Testing the SM with penguin-dominated B-decays. Amarjit Soni HET,BNL (firstname.lastname@example.org). Outline. How good a null test is this? How well does the penguin-dominate? Possible dynamical enhancement of u-quark ? Why (LD)FSI has become a significant concern? How can we tackle this complication?
ΔSf (=Sf – SψK ) and Cf ?
Dominant decay amp.has
0 weak phase [just as in
B->ψKS] up to O(λ2)
For DIRCP see also Hou&Tseng,
WA ~ 2.7σ
averaging over many small deviations,
leading to ~3.7 σ ….On the other hand,
used naïve factorization ideas; in particular FSI
were completely ignored.
A remarkable discovery of the past year is that direct
CP in charmless 2-body modes is very large->
(LD)FS phases in B-decays need not be small
SINCE THESE ARE INHERENTLY
Non-perturbative model dependence becomes
All rescattering diagrams contribute to penguin topology,
dominated by charm intermediate states
fit to rates rD = rD* 0.67
predict direct CPV
Should reduce model dependence
Significantly for CPV
1.Note in SD, ΔS switches sign bet. ω,ρ for us no change
2. LD rescattering effects on S & C are highly correlated and similarly
C’s of isospin partners are correlated -> many testable predictions,e.g
LARGE (13%)DIR CP for ω KS & HUGE for ρ KS (~ -46%)
Total errors=SD+LD, for example,
May be a good
Based on our study it seems difficult to accommodate
ΔS>0.10 within the SM at least for KS[ή,φ]
1) Penguin dominated B-decays (b->s) are very useful “ANTs” of SM;
for many modes ΔS>0.10 difficult to accommodate in SM.
2) The η’ KS is esp. clean…due dominance of Penguin (huge Br), which
was in fact the original motivation for suggesting the η’ ; Model calculations show ΔS(η’ KS )~0.01. Since expt. Error for η’ KS
is smallest (0.11), prospects for precision for this mode seem promising.
3) S-C correlation provides a very useful check On the models -> improved expt. measurements should lead to improvements in the models -> other modes may also become useful.
4) Noteable predictions of our model: large dir.CP in [ π,ρ] K- , [ρ,ω]KS
5) The sign of ΔS in our (and several other) model(s) tends to be positive
with small central value (compared to largish ) errors; thus conclusive
statements regarding the sign are difficult to make (Exptal. sign of ΔS
tends to be negative!)
Mode pQCD(SM ) QCDF(MB) QCDF+FSI(CCS)
η’KS .01(.01,-.01) .00(.00,-.04)
φKS ..020(.004,-.008) .02(.01,-.01) .03(.01,-.04)
πKS .009(.001,-.003).07(.05,-.04) .04(.02,-.03)
Most of the effect currently is driven by
the largish ΔS for η’ KS . If New Physics
is responsible for this then NP MUST
show up in numerous (b ->s) channels
e.g. η’ K- , φ[K0,K-…](*), affecting mixing,
dir and triple-corr CP…AND BS physics.
Also, in all liklihood, radiative ,
leptonic (b->s) should also be effected making
Expts. With higher luminosities extremely
rich and exciting!