beauty and charm results from b factories

B. Golob, Ljubljana Univ. Results from B factories 1 HQP School, Dubna, Aug 2008

Boštjan GolobUniversity of Ljubljana, Jožef Stefan Institute & Belle Collaboration

Beauty and charm results from B factories

University of Ljubljana

“Jožef Stefan” Institute

Helmholz International Summer School “Heavy Quark Physics”Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics,

Dubna, Russia, August 11-21, 2008

JINR


Outline Lecture 1 Beauty

1. Introduction2. B Oscillations3. (Mostly) rare B decays leptonic semileptonic b →sg b →sll

Lecture 2Charm and others

4. D0 mixing and CPV decays to CP states WS decays t-dependent Dalitz 5. Ds leptonic decays6. Spectroscopy exotic states

Part of B-factories lectures with A.J. Bevan; division by topics, not by experiments


Introduction

Dual role of charm physics

- experimental tests of theor. predictions (most notably of (L)QCD); improve precision of CKM measurements (B physics);

example: leptonic decays of D mesons → decay constants, tests of LQCD; Dr. Jeckyll

- standalone field of SM tests and search for new phenomena (SM and/or NP);

example: mixing and CPV in D0 system Mr. Hyde


Introduction

B-factory=charm factory

g* c

cjets of hadrons

s(c c) 1.3 nb (~109 XcYc pairs)

+ light qq production;

perfect experimental environment for charm physics;

increased interest in charm physicsin recent years; # papers in Spires with title “charm*”

year

(17± 3)%increase

Charm is... a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question. A. Camus (1913 - 1960)


D0 mixing

D0 case only M0 system with down-quarks in loop

History observation of K0: 1950 (Caletch) mixing in K0: 1956 (Columbia) observation of Bd

0: 1983 (CESR) mixing in Bd

0: 1987 (Desy) observation of Bs

0: 1992 (LEP) mixing in Bs

0: 2006 (Fermilab) observation of D0: 1976 (SLAC) mixing in D0: 2007 (KEK, SLAC) (evidence of)

6years

4years

14years

31years

c quarkmass

t quarkmass

????

????

c

u

u

c

d, s, b

d, s, b

W+ W-D0 D0

c

u

u

c

d, s, b d, s, b

W+

W-

D0 D0

Vci

Vcj

Vuj*

Vui*

jbsdji

iujcjciuiwk mmVVVVDHD

,,,

**00

(adopting eq. from lecture 1, B oscillations)


D0 mixing

Phenomenology|VcbVub*|<< |VcsVus*|, |VcdVud*|assuming unitarity in 2 generations

222**

00

)( dsudcdcsus

wk

mmVVVV

DHD

055

02

222**

2

2020 |)1()1(|

)(

4DcucuD

m

mmVVVV

GDHD

c

dsusudcdcs

FCw

more precisely:

G. Burdman, I. Shipsey, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Sci. 53, 431 (2003)DCS SU(3) breaking

;)2

(1

2;)

2(

2 1212

211212

21

iMp

qyiM

p

qmmx

mixing parameters:


n nD

Cw

Cw

D

Cw

DijD

D

jeffi

ij

iEM

DHnnHD

M

DHDM

M

M

DHDiM

0110

020

2

1

2

12

||)

2(

D0 mixing

Phenomenology2nd order in pert. th.::

short distance: contributes to x;

|x| ~ O(10-5)

c

u

u

c

D0 D0NP

common statement: mixing with large x sign of NP;

DnnDnD

MEiEM

PViEM

11

long distance: contributes to y and x;y is affected by sum over real intermediate states;x also affected by sum over off-shell states;

|x|, |y| ≤ O(10-2) I.I. Bigi, N. Uraltsev, Nucl. Phys. B592, 92 (2001);A.F. Falk et al., PRD69, 114021 (2004)

D0 D0

K+

K-The duration of passion is proportionate with the original resistance of the woman.

