Transcript Physics with BaBar 1999

FPCP2006
Vancouver, Canada
Era of precision flavor physics
in
The start of LHC era
Highlights & outlook for
FPCP2008
A. Jawahery
University of Maryland
1#
A memorable Flavor Physics & CP Meeting
Great hospitality and excellent views
Great Physics & plenty of suspense
Thank You
2#
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
3#
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
4#
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,…..
5#
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 ( Vub |)  5%
& s(Vtd/Vts)<4%.
s ( )  5  10o
s ( )  8o
s (sin 2 )  0.02o
By FPCP2008
6#
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.
7#
Major New Results of the Meeting
• Measurement of Dms (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)
8#
Bs Mixing -Dms
b
Vtb W
t
d(s)
Vtb
2
GF2 mW2 S (mt2 / mW2 )
2
*
Dmq 
mBq f Bq BBq VtqVtb
2
6
b
t
Vtd W Vtd(s)
d(s)
Dms mBs f BBs

Dmd mBd f BBd Vtd
2
Bs
2
Bd
Vts
2
2

Vts
mBs 2

mBd
Vtd
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 Dmd / Dms SM value &  = 1.21  0.04  0.05
= |Vts|/|Vtd| at ~5 % theoretical uncertainty,
With Dmd = 0.509  0.004 ps-1 @ ~1%
& fBd2 BBd = (228  30  10 MeV)2 from LQCD
|Vtd| only at 15% accuracy- all theory limited
9#
2
2
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
Dms   &
15% probability for Dms=19 ps-1
10#
Measuring Dms: CDF
See J. Pierda
With opposite side tagging
eD2  1.5 % & st ~87-200 fs
Now have added same side tagging with eD2 = 4.0+0.9-1.2 %
Can not use Bd to evaluate and validate performance.
Other approaches used
For a total of eD2  5.5%
11#
See G. Gomez-Ceballos
A/s(A) = 3.5 ;probability of fluctuation of ~0.5%
Recent Belle result
from btd
0.018
Vtd / Vts  0.199 00..026
025 
 0.015

12#
Lifetime difference DGs also in agreement with SM
See R. Van Kooten
13#
Leptonic B Decays
b

u
W
Only l=t is has a reasonable Br. In SM ~10-4


See K. Ikado
n
mt2 2 2
GF2 mB 2
B( B  tn ) 
mt (1  2 ) f B | Vub |2 t 
8
mB
14#
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..
See J Wiss
Compare with experiment-consistency at ~10%
BaBar for Dsmn
Cleo-c
R.
Poling fD+ = (223±17±3) MeV
f  279  17  6  19 MeV
fD+ = (201±3±17) MeV
LQCD (PRL 95 251801, ’05)
f
Ds
BaBar
Ds
/ f DCLEO
 1.25  0.14

( As expected from LQCD15#
FPCP2002-FPCP2006: also a few pleasant unexpected results
 By FPCP2002, measuring  with B seemed hopeless- penguins too large
to deal with & then came along the Brr system -longitudenally polarized rr
system & small penguin contributions   to an accuracy of ~12o
 The Dalitz (GGSZ) method for measuring ; 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s: Now have access to photon helicity (via
BKs0 , 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.
16#
Review of the new states: Helmut Marsiske
JPC
State
Mass
(MeV)
Width
(MeV)
Decay mode(s)
X(3872)
3871.2 ±
0.6
<2.3
@ 90% CL
+-J/
J/
D0D00
3943 ± 9
<52
@ 90% CL
D*D
Not DD or J/
0-+ ?
X(3940)
1++
I=0
All players had a role in
generating this picture
BaBar & Belle
CDF & D0
Y(3940)
3943 ± 17
87 ± 34
J/
C=+1
I=0
Z(3930)
3929 ± 6
29 ± 10
DD
2++
Y(4260)
4259 +8-10
88 +24-23
+-J/, 00J/
Not +-f, DD, pp
1- I=0
CLEO & CLEO-c
Interpretations
Voloshin and
Geofrey
Voloshin
D 0 D 0*  D 0 D 0*
17#
Has FPCP2006 convinced us that goals of FPCP2008 can
be reached?
18#
|Vub|- One of the oldest and slowest advancing measurements
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.:
BaBar
M ( Xu )
q2
Belle
theoretical input to convert: DGu(meas) |Vub| - several approaches new & old
BNLP: use bs & 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s & B->Xcln
E.g. one of several lepton
endpoint analyses with
shape function
3
| Vub | 4.44  0.25(exp)00..42
(
SF
)

0
.
22
(
Th
.)

