Take a case where Leff ~ 80/rGeV Leff ~ 180 GeV MORE PRECISION IS NEEDED

  16. Bs Bs sector : very recent results D0,CDF (2006-2007) CDF, D0, LEP CDF (~2006),D0, LEP D0 (2007) D0,CDF (2007-2008) Recall that in Bd sector

  17. Flavour specific final states

  18. Nota bene for the experimental result fs = -2bs fs vs of DGs using BsJ/yf Angular (q,j ,y) analysis as a function of the proper time. Similar to measurement of b in BdJ/y K*. Respect to the Bd case, there is additional sensitivity because of DGs term Dunietz,Fleisher and Nierste Phys.ReV D63:114015,2001 Experimentally q and j are well determined from the m from J/y y is the decay plane between the J/yand the f.

  19. Tagging is important to separate the time evolution of mesons produced as Bs or anti-Bs. In this way we obtain direct sensitivity to CP-violating phase. This phase enters with terms proportional to cos(2bs) and sin(2bs). Analyses which do not use flavour tagging are sensitive to |cos(2bs)| and |sin(2bs)|, leading to a four-fold ambiguities in the determination of js. Only two-fold ambiguity

  20. 1.35 fb-1 2.8 fb-1 D0 tagged measurement Other measurements tBs,DG/G,ASL,ACH CDF tagged measurement No likelihood available from D0 Conservative approach used (for details see appendix) All available measured used with and up-to-date hadronic parameters directly from the Likelihood given by CDF Other measurements are also important Notice that the two measurements are in agreement

  21. SM CBs = 1.07 ± 0.29 fBs = (-19.9 ± 5.6)o U (-68.2 ± 4.9) o

  22. Looking at the result with a different parametrization js ~ -70o Solution corresponding to js ~ -20o jsNP = (-51 ± 11)o

  23. - Stability of the result, who is contributing more ? - Is an evidence….How many sigmas ? Including only CDF Including only D0 Gaussian Including only D0 likelihood profile Without tagged analyses D0 and CDF Depending of the approach used (for treating D0 data) js is away from zero from 3s up to 3.7s.

  24. In summary Model independent fit to DF=2 r = 0.140± 0.046 CBs = 1.07 ± 0.29 h = 0.384± 0.035 fBs = (-19.9 ± 5.6)o U (-68.2 ± 4.9) o CBd = 1.04± 0.34 More than 3s evidence of NP mixing phase in the 2-3 transitions fBd = -(3.4 ± 2.2)o Ce = 0.88± 0.13

  25. This result, if confirmed, will imply : - of course  NP physics - NP not Minimal Flavour Violation (large couplings..new particles not necessary below the TeV scale • NP model must explain why effects on Bd (which can still be as • large as 20%) and K systems are smaller  Flavour physics central - Bd sector, for DF=2 but also DF=1 bs transitions - K sector - of course Bs sector PRECISION IS NEEDED

  26. W- s b f t s B0d s K0 d d b s transitions are very sensitive to NP contributions (DF=1) DF=1 ~ g ~ ~ s b s b New Physics contribution (2-3 families) S(fK) PRECISION IS NEEDED CFMS Im(d23)LR

  27. - D0 and CDF will update their results. They have not used entire dataset. If the NP phase stay so large they could observe it with the full/final dataset - js is a golden measurement for LHCb Simulation done with 4fb-1. φBs = (0.0 ± 1.3)o CBs = 0.99 ± 0.12 But also with much less data, LHCb can observe the effect if will stay so large

  28. BACKUP MATERIAL

  29. Modeling D0 data (I) Used by UTFit D0 data The problem is that the singlet Component of the f is ignored. WE REINTRODUCE THE AMBIGUITY (mirroring the likelihood) Strong phase taken also From BdJ/y K* + SU(3) NO AMBIGUITY

  30. Modeling D0 data (II) DEFAULT METHOD We have the results with 7x7 correlation matrix. Fit at 7 parameters we extract 2 parameters (DGs and js). • Two others approach used to include non-Gaussian tails: • Scale errors such they agree with the quoted “2s” ranges • -Use the 1D profile likelihood given by D0 (fig 2).

  31. Evolution of this result The two most probable peaks of last summer are now enhanced

  32. Kaon sector

More Related