np in b and collider george w.s. hou (ntu) whepp-ix 1 new physics hints in b decays and collider...

NP in B and Collider George W.S. Hou (NTU) WHEPP-IX 1

New Physics Hints in B Decays and

Collider Outlook

January 7, 2006, WHEPP9 @ Bhubaneswar


OutlineOutline

Intro: Sf in b sqq and AK+- AK+0 HintsHints

Collider Links (Reveal Culprit at LHC) ; Jungle Law (Survive Constraints)

SKS Saga and SStrangetrangeBBeautyeauty SquarkSquark

RR Sector (Flavor ⊕ SUSY) ; Kinder, Gentler (Scenarios; Bs ; SK*)

AK+0 Puzzle, PEW and 44thth Generation Generation

∗ Tailor-made: nondecoupled t ’ and NP Phase

∗ PQCD at LO w/ 4th Generation: Workable

∗ SKS , SKS

w/ 4th Generation: Robust (against hadronic)

∗ Impact: Bs ; Digression

Collider Link: Bs ; ; b ’, t ’ and FCNC

Summaryw/ A. Arhrib, C.K. Chua, M. Nagashima, G. Raz and A. Soddu references given at appropriate places

11

11

32

8


Introduction


Impossible to Review


Not of this school

(t

oo restrictive)


b s CPV Phenomena Is Current NP Frontier

• Sf in b sqq

• AK+- AK+0 Puzzle

• (VV polarization likely hadronic origin)

Two Hints

HEP-EPS 2005, July 21-27, Lisboa

CPV in bsss transitions and sin2All modes (except ’Ks and 0 0 Ks ) are less than 1.5 away from sin2 from J/ Ks

• Since winter 2005 :

• improved accuracy

• better agreement between BABAR and BELLE

• all systematically below sin2

• QCD corrections : sin2(penguin) > sin2(tree)

[Beneke, hep-ph/0505075][Cheng,Chua,Soni, hep-ph/0506268]

recent QCD factorization estimates :

sin2(penguin)-sin2(tree)

George W.S. Hou (NTU)

B0

B0B0

Vcb

VtbV*

V*Vtb

J/

J/

KS

KS

V*2

td

td

td

No CPV in B → J/KS DecayDecay

M12

CPV in B0 → B0 Mixing


Penguins (Vertex Loops)

SKS = sin 21

SM (KM) Prediction

Possible SUSYSUSYFCNC/CPV Loop

Real

SStrangetrangeBBeautyeauty


Puzzle persists, @ >

2 08


Why a Puzzle ?

Large C ?

Large EWPenguin ?

Suppress Tree CPV Phase

Need NP CPV Phase∵ T and PEW

≈ same strong phase

?


Aim

• Collider Links: ∗ Bs at TeV/LHC

∗ Direct Production of Culprits ⇨ Flavor Scale ≲ TeV• Jungle Law: To Eat, Not Get Eaten (Constraints)


SKS Saga and SStrangetrangeBBeautyeauty SquarkSquark


1??

?~ˆ ,

1??

?~ˆ 22

334

24

357

b

dd

t

uu m

MM

m

MM

11

~ˆ ,

1

~ˆ 223

334

24

246

357

b

dd

t

uu m

MM

m

MM

jjiijiij MMMM

Mass/Mixing Hierarchy & R.H. FlavorR.H. Flavor Sector

Motivation: Abelian Flavor Symmetry• Nir-Seiberg, PLB’93; Leurer-Nir-Seiberg, NPB’94

Commuting Charges

mass

VCKM

no r.h. force

AnsatzAnsatz jjiijiij MMMM


11

~ˆ ,

1

~ˆ 223

334

24

246

357

b

dd

t

uu m

MM

m

MM

Mass/Mixing Hierarchy & R.H. FlavorR.H. Flavor Sector

Motivation: Abelian Flavor Symmetry• 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