H. de Balzac (1799 -1850)

D0 mixing is a rare process


D0 mixing

Time evolutionsimplified due to |x|, |y| << 1;

various decay modes with specific decay t dependence;

)sin(2)sinh(2

)cos(

)cosh()(1

**

22

22

0

xtAAp

qytAA

p

q

xtAp

qA

ytAp

qA

dt

fPd

e

ffff

ff

fft

20

2

)(1fft

Ayix

p

qA

dt

fDd

e

Common features

D*+ →D0ps+

charge of ps flavor of D0; DM=M(D0ps)-M(D0) (or q=DM-mp) background reduction

p*(D*) > 2.5 GeV/c eliminates D0 from b → c


K+K- K-p+ p+p-

Nsig 111x103 1.22x106 49x103

P 98% 99% 92%

D0 mixing Decays to CP eigenstates

CP even final state;if no CPV: CP|D1> = |D1> t=1/G1;

K-p+: mixture of CP states t=f(1/G1,1/G2)

D0 → K+K- / p+p-

AM, : CPV in mixing and interference (addressed later)

yxA

y

KK

Ky

CPVno

M

CP

sin2

cos

1)(

)(

S. Bergman et al., PLB486, 418 (2000)

more

ReconstructionBelle, PRL 98, 211803 (2007), 540fb-1

M(K+K- ) , q=M(K+K- ps)- M(K+K- )- M(p), st, selection optimized on MC


D0 mixing Belle, PRL 98, 211803 (2007), 540fb-1

yCP=(1.24±0.39±0.13)%

Decays to CP eigenstates

K+K-/p+p-

and K-p+ratioevidence for D0 mixing(regardless of possible CPV)

3.2 s (4.1 s stat. only)

c2/ndf=1.084 (ndf=289)+

)%25.032.0

31.1(

CPy

confirmation: BaBar, arXiv:0712.2249, 384fb-1

yCP currently most preciselymeasured param.

simultaneous binned likelihood fit to decay-t, common free yCP


D0 mixing WS decays (non-CP)

D*+ → D0 pslow+ D0 → D0 → K+ p-

DCS decays interference;

sincos'sincos'

xyyyxx

t-dependence to separate DCS/mixed

BaBar, PRL 98, 211802 (2007), 384fb-1

d: unknown strong phase DCS/CF

t

mixinterf

D

DCS

D etyx

tyRR

tDK

2

22

.

20

4

'''

)(

reconstruction NWS=4030±90;

fit

R: sum of 3 Gaussians; RS sample: t=(410.3±0.6) fs

WS sample


1s2s

3s4s

5s

likelihoodcontours

3.9s

D0 mixing WS decays (non-CP)

Result x’2, y’ region

BaBar, PRL 98, 211802 (2007), 384fb-1

evidence for D0 mixing

Belle, PRL 96, 151801 (2006), 400fb-1

95% C.L. (x’2, y’) contourfrequentist, FC ordering

RD = (3.03 ± 0.16±0.10 ) ·10-3

x’2 = (-0.22 ±0.33±0.21) · 10-3

y’ = (9.7 ±4.4±3.1) · 10-3

RD = (3.64 ± 0.17 ) ·10-3

x’2 = (0.18 ± 0.210.23) · 10-3

y’ = (0.6 ± 4.03.9) · 10-3

uncertainty includes syst. error


D0 mixing

t-dependent Dalitz analyses different types of interm. states; CF: D0 → K*-p+

DCS: D0 → K*+p-

CP: D0 → r0 KS

if f = f populate same Dalitz plot; relative phases determined (unlike D0 → K+ -);

t-dependence: regions of Dalitz plane → specific t dependence f(x, y);

titi

titi

S

eemmp

q

eemm

tDKtmm

21

21

),(2

1

),(2

1

)(),,(

22

22

022

A

A

M

sum of intermediate states:

