1 / 51

FPCP2006 Vancouver, Canada Era of precision flavor physics in The start of LHC era

This text provides an overview of the flavor physics and CP meeting, FPCP2006, highlighting the advancements and outcomes, as well as discussing the future outlook for FPCP2008. The text covers topics such as precision flavor physics, the start of the LHC era, highlights of the meeting, and the importance of defining important channels and techniques in theoretical treatment.

rosaliegutierrez
Download Presentation

FPCP2006 Vancouver, Canada Era of precision flavor physics in The start of LHC era

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. FPCP2006 Vancouver, Canada Era of precision flavor physics in The start of LHC era Highlights & outlook for FPCP2008 A. JawaheryUniversity of Maryland

  2. A memorable Flavor Physics & CP Meeting Great hospitality and excellent views Great Physics & plenty of suspense Thank You

  3. FPCP2002 - FPCP2006[FPCP2008]- The Exp. players Reached L=1.x1034 [>2.x1034] Reach L= 1.6x1034 [>2-3x1034 ] FPCP 02 Next major Milestone -2008: • Belle & BaBar: ~1/ab each [~ 2x 109 BB(bar)] • D0 and CDF: 4-8/fb each

  4. CLEO-c: Lint~6.7 1031/cm2/s total 281 pb-1 See R. Poling BES @ BEBC I BEBC II aimed at E=1-2.1 GeV Lint~1 1033/cm2/s

  5. And of course the enormous luminosity/brilliance on the theory side defining: what is important, what to measure, channels, techniques, improved theoretical treatment of hadronic effects,…..

  6. FPCP2002 - FPCP2006[FPCP2008] • CKM already established as the primary source of CPV in laboratory (as declared by Y. Nir- ICHEP2002) • All three angles of CKM unitarity triangle are now measured. • Dms is now tightly bound- the SM emerging as the winner again. • Evidence for B ->tn & important Bounds on Leptonic Bdl+l- & Bsl+l- with impact on SUSY parameter space • With the B factories in their “1/ab” phase, Tevatron onward to 4-8/fb, Cleo-c & more theoretical advancements, new goals are set for CKM observables- & s(Vtd/Vts)<4%. By FPCP2008

  7. FPCP2002-FPCP2006[FPCP2008] • New Physics in FCNC bd & sd transitions highly constrained (Declared by L. Silvestrini LP2005). • FCNC bs transitions have become a major focus of the field; By 2008 expect the precision of the CPV effects in bs transitions to reach the point of deserving serious attention:: potential to reveal evidence for New Physics.

  8. Major New Results of the Meeting • Measurement ofDms (Tevatron) • First MINOS results(N.Tagg)- will not discuss here-a full session on n- with excellent reviews and theoretical implication. • Evidence for Leptonic Btn decay (Belle) • New limits and new techniques on D0 mixing (BaBar & Cleo-c)(see M. Wilson, S. Stone, D. Cinabro)- significant improvements to expect soon; and may even a signal. Also new results from CLEO-c on charm branching ratios and much improvements expected soon (see R. Poling, S. Stone)

  9. BsMixing -Dms Vtb Vtb b W b t t d(s) d(s) Vtd W Vtd(s) A key element of the CKM test, as well as searches for New Physics • Up until a few weeks ago limits: Δms> 14.4 ps-1 • SM prediction from UT fits: Δms = 18.3 + 6.5-1.5 ps-1 • Interpretation power dominated by accuracy of LQCD input: • With md / ms SM value &  = 1.21  0.04  0.05 • = |Vts|/|Vtd| at ~5 % theoretical uncertainty, • With md = 0.509  0.004 ps-1 @ ~1% • & fBd2 BBd = (228  30  10 MeV)2 from LQCD • |Vtd| only at 15% accuracy- all theory limited

  10. Measuring Dms::News from TEVATRON D0: Reconstructs BsD(*)sln & tags its initial flavor using the other Bm with eD2 ~ 2.4% 3.8% (5% ) probability for & 15% probability for Dms=19 ps-1

  11. Measuring Dms: CDF See J. Pierda With opposite side tagging D2  1.5 % & st ~87-200 fs • Now have added same side tagging with D2 = 4.0+0.9-1.2 % • Can not use Bd to evaluate and validate performance. Other approaches used • For a total of D2  5.5%