10
( BaBar)
38
26
| Vub | 5.08  0.47(exp) 0.42( SF) 00..23
(Th.) 103 ( Belle
)
19#
Inclusive
See E. Barberio
~7% measurement now
An overall eventual error of
5- 6% is not inconceivable.
Need confirmation
Method of Leibovich, Low, and
Rothstein – weight method-less
shape function dependent
Statistical
2.2%
Expt. syst.
2.7%
B  Xcln model
1.9%
B  Xuln model
2.1%
SF params.
3.8%
Theory
4.5%
Ultimate
limitation
Charm may
help
20#
See Kevin Varvell
|Vub|-Exclusive approach:
•
•
Identify b->u modes, such as
Bln,Brl n, Bl n,..
Measure partial decay rates, branching
ratios & compare with theoretical
expressions..
dG( B  ln )
 F (| Vub |, F (q 2 ))
2
dq
 Lattice QCD provides normalization of
F+(q2)
21#
~20% now. Not a useful cross check
for the inclusive approach- yet.
Experimental errors to shrink significantly, which may allow discriminations
amongst various lattice calculations.
Other checks on lattice
calculation from Charm decays?
22#
Validation of LQCD calculation of form factors with charm decays?
dG ( D  P n 
dq 2

2
F
2
G Vcq PP3
24 3
 f (q )

2
2
See J. Wiss & P. Mackenzie

 O(ml2 )
Becirevic & Kaidalov write integral as
effective pole with meff   mD *
cD mD2 *
 cD mD2 *
f (q )  2

mD *  q 2  mD2 *  q 2
2
HQET&SCET  Res & Pole
 f (q 2 ) 
All consistent- but what does this
imply/help FF’s issues in B decays?
(1  q
  
f (0)
2
(
/ mD2 * 1   q 2 / mD2 *
More CLEO-c results soon
23#

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
24#
Measuring : Vub= |Vub|e-i
See J. P. Lees
Decays involving interference of tree level bu & bc Processes.
b
b
u
W
+
W
c
s
B   D 0K 
B-  (Df)KF=common to D0 & anti D0
c
u
s
B   D0 K 
A[ B   ( D  f ) K  ]  1  rBei (d  )
A[ B   ( D  f ) K  ]  1 r B ei (d  )
Solve for , & d(,d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->Ks (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)]
25#
Measuring : Vub= |Vub|e-i
See J. P. Lees
From the Dalitz Analysis alone:
=(67+/- 28
 13 +/- 12 )o (BaBar)
φ3=53° +15-18  3° 9°) Belle
The method highly sensitive to rB:
fits favor rB ~ 0.1 (BaBar) ; rB >0.2 (Belle).
Main cause of the difference in errors
Error due to uncertainties in treatment of the
DKs-Dalitz plot (amplitudes and phases)
-CLEO-c data can help.
-Projected error from this source ~ 3-5 o (??)
Combined (CKM fitter):  = ??
26#
Future of 
2008: 5-10o
Requires improvement in D-Dalitz model
– from CLEO-c data and higher statistics
tagged D* events at B factories
rB=0.1
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 :
27#
Measuring sin2:
G( B 0 (t )  fcp)  G( B 0 (t )  fcp)
Acp(t ) 
 S sin Dm t  C cos Dm t
0
0
G( B (t )  fcp)  G( B (t )  fcp)
S  sin 2 ( for fcp  ccs modes) ; C  direct CP violation
B0 tag
_
B0 tag
sin2f= 0.652 ±0.039 (stat) ±0.020 (syst)
A = 0.010 ±0.026 (stat) ±0.036 (syst)
Sin2 is a precision measurement now - the non-SM
solution is essentially excluded B->J/K* & 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
28#
Measuring : The prescription
b
W
u
C. Touramanis
 : ( ,  0, 0 0 
u
r,  r r, …..
d, s
With Tree alone
But penguins (gluonic & E.W) can
also lead to the same decays:
W
b
t
g
See C.C. Wang &
d, s
u
Vtb*VtdVubVud*
i 2
l 