1,2=f(x,y); n.b.: K+ -:x’2, y’

m±2 = m2(KS±),

NRr iNR

ir eammBeamm

),(),( 2222A

D0 →KS + -

t

access directly x, y

D0→f

D0→f


D0 mixing

t-dependent Dalitz analyses

Nsig= (534.4±0.8)x103

P 95%

Dalitz fit projections; decay-t fit projection;

K*(892)+

K*X(1400)+

K*(892)- /r w

t [fs]

t = (409.9±0.9) fs

Belle, PRL 99, 131803 (2007), 540fb-1

)%24.033.0(

)%29.080.0(

14.010.0

16.013.0

y

x

more

most sensitive meas. of x


D0 mixing

D0: first two quark generations;CKM elements ≈ real;

using CKM unitarity:

bellow current exp. sensitivity; signals New Physics

CP violationVcs

Vus*

D0

K-

K+

)(VV

VV

Df

Df-

uscs

ubcb 3*

*

0

0

10~arg O

)(

0

0

0

0

0

0

2/1

)2/1(

),2

1(,2

1

,

fi

D

DM

MD

D

eA

RA

Df

Df

p

q

A

p

qA

Df

Df

RDf

Df

parameterization: RD ≠1: Cabbibo suppression

AD ≠0: CPV in decay AM ≠0: CPV in mixing f ≠0 : CPV in interference

more


D0 mixing

)%08.036.026.0( A

CP violationDecays to CP states

0sincos2

)()(

)()(

)()(

)()(

00

00

00

00

CPVno

M

intmixfdec

fCP

xyA

KKDKKD

KKDKKDA

aaafDfD

fDfDA

with adec<<1:

)%15.030.001.0( A

Belle, arXiv:0807.0148, 540fb-1

BaBar, arXiv:0712.2249, 384fb-1

t-integrated ACP

meas =Aep + AFB + ACP

f

Aep : comparison of tagged/untagged

(D*+ →D0p+),D0 →K-p+ AFB: asymmetric f(cosqCMS)

t-dependent

)%13.034.000.0( KKCPA

)%11.030.043.0( KKCPA

Belle, PRL 98, 211803 (2007), 540fb-1

ACPKK ACPpp

AFBKK AFBpp

|cosqCMS| |cosqCMS|

|cosqCMS||cosqCMS|

BaBar, PRL 100, 061803 (2007),

386fb-1

more

more


D0 mixing CP violation

WS decays (non-CP) separate D0 and D0 tags;fit (x’2,y’,RD) → (x’±2, y’±,RD

±);

DD

DDD RR

RRA

AD = (23 ± 47) ·10-3

AM = (670 ± 1200) ·10-3

MM

MMMM RR

RRA

yxR

2

22

BaBar, PRL 98, 211802 (2007), 384fb-1

Belle, PRL 96, 151801 (2006), 400fb-1

consistent

consistent

consistent with 0

x10-3

t-dependent Dalitz analyses additional free param, |q/p|, f;

rad

pq

)09.030.028.024.0(

09.010.0

29.030.086.0/

Belle, PRL 99, 131803 (2007), 540fb-1


D0 mixingAverage of results K+K-

K+p-

KSp-p+ RM

c2 fit including correlationsamong measured quantities

c2/n.d.f.=23.5/18

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/charm/

(x,y)≠(0,0): 6.7s;CP even state heavier and shorter lived;no CPV within 1s

CP

V

d uncertainty

Don't keep mixing in these other things. It only confuses.

K. Kinski (1926 - 1991)

n.b.: x(D0) ≈0.01; x(K0) ≈1; x(Bd) ≈ 0.8; x(Bs) ≈ 25;


D0 mixingConstraints on NP

SuperB, L = 5 ab-1

E. Golowich et al., PRD76, 095009 (2007)

x

x=2%

l’12kl’11k

GeVdmkR

300)~

(

TeVdmkR

1)~

(

D0 D0iL

l~

iLl~

kRd

kRd

D0 D0iL

l kRd~

iLl

kRd~

uncertain SM predictions for x, y;measured values can impose constraintson NP models parameter space; e.g. R-parity violating SUSY; existing constraints largely improved for many NP models

R-parity violatingcoupling const.