  12. See G. Gomez-Ceballos Recent Belle result from btd A/s(A) = 3.5 ;probability of fluctuation of ~0.5%

  13. See R. Van Kooten Lifetime difference DGs also in agreement with SM

  14. Leptonic B Decays Only l=tis has a reasonable Br. In SM ~10-4 See K. Ikado

  15. With these measurements, pressure building up on LQCD More precise decay constants needed: See Paul Mackenzie He declared that It’s the time for Lattice to deliver – Data is now fast improving and may help in testing the calculations..  fD+= (223±17±3) MeV fD+= (201±3±17) MeV LQCD (PRL 95 251801, ’05) See J Wiss Compare with experiment-consistency at ~10% BaBar for Dsmn Cleo-c R. Poling

  16. FPCP2002-FPCP2006: also a few pleasant unexpected results • By FPCP2002, measuring a with Bpp seemed hopeless- penguins too large to deal with & then came along the Brr system -longitudenally polarized rr system & small penguin contributions- •  a to an accuracy of ~12o • The Dalitz (GGSZ) method for measuring g; expect eventual accuracy of few degrees • The family of gluonic bs decays significantly expanded beyond BfKs -and CPV measured, increasing the sensitivity to NP searches • New ways of exploiting the bsg: Now have access to photon helicity (via BKsp0 g), in addition to the rate and Direct CPV. • Many new states observed; DsJ, , X, Y, Z states- rejuvenated the world of spectroscopy and their interpretation.

  17. Review of the new states: Helmut Marsiske All players had a role in generating this picture BaBar & Belle CDF & D0 CLEO & CLEO-c Interpretations Voloshin and Geofrey Voloshin

  18. Has FPCP2006 convinced us that goals of FPCP2008 can be reached?

  19. |Vub|- One of the oldest and slowest advancing measurements BaBar The goal: s(|Vub|) ~5% See E. Barberio & B. Lange Inclusive Approach: Measure BXul n in a region of phase space where bcl n pollution is small, e.g.: Belle theoretical input to convert: DGu(meas) |Vub| - several approaches new & old BNLP: use bsg & B->Xcln to determine parameters of fermi motion of b in B mb, l etc. the shape function. DGE : go from inclusive Semileptonic b decay to SL B meson decay- inputs: mb etc from bsg & B->Xcln E.g. one of several lepton endpoint analyses with shape function

  20. Inclusive See E. Barberio Method of Leibovich, Low, and Rothstein – weight method-less shape function dependent ~7% measurement now Ultimate limitation Charm may help An overall eventual error of 5- 6% is not inconceivable. Need confirmation

  21. |Vub|-Exclusive approach: Identify b->u modes, such as Bpln,Brl n, Bwl n,.. Measure partial decay rates, branching ratios & compare with theoretical expressions.. Lattice QCD provides normalization of F+(q2) See Kevin Varvell

  22. Experimental errors to shrink significantly, which may allow discriminations amongst various lattice calculations. Other checks on lattice calculation from Charm decays?

  23. Validation of LQCD calculation of form factors with charm decays? See J. Wiss & P. Mackenzie All consistent- but what does this imply/help FF’s issues in B decays? More CLEO-c results soon

  24. Richard Hill: need a different variable to represent form factors- |Z|max Most FF’s are linear in |Z|max- look for curvature and compare Th & Exp. Helps extend the data to regions that LQCD calculations are more accurate. Still not clear how charm helps B’s

  25. See J. P. Lees Measuringg: Vub= |Vub|e-ig Decays involving interference of tree level bu & bc Processes. + B- (Df)K- F=common to D0 & anti D0 Solve for g, & d=(,d1-d2) – rB=(|A1|/ |A2|) f=DCP (Gronau-London-Wyler)(GLW method) (small asymmetry) f=DCSD (Atwood-Duniets-Soni)(ADS Method) (additional problem of dD) f= Dalitz analysis of D0->Ksp+p- (GGSZ) (combines features of GLW & ADS depending on the location in Dalitz plot)- the dominant method [Giri, Grossman, Soffer, & Zupan, PRD 68, 054018 (2003), Bondar (Belle), PRD 70, 072003 (2004)]

  26. See J. P. Lees Measuringg: Vub= |Vub|e-ig The method highly sensitive to rB: fits favor rB ~ 0.1 (BaBar) ; rB >0.2 (Belle). Main cause of the difference in errors From the Dalitz Analysis alone: g=(67+/- 28  13 +/- 12 )o (BaBar) φ3=53° +15-18 3° 9°) Belle • Error due to uncertainties in treatment of the DKspp-Dalitz plot (amplitudes and phases) • CLEO-c data can help. • Projected error from this source ~ 3-5 o (??) Combined (CKM fitter): g = ??