Commuting Charges

AnsatzAnsatz jjiijiij MMMM

110

0

00

~ˆ ,

1

~ˆ 22

4

24

246

357

b

dd

t

uu m

MM

m

MM

Mixing Mixing ? MaximalNear RR bs

Alternative Picture:Alternative Picture:Chang,Masiero,MurayamaGUT

Focus: s-s-bb

no r.h. force

Prominentr.-h. elements


Right-handed Quarks Inert in SM

Right-handed SSquarks

SUSYSUSY

Dynamicsgdd -jR-iR ~~

110

110

001~

~but

suppressed CKM ,~~suppressed ~ ,~~~

22

22

22

CKM

mM

VmMm

mmMMM

RR

LLQ

qq

T

LRqRLq

dRR Sector

Impact b ⇄sthru SUSYSUSY

also important

Assume Scale SUSY abovefar not AFSdegeneratealmost ,~ Squarks m

6 x

6


110

110

001~

~

22

mM

RRq

Level Splitting by Large Mixing Could Drive One State Light

1 CP Phase

SStrangetrange-B-Beautyeauty squark squark

• Survive b s Constraint !! gmm ~ ,~ 1, 0.5 TeV1, 0.5 TeV

2, 0.52, 0.51, 0.8 TeV1, 0.8 TeV

2, 0.82, 0.8

Arhrib-Chua-WSH, PRD’01

w/ Large Flavor Violation Strong Dynamics


A Little Note on Formalism …

• Besides O1,2 Tree

O3-6 Strong Penguin

O7-10 EM/EW Penguin

also O11,12 /g Dipole

iO Coupling handed-Right

Basis Massin calculated , tsCoefficien ii cc

Matrix Elements evaluated via Naïve Factorization

main effect


Belle

BaBar

History of S0 and S’0

2002 2003 2004

S0 ~ -1 in 2003 …


mES

Simpler (vs SS’K’Kss)

Frenzied work post summer 2003Frenzied work post summer 2003

• SSKKss ≲ 0

➯ SSKKss, SS’K’Kss ≅ sin2Bd

Anticorrel. : Khalil & Kou ’03 for SS’K’Kss

[Murayama et al. ’03]

• Fine Tuned Light

• Lower gluino massLower gluino mass lowers SSKKss

• Prefer to keep gluino mass above 500 GeV (L.E. Constraints)

0.5 TeV Preferred0.5 TeV Preferred

Chua-WSH-Nagashima, PRL’04

Data was extreme … faded since.


Kinder, Gentler

Benchmarks

(SM-like)

WSH-Nagashima, in prep.


Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 4

Scenario 3

due to the anti-correlationcannot accommodate

Anti-correlation tolerated for now Check in future.

Natural TeV Scale Squark/Gluino w/ Flavor Viol.


Clean Probe for Bd

Valid Probe of right-handed dynamics

B.Grinstein et al

BaBar hep-ex/0507038Belle hep-ex/0507059discriminate btwn SM and sb~ model

Can be tested at SuperB


to be covered @ LHCb!!

Pin down Model parameters

by Bs measurements

Scenario 4 can lead to surprises

Scenario 4

e x c l u d e d

Litmus Test with Bs


AK+0 Puzzle, PEW and 44thth Generation Generation


(Direct) CP Violation Primer

Need both CP Violating/Conserving Phase


Naively ACP(K) ~ ACP(K)

A K ≠ A K?

ACP(K) ~ 0.04

ACP(K) ACP(K) ~ 16

_d

d

Ku u

Bsb

ACP(K) ~ 12

Large C ?

Large EWPenguin ?