Approximate sensitivity

s(x) s(y) s(|q/p|) s(f)0.1% 0.1% 0.1 0.1

LHCb, L = 10 fb-1

s(x’2) s(y’)6x10-5 0.1%

x, y accuracy ~3x better than current WA;sensitivity to CPV would cover range of SM predictions

Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future.

N. Bohr (1885 - 1962)


Ds leptonic decays

p

D

p p

e+ e-

n

Dsg

µ

Ds*

tag signal

K

pp

K

g

additional particles

Kprim

full recon.

Ds →mn analogy of B leptonic decays, see Lecture 1; check of LQCD (fP) ? Method: inverse (recoil) reconstruction D → Knp, n=1,3

relative charge (Kprim, D)/Ds* right-, wrong-sign

inclusive Ds signal(no m requirement)

efficiency depends on # primary particles: nX = 3 (DDs*Kprim) + N differences data/MC

M(Ds)=Mrec(DKprimXg)recon. in recoil

M2(n)=M2rec(DKprimXgm)

Ds → mn signal

Belle, PRL 100, 241801 (2008), 548fb-1


Ds leptonic decaysDs →mn Method fit data M(Ds) distr. with MC signal in bins of nX

rec; bkg. from WS inclusive Ds normalization;

Method fully reconstruct tag side Ds,D+,D0,D*+; ,m g; pn from pmiss with m( ,n m)mDs; signal in DM=M(mng)-M(mn) (~ mDs*-mDs); exact Ds production in cc not known normalization: Ds→ fp

3

8

3

,

10)87.010.32(

i

iMCDs

Dsi

recDs NwN

Ds* →DsgDs → fp

N=2093±99

D

e+ e-

nDsg

µDs*tag

Belle, PRL100, 241801 (2008), 548fb-1

BaBar, PRL98, 141801 (2007), 230fb-1


Ds leptonic decaysDs →mn Signal fit data M(n) distribution with MC signal in bins of nX

rec; bkg. from Ds → en

Belle, PRL100, 241801 (2008), 548fb-1

BaBar, PRL98, 141801 (2007), 230fb-1

Ds* →DsgDs → mn

N=489±55

816169

8

3

,

i

iMCi

rec NwN

recDs

rec

s N

NDBr

)(

Br(Ds → mn) = (6.44 ± 0.76 ± 0.56) x10-3

Br(Ds →mn) = (6.74 ± 0.83 ± 0.26 ± 0.66) x10-3

e dependence reduced (single track (m) recon.)

last uncertainty Br(Ds →fp)

fDs = (275 ± 16 ± 12) MeV

using |Vcs| = 0.9730 ± 0.0002 from overall fit including unitarity (PDG)

fDs = (283 ± 17 ± 7 ± 14) MeV

Belle, PRL100, 241801 (2008), 548fb-1

BaBar, PRL98, 141801 (2007), 230fb-1


Ds leptonic decaysDs →mn Average of absolute meas.;

huge improvement in LQCD accuracy;

agreement for fD+: LQCD: 208 ± 4 MeV exp.: 223 ±17 MeV (but exp. error larger than for fDs)

230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 MeV

, ( )m t pn

(t e )nn

aver.

Belle, PRL100, 241801 (2008), 548fb-1

Cleo-c, PRL99, 071802 (2007), 314pb-1

Cleo-c, PRL100, 161801 (2008), 298pb-1

MILC, PRL95, 122002 (2005)

LQCDHPQCD, UKQCD, PRL100, 062002 (2008)