  27. Future of g 2008: 5-10o rB=0.1 Requires improvement in D-Dalitz model – from CLEO-c data and higher statistics tagged D* events at B factories See talks by R. Poling, D. Cinabro for CLEO-c prospects on Dalitz Also needs additional help for rB E.g. Using the ADS observables :

  28. _ B0 tag Measuring sin2b: B0 tag sin2f1= 0.652 ±0.039 (stat) ±0.020 (syst) A = 0.010 ±0.026 (stat) ±0.036 (syst) Sin2b is a precision measurement now - the non-SM solution is essentially excluded B->J/yK* & B->D0h No evidence for direct CP violation- consistent with dominance of one diagram only- At 2/ab era: Expect another factor of 2 reduction of errors

  29. See C.C. Wang & C. Touramanis Measuring a: The prescription Bp p: (p+ p-, p+ p0, p0 p0 ) Brp, B r r, ….. With Tree alone But penguins (gluonic & E.W) can also lead to the same decays: B->p0p0sets the scale of theDa correction Da EstimateDa by constructing the isospin triangle(Gronau & London)

  30. Measuring a A=-C A=-C Good news for a: A very lucky angle! Longitudinal polarization dominates-CP even & small B->r0r0compared to B->r+r0, B->r+r-  suppressed penguin contributions-

  31. a= 96 +/- 13o (Brr only) (Brr, pp, rp) Measuring a Already the error is systematic (theory) dominated. At ~2/ab, expect s(a) ~ 7o- 10odepending on the size of B->r0r0 . Measuring B->r0r0 & its Time-dependent CP asymmetry may shrink errors further- if able to to resolve ambiguities. Other ways of estimating penguin effects

  32. Search for New Physics with Heavy Flavor SM solution CBd=0 & fBd=0 The analysis by the Utfitteam allow NP amplitude and phase: Non –SM solution now excluded by Semileptonic asymmetry (Asl) from BaBar & D0 • New sources of CP violation in bd & sd are strongly constrained. • The bs transitions are much less constrained- possible probes: • Gluonic penguins bsg :: rates, direct CPV, “the sin2b penguin” test • Bs mixing: Dms, DGs, • EW radiative bsg – :: rates, direct CPV, photon polarization. • EW radiative bsll :: rates, direct CPV, AFB(q2), polarization effects,..

  33. An MSSM analysis of b->s observables- ( L. Silvestrini- LP2005) -

  34. The “sin2b” Test in penguin dominated modes B0 fcp B0 Forfcp =from b->sqq Within the SM: Dominant amplitude (~l2)- same phase as b->ccs f suppressed amplitude (~l4) Expect within SM Sf~ -hcpsin2b With new physics and new phases, Sf could depart from -hcpsin2b The Task: MeasureDSf=-hcpSf – sin2b & search for deviation from zero A Key Question: How well do we know DSf within the SM?

  35. See C.K. Chua SM expectation Within the SM: DSf depends on the size and the relative strong phase of this “suppressed “ term Dominant amplitude (~l2)- same phase as b->ccs f suppressed amplitude (~l4) QCDF calculations(Beneke, hep-ph/0505075 Cheng, Chua & Soni, hep-ph/0506268). SU(2) and SU(3) can also be put to work to connect various CP conserving and CP violating observables--generally much less restrictive- but can improve with data. See C.K. Chua

  36. See M. Graham QCD factorization calculation of DS Simple average: Spenguins=0.5 +/- 0.06 vs reference point: sin2b=0.69+/-0.03 ~ 2.5 s deviation at this point.

  37. Tests with Direct CP violations See Y. Chao Within SM: Expect Acp(b->sg) ~ 0 Direct CPV See V. Erkcan Özcan Acp(B0K+p-)= -0.108+/- 0.017 • superweak is really out; Again-to use as NP observable need reliable QCD predictions; some tests can also be done using symmetries

  38. Hadronic B decays: Theory meets experiment Plenty to explain- a few examples For experiments See J. Smith & C. Touramanis Pattern of Br’s & Polarization in BVV Pattern of 2-body Br’s • Many issues for TH to rule on: • Tree/Penguin ratios; relative strong phases & direct CPV; Color suppression

  39. Benchmark- Rates & Direct CPV for Bpp & BKp decays See C. Bauer -SCET See S. Mishima-PQCD TH & EXP agree in some areas, but not all- & TH errors still too large - Delivery time is approaching.