e
VtbVtd*Vub* Vud
C 0
&
S  sin(2 
P iδ iγ
|e e
2i

T
λe
P
 iγ
1 | | e iδ e
T
C0
& S  1  C 2 sin( 2 α )
eff
1 |
u
Estimate D by constructing
the isospin triangle(Gronau &
London)
1
A(B 0  π  π  
2
 ππ
D
A(B0  π0 π0 
1 ~ 0
A(B  π  π  
2
~
A(B  π π0   A(B  π π0 
~
A(B 0  π0 π0 
B->00 sets
the scale of
the D
correction
29#
Measuring 
A=-C
B ( B 0   0 0 
sin D 
B ( B     0 
2
A=-C
| D  45  35o (90% c.l.)
Good news for : A very lucky angle!
Longitudinal polarization dominates-CP even &
small B->r0r0 compared to B->rr0 , B->rr 
suppressed penguin contributions-
sin ( eff     ( f
2
r 0r 0
L
B
r 0r 0
) /( f
r r0
L
B
r r0
)
|  eff   | 11o
30#
Measuring 
 96  3o (Brr only)
(Brr, , r
Already the error is systematic (theory)
dominated.
At ~2/ab, expect s( ~ 7o  10o
depending 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
31#
Search for New Physics with Heavy Flavor
The analysis by the Utfit team allow NP amplitude and phase:
SM
D
M

C
D
M
( Bd  Bd ( Bd 
SM solution
ACP (J / KS0   sin2 (   fBd  C =0 & f =0
Bd
Bd
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 sin2 penguin” test
• Bs mixing: Dms, DGs,
•EW radiative bs  :: rates, direct CPV, photon polarization.
•EW radiative bsll :: rates, direct CPV, AFB(q2), polarization effects,..
32#
An MSSM analysis of b->s observables- ( L. Silvestrini- LP2005) -
33#
The “sin2” Test in penguin dominated modes
B0
fcp
G( B 0 (t )  fcp)  G( B 0 (t )  fcp)
Acp(t ) 
 S sin Dmt  C cosDmt
0
0
G( B (t )  fcp)  G( B (t )  fcp)
B0
For fcp =from b->sqq
W
b
B0
d
u,c , t
g
Within the SM:
A  VcbVcs* [Pc  Pt  Tc ] VubVus* [Pu  Pt  Tu ]
s f , ,( KK )
CP
s
s
Dominant amplitudef
(~l2 same phase
as b->ccs
suppressed
amplitude (~l4
K S0
Expect
Sf~ -cpsin2
within SM
With new physics and new phases, Sf could depart from -cpsin2
The Task: Measure DSf=-cpSf – sin2 & search for deviation from zero
A Key Question: How well do we know DSf within the SM?
34#
SM expectation
Within the SM:
A  VcbVcs* [Pc  Pt
 Tc ] VubVus* [Pu
Dominant amplitude
f
2
(~l  same phase
as b->ccs
 Pt  Tu ]
suppressed
amplitude (~l4
QCDF calculations(Beneke, hep-ph/0505075
Cheng, Chua & Soni, hep-ph/0506268).
DS
fKS
KS
r 0KS
KS
' KS
 0KS
f0KS
QCDF
01
0.02 00..01
0.13 00..08
08
pQCD
005
0.020 00..008

08
 0.08 00..12
11
0.10 00..07
01
0.01 00..01
05
0.07 00..04




011
0.050 00..018

SCET
0.0340.165
0.0700.143
0.0190.008
0.0100.010
0.077 0.030
DS Expt.
 0.22 0.19
 0.06 0.30