3.8

Will focus on EWP, by adding t’, of a

sequential 4th gen.,

in PQCD framework

Ligeti (and SCET)Charng, Li

He, McKellarWu, Zhou

Gronau, RosnerKim, Oh, Yu

Previous talk by H.n. Li

PQCD


Z’

Buras @ CKM05

hep-ph/0412086 emphasized likely New Physics in EWP


Natural Impact on EWP w/ CPV Phase

Why 4th Generation?


from unitarity

measured

Phase

safeSet

CKM Unitarity

Return tolater


SM 4

SM 3

new unitarity condition

new penguin from t’

Effective Hamiltonian and t’ Effect


Tree

QCD penguin

EW penguin SM4 naturally Impact on EWP

Wilson Coefficients at MW Scale(No New Operators)


Effective SD Couplings


• 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 3 - Two and even three extra generations allowed

when neutral leptons relatively light

disfavoredallowed

(Maltoni,) Novikov, Okun, Razanov, Vysotsky

Problem with 4th Generation ?

• Unitarity demands only. Quite generous.


PDG04

Anyway, Should avoid Precision EW “Overkill”

e.g. Higgs


AK and AK in PQCDF at LO

SM 3


Factorizable

Non-Factorizable

Penguin Annihilation w/ Phase

PQCD

TP Pa


Factorizable

Non-Factorizable

PEW (Ta) C

PQCD


B0

B 0

B0 00

B 0

But

AK and AK in PQCDF at LO

2001 2005


AK and AK with 4th Generation

SM 4WSH-Nagashima-Soddu, PRL’05


EWP

t’ Effect through EWP


ACP(K) ~ 12, ACP(K) ~ +0.04 ?

☞ ACP(K) almost independent of t’☞ ACP(K) ACP(K) > 0.1 demands

• sb ~ /2

• Large mt’ and rsb

LargeEffect


N.B. ∵ T-P sign diff.

∴ perturbative

Vary ~ changing

(default)

ACP(K) ~ 0 from Cancellation btwn sb and 3

“adjustable”

Vary : ACP(K) ~ Possible


and Constraints

SM 4


4th generation not excluded

favored

allowed

Arhrib and WSH

YanirHattori, Hasuike and Wakaizumi

Independently


From Constraints

• Some parameter space allowed

• sb ~ /2 favored by both ACP(K)

and ⊕

ACP(K) ~ 12, ACP(K) ~ +0.04 ?


Predictions: , , SK, AK

SM 4


PDG04New Avg.

BR well satisfied

Difficult even atSuperB (SM 3

sensitivity)

SM 3

N.B. ( RH probe ) is like SM3

exp


and Prospects

Just Around Corner!(SM3-like)

~ to !Defintely BSMif measured !

Phase


Just Around Corner ?

Tevatron ?

LHC(b) !

Jesik @ LP05

Experiment: Know in few years


Naively assumed

did not care about

One may have suspicion that * b → s would spill over into s → d

* ~ 0 is not necessarily true !

Reckoning with s d and b d

WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, hep-ph/0508237 (PRD’05)

VtsVtb Large and Complex

Feed VtdVts Complexity

Need Vt’dVt’s to Compensate


Parameterization for B’s (& K’s)

From previous study

WSH, Soni, Steger 1987

We need to deal with mixing matrix in detail to keep Unitarity

SM3

impose


Constrain s d from K Physics

(J. Bijnens et al.)

(E. Pallante et al.)

Therefore….

well-satisfy !

“Standard”

No SM3 solution

(shaded)


well-satisfy

tbtdVV

btdt VV

cbcdVV

ubudVV

Hard to tell apart (non-trivial) with present precision∵ stringent s d

vs Vub ~ 0.01 e-i


Double Cabibbo

Large/Imaginary

tbtdVV

btdt VV

cbcdVV

ubudVV

x ~ 0.22

tbtsVV

btst VV

cbcsVV ubusVV

“Typical” CKM Matrix


Implication for

Rate enhanced up to almost two orders !!

Grossman-Nir

Current Upper Bound

Very hard to measure and challenging…

SM 3

enhanced to or even higher !!

In general larger than !!

∵ Large CPV Phase


Blucher @ LP05


Other Implications

is not in trouble (currently )

but,

•

D0 Mixing of great interest !

sum of first row …?