  40. See V. Erkcan Özcan H. Kakuno L W sL bR bL tL bsg- & bsl+l- - well established venue for NP search Measured rates consistent with SM: BF(b→sg)TH = 3.57 ± 0.30 x 10-4 (SM NLO) BF(b→sg)EXP = 3.54 ± 0.30 x 10-4 (HFAG) D0 • But there is more handles in these channels • Photon polarization in bgsL (g left-handed in SM) • Direct CP violation – nearly zero in SM • In BKll- q2 dependence of the rate; FB asymmetry, polariztion • Search for NP modification of Wilson coefficients C7, C9, C10 See R. Van Kooten

  41. Helicity Flip Suppressed by ~ ms/mb mixing Probing the g-polarization via Time-dependent CP violation in bsg decays (A. Atwood, M. Gronau & A. Soni (1997)) Within SM The value of SK*gas a NP observable depends on SM uncertainties - recent work based on QCDF/SCET, considering the impact of bsg(g) set SK*g~ 0.1 - (Grinstein, Grossman, Ligeti, Pirjol PRD 71, 011504(2005), Grinstein, Pirjol, hep-ph/0510104) TDCP analysis requires modes common to B0 and B0(bar): e.g. BK*(890)g with K*K0p0 , K0 Ks p+p-with Br~13.4x10-6 Needs much more data

  42. probe deviation of wilson of C7, C9, C10 from SM FT = 1 – F0 Other tests withbsl+l- SM C9C10 = -C9C10(SM) K* pol. FL Possible deviation from SM at 95 c.l. C7 = -C7(SM) Wrong sign C9C10 excluded Cant exclude opposite sign C7 yet

  43. Leptonic Decays See R. Van Kooten Territory of Hadron machines: SM

  44. Many New Ideas for the future of the Field • High Rate Kaon experiments • Lepton Flavor Violation experiments • Super B experiments both at the energy Frontier (LHCB), and the luminosity frontier- e+e- colliders.

  45. Gino Isidori’s talk today Kaon physics The ultimate goal is to measure the four “golden modes”: KLp0nn – direct access to h The excellent control of theory in these modes makes them powerful probes of physics beyond the SM- The effects are correlated and complementary to those in B decays.

  46. See A. Ceccucci • No future Kaon program approved in the US- all recent proposed experiments turned down (AGS E949, FNAL CKM, FNAL 940, FNAL KAMI, BNL KOPIO). • Proposals at CERN (P326) and J-Parc (E391) for K+ p+nn & K0p0nn Kaon physics Dedicated experiment KEK E391a Started 2004- 1st results B(K0p0nn)<2.86x10-7 (2005) (@90% c.l.) Aiming for <1.4x10-9 With further running proposed at J-parc. Action is needed to keep KAONS at the heart of Flavour Physics & CP-Violation A. Ceccucci

  47. T. Mori’s talk this morning, &H. Kakuno Lepton Flavor Violation If found- constitutes clear signature for beyond the SM effect : • me conversion at SINDRUM@PSI (< 7x10-13 ) • MECO (@BNL) was aiming for <10-16- cancelled now. • Next : High purity muon beam at J-Parc (PRISM/PRIM) • m- Ne- N … aiming for <10-18 • :MEG experiment at PSI aiming for <10-18 • Tau’s studies at the B factories– already setting limits order Br<10-7 With Super-B factories to reach sensitivities of ~10-8

  48. Super B/Flavor Factories >1010 B’s/year • LHCB @ Lint >1032 (~1010 B’s/year) • Super-Flavor Factories • e+e- superB: KEKB @ Lint =2x1035 /cm2/s (N. Katayama’s talk this session) • linear Super-B factory @ Lint >1036 /cm2/s(J. Seeman) Hope@5x1010 BB’s

  49. Super B experiments See A. Schopper LHCB @ 1010 B’s/year Expects: effective tagging: eD2 ~ 6% vs CDF ~5.5% & B Fac. 30% Decay time resolution: ~ 40 fs vs CDF ~ 87-200 fs & B Fac.- ~1 ps For Dms =20 BsDsp 5s meas. Of Dms<65 in 1 yr

  50. 1.5 GeV Linac 2 GeV Linac 1.5 GeV Linac Damping Rings 2 GeV e- Gun e+ Gun Linac Linac Novel ideas for e+e- super-B factory @ 1036 – J. Seeman P. Raimondi • Requirements: • 1) Asymmetric energies • (4.5x6.2) (4x7) (3.5x8) (3 x 9) • 2) Small energy spread at the IP (<10 MeV) • 3) Low power consumption: ~100 MW • 4) Control beam-beam blowup to avoid long damping times At least 4 different schemes are being considered Workable parameter set contains: - ILC damping ring, - ILC bunch compressor, - ILC Final Focus Several workshop has been dedicated to the design and more on the way

More Related