 0.21 0.09
 0.38 0.26
0.06 0.24
See C.K. Chua
See C.K. Chua
DSf depends on the
size and the relative
strong phase of this
“suppressed “ term
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.
35#
See M. Graham
QCD factorization
calculation of DS
Simple average: Spenguins=0.5 +/- 0.06 vs reference point: sin20.69+/-0.03
~ 2.5 s deviation at this point.
36#
Tests with Direct CP violations
Within SM: Expect Acp(b->s ~ 0
See Y. Chao
Direct CPV
See V. Erkcan Özcan
Acp(B0K 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
37#
Hadronic B decays: Theory meets experiment
Plenty to explain- a few examples
Pattern of 2-body Br’s
For experiments See
J. Smith & C. Touramanis
Pattern of Br’s & Polarization in
BVV
•Many issues for TH to rule on:
•Tree/Penguin ratios; relative strong phases & direct CPV; Color suppression
38#
Benchmark- Rates & Direct CPV for B & K 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.
39#
bs & bsl+l-  well established venue for NP search See V. Erkcan Özcan
H. Kakuno
L
W
sL
bR
bL
tL
Measured rates consistent with SM:
BF(b→s)TH = 3.57 ± 0.30 x 10-4 (SM NLO)
BF(b→s)EXP = 3.54 ± 0.30 x 10-4 (HFAG)
D0
But there is more handles in these channels
•Photon polarization in bsL ( left-handed in SM)
•Direct CP violation – nearly zero in SM
•In BKll- q2 dependence of the rate; FB asymmetry, polariztion
See
R. Van Kooten
Search for NP modification of Wilson coefficients C7, C9, C10
40#
Probing the polarization via Time-dependent CP violation in bs decays
(A. Atwood, M. Gronau & A. Soni (1997))
0
mixing
B
G( B 0 (t )  fcp   G( B 0 (t )  fcp 
K  R Acp(t )  G( B 0 (t )  fcp   G( B 0 (t )  fcp   S fcp sin Dmt  C fcp cosDmt
A( B 0  f cp R 
Helicity Flip
S fcp   cp
sin 2 
Suppressed by
A( B  f cp L 
*
~ ms/mb
B
0
K L
*
Within SM
S K *  2
ms
sin 2  0
mb
The value of SK* as a NP observable depends on SM uncertainties - recent
work based on QCDF/SCET, considering the impact of bs(g) set SK*~ 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) with K*K0 0 , K0 Ks  with r~3.4x10-6
Needs much more data41#
Other tests with bsl+l-
SM
probe deviation of wilson of C7, C9, C10 from SM
FT = 1 – F0
C9C10 = -C9C10(SM)
K* pol. FL
C7 = -C7(SM)
Possible deviation from
SM at 95 c.l.
Wrong sign C9C10 excluded
Cant exclude opposite sign C7 yet
42#
Leptonic Decays
See R. Van Kooten
Territory of Hadron machines:
b
W

m

t W  nm 
s
WWZ m
SM B( B  m  m  )  (3.5  0.9) 109
s
b
H

t
0
0
A
m
m
b
tan6 
B( Bs  m m ) 
mA4


43#
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.
44#
Kaon physics
Gino Isidori’s talk today
The ultimate goal is to measure the four “golden modes”:
KL0nn – direct access to 
mt 2.2 4 2
0

11
B( KL  nv )810 (
) A  ~31011
mW
B(K    nn ) | Vtd |2 )
The excellent control of theory
in these modes makes them
powerful probes of physics
beyond the SMThe effects are correlated and
complementary to those in B
decays.
45#
Kaon physics
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+ nn & K0 0nn
Dedicated experiment
KEK E391a
Started 2004- 1st results
B(K00nn<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
A. Ceccucci
Physics &
CP-Violation
46#
Lepton Flavor Violation
T. Mori’s talk this morning,
&H. Kakuno
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
47#
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
48#
Super B experiments
LHCB @ 1010 B’s/year
See A. Schopper
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Ds
5s meas. Of Dms<65 in 1 yr
49#
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
1.5 GeV Linac
2 GeV Linac
1.5 GeV Linac
Damping Rings
2 GeV
At least 4 different schemes are
being considered
Workable parameter set contains:
- ILC damping ring,
- ILC bunch compressor,
- ILC Final Focus
e- Gun
e+ Gun
Linac
Linac
Several workshop has been dedicated to the design and more
on the way
50#
Hopes & Dreams for FPCP2008
•Most signs at FPCP2006 indicate that most of the goals of the FPCP2008 are
reachable. The experiments are poised to take the planned data, and lots of
energy and ideas for improving the theoretical inputs. We are in the precision
phase.
s ( V |)  5%
ub
s ( )  5  10o
s ( )  8o
& s(Vtd/Vts)<4%.
s (sin 2 )  0.02o
•Given the large number of observables involved, a pattern is likely to emerge
showing evidence for BSM physics. If we continue to see no deviation at these
precisions, it’s still a great success- a “win win” situation. We’ll end up with a
precisely constrained charged current sector of the Electroweak theory as a
reference point for future searches for New Physics.
•Hope: Serious recognition is given to the fact that tackling any signs of New
Physics found in direct observations at LHC requires other inputs- need at
least one super-favor factory on the agenda; Hope to see Kaon and LFV
51#
programs in action.