3.3 s discrepancy

274 ±10 MeV

241 ±3 MeV

to do list:confirm LQCD uncertainty;reduce exp. uncertainty;

more


SpectroscopyProduction @ B-factories open and hidden charm; clean exp. environment;

various methods related to different prod. mechanisms;

rich harvest of previously unknown states at B-factories;

only few (“exotic”) examples discussed;

spectroscopy: tests of QCD, bounding q’s and g’s in hadrons

Vcb

Vcs*B

b c

q

cs

q

Vcb

Vq1q2*

B

b c

q

q1

q2

q

c

cc

c

g*e+

e-

gg*e+

e-X

ge+

e-X

e-

e+

g

open charm(Ds**, D**,...)

colour suppressed;hidden charm(cc, charmonium-like...)

continuum(double cc) (also lectures by V. Barguta)

initial state radiation(1-- states) two photon processes


SpectroscopyExotic states states other than q1q2, q1q2q3

not forbidden in SM; exotic JPC (e.g. 0+-, 1-+, 2+-,... forbidden for qq); exotic decay modes (not possible from qq); strange properties (widths,...);

pentaquarks: q1q2q3q4q5; hybrids: cc + g’s; tetraquarks: diquark-antidiquark, [cq][cq] molecules: M(cq)M(cq), loosely bound mesons

...Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know...:Forrest Gump (1994)


SpectroscopyX(3872) observed in B decays, B →(J/ypp)K; charmonium-like;

well established state;

Vcb

Vcs*B

b c

q

cs

qK

Belle, PRL 91, 262001 (2003), 140fb-1

Mbc in 5 MeV bins of M(p+p-J/y)Belle, hep-ex/0505038, 250fb-1

MeVMeVMMM

MeVM

DDX

X

3.26.06.0

5.02.3871

00*)3872(

)3872(


MD+MD*

hc’

J/yhc

cc0cc1

cc2y’y”

hc

hc”

hc’

cc1’

hc2

y2 y3

SpectroscopyX(3872) properties

C=+1;

M(pp) distrib., r-like; (cc) →J/yr isospin breaking; 4-quark states:

hc’’: ang. distr., M, G; cc0’: ang. distr., DD; cc1’: gJ/y hc2: pphc dominant, DD*; cc2’: DD*; no obvious cc candidate;

05.014.0)/(

)/(

JXBr

JXBr

102

1

)(2

1)(

2

1

2

1

II

dduudduucc

uucccc2’

CDF, PRL96, 102002 (2006), 360pb-1

Belle, hep-ex/0505037, 250fb-1


ang. distrib.:

JPC= 1++, 2-+ favoured;

more


SpectroscopyX(3872) other possibilities (see also lectures by V. Lyubovitskij) DD* molecule: isospin breaking; JPC=1++; J/ ypp favoured over DDp; R~0.1

E. Braten, M. Lu, PRD77, 014029 (2008);see also E.S. Swanson, Phys. Rept. 429, 243 (2006)for review

B+→ X(D0D0p0)K+

B+→ X(D*0D0)K+

MeVM X )9.07.04.3875(7.14.0

)3872(

MeVM X )5.01.3875(5.07.0

)3872(

last uncertainty: mD0;main syst.: p0 calibration and signal shape

Belle, PRL97, 162002 (2006), 414 fb-1

BaBar, PRD77, 111102 (2008), 347 fb-1410)/(

)( 000

JXBr

DDXBrR

Belle, PRL97, 162002 (2006), 414 fb-1


J=2 decays to DD*suppressed by (p*)2L+1

with L=1,2;1++ state favoured

more


SpectroscopyX(3872) other possibilities DD* molecule: prod. from B0 suppressed compared to B+

(depending on model parameters);

tetraquarks: two mixed states, [cu][cu], [cd][cd]; one produced mainly in B0, other in B+ decays mass difference; also charged X+ [cu][cd], no evidence so far;

Belle, BELLE-CONF-0711,605 fb-1

BaBar, PRD77, 111101 (2008),413 fb-1

M(J/ypp) for B →XK

K+

Ks

Ks

K+

MeVXBMXBMXKBBr

XKBBr

)27.090.022.0()()(

10.024.094.0)(

)(

0

00

MeVXBMXBMXKBBr

XKBBr

)4.06.17.2()()(

05.024.041.0)(

)(

0

00

L. Maiani et al., PRD71, 014028 (2005)

more

It is characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things.

H.D. Thoreau (1817 - 1862)


SpectroscopyZ+(4430) B →(y’p+)K; y’ →ll, J/ypp;

Dalitz plot; K* veto;

M(y’p+); fit: BW + phase space;

signal stable in subsamples, w.r.t. K* veto, etc.;

known S-, P- and D-wave Kp resonances tried, cannot reproduce the peak; first charged charmonium-like resonance;

more

Belle, PRL100, 142001 (2008), 605 fb-1

MeVZ

MeVZM

)45()(

)244433()(

1330

1318

N=121 ± 306.5 s

possibilities: tetraquark, radial excitation of X+(3872) (JP=1+; neutral partner?); D*D1(2420) threshold effect; D*D1(2420) molecule (JP=0-,1-,2-;decays to D*D*p?)

L.Maiani et al., arxiv:0708.3997J. Rosner, PRD74, 114002 (2007)C. Meng et al., arxiv:0708.4222


SummaryB-factories successfully perform the precision measurements in determination of SM processes as a complement to direct NP searches (starting on Sep. 10)

SM stands, although hints (~3 s) of discrepancies are seen

B-factories have outreached the program as foreseen at the start

B oscillations in conjunction with breakthrough in Bs confirms SM to a high accuracyleptonic and radiative B decays constrain NP but large room for improvement from SuperBImportant results in charmD0 mixing and CPV another milestone achieved, need more precise measurements and predictionsDs leptonic decays testing LQCDSpectroscopy may need extensions


D0 mixing more CPV parameterization three types of CPV

iM

i

D

D

f

fiDD

f

f

iDD

f

fi

D

D

f

f

D

f

f

D

f

fD

f

f

eA

p

q

eAR

A

Ae

AR

A

A

eA

RA

Ae

AR

A

A

A

A

A

RA

AR

A

A

)2

1(

21

;)2

1(

)2

1(;

21

21

;

*

*

*

*

RD ≠1 Cabbibo supp.

AD≠ 0direct CPV

AM≠ 0CPV in mixingf≠ 0CPV in interf.

- sign due to relative sign of Vus and Vcd;

22

2

22

*

*

)1(

)1)(1(

csud

uscd

f

f

VV

VV

A

A

back

back


D0 mixing more Decays to CP eigenstates

D0 → K+K- / p+p-

222

22

2

20

222

2

22

20

4)1(

1cossin

)1)(1(

1

)1(

1)(

4)1(

)1(cossin

1

11

)(

1;;;

tyx

Atyx

AAAA

e

tPf

tyx

A

Atyx

A

AA

e

tPf

AA

AAAAAff

MMDDft

D

M

D

Mft

D

f

f

ffff

tyxAAAAe

tPf

tyxAAAe

tPf

MDDft

DMft

cossin)1(21)(

)cossin)(1(1)(

2

20

2

20

to linear order:

back



D0 → K+K- / p+p-

since AD<<1

tytytCP

t

CPfMftt

CPCP eeetyetPftPf

tyAtxAyAe

tPf

e

tPf

)1(2

02

0

22

20

20

)1()()(

]1[)sincos(1)()(

txAyAAAe

tPf

e

tPfMDDftt

sincos)1(1)()( 2

20

20

if same procedure applied separately to D0 and D0 lifetime:

1/ =G tf=t/(1+yCP); yCP=(t/tf)-1=y cosf-Amx sinf

sincossin)1(cos

)cossin)(1(1,)cossin)(1(1

xyAxAyAA

yxAAyxAA

MDMff

ff

DMfDMf

back

back



D0 → K+K- / p+p-

back

Fit

simultaneous binned likelihood fit to K+K- /K-p+/p+p- decay-t, common free yCP

)(')'(/' tBdttteN

dt

dN t R

R : ideally each si Gaussian resol. term with fraction