• b’ and t’ Search - mb’ just above 200 GeV feasible at Tevatron Run II - Decay via b’ c Charged Current - Discovery at LHC not a problem

generic study w/ Arhrib


Right trend for SK, SK

SK, SK

in preparation w/ Nagashima, Raz, Soddu

QCDF NLO s4PQCD LONF (QCDF-LO)


Robustness Against Hadronic Uncertainty

Vary H ard spectator weak A nnihilation

around “s4” value of

• BRs hadr. uncertainty

• SK, SK Robust !

• S’K diluted away.


PQCD at NLO ?

Our PQCD result is at LO.A recent study finds much larger color-suppressed tree (C) at NLO. (previous talk by Hsiang-nan Li)

Li, Mishima, Sanda, hep-ph/0508041; may still need EWPComment: Even if C larger than expected

More param. Space for 4th gen. Solve bothAK+ and S0K0 problems!?

proposed work

WSH, Li, Nagashima


Collider Link: Bs ; ; b ’, t ’ and FCNC

HEP-EPS 2005, July 21-27, Lisboa

More data ! B factories : ~2-4 the present statistics at the end of 2008

Tevatron: ~2-4 the present statistics before LHC startup

Cleo-c : ~10 the present statistics at ’’(3770))

LHCb : ms :

Outlook

Expected unmixed Bs Ds sample in

one year of LHCb data taking

5 observation up to ms = 68

ps-1 1 yrt~ 40 fs

BsJ/sensitive to the weak phase of

Vts SM:

s ~ 0.04 . One year : (sins) ~0.06

LHCb calorimeter at CERN

Sensitivity to NP in the Bs sector

Bs System Bsright


e x c l u d e d

R.H. FlavorR.H. FlavorSf AK+0 and Sf

44thth Generation Generation


standard sbeauty

reference 1

• Discovery (> 10 evts) up to 300 GeV w/ 2 fb−1 & sin2m>0.5

• Single vs double b-tag contain info on sinm

• b-tag cross section: check consistency vs mass

A goner for Tevatron:Too Heavy!

Collider OutlookCollider Outlook

K. Cheung and WSH, PRD’04


CMS Brochure (03)

Collider OutlookCollider Outlook


Search for Strange-B eauty squark at LHC

e.g.

CMS Brochure (03) Similar to study in PRD’04, K. Cheung and WSH [for TeV]


Detection

• Basically, just a “b”-squark in Production so, Discovery not a problem.

• Question is Decay: bino LSP or gravitino

• Can be Stable? (LSP)

In principle Heavy MIPs

Need Good b-tagging ! [s-tagging?]

sin2 is b fraction


b ’, t ’ and FCNC at LHC

Top FCNC ≲ 106

even with b’Too small to probe

SM Result

in preparation w/ Arhrib


b ’, t ’ and FCNC at LHC

10-6

103

- 102

104

- 103


Summary

• Sf in b sqq and AK+- AK+0 Hint at New Hint at New PhysicsPhysics • Explore NP CPV in b s: Large, Unique Phase

- R.H. SS trangeBB eauty - 4th Generation• Predictions for Bs, Sf patterns, A CP in b s, etc. Large KL for 4th Gen.

• Direct Search at Collider CPV Study at (Super)B Factory


BackupBackup


LL

LR

RR

RL

Kane et al., PRD70, 035015 (2004)


B to K decays

PEW color suppressed


My first B paper


Why use conservative PDG04 ?

Expt not yetFully stable

2005

Great Agreement

Belle 2004

‘04


Buras @ CKM05Rc - Rn Problem


Rc - Rn basically OK in PQCD

Buras @ CKM05

np in b and collider george w.s. hou (ntu) whepp-ix 1 new physics hints in b decays and collider...

Documents

collider george

hou ntu whepp

generation np

lipqcd np

superb np

b s g constraint

eaten constraints np

aim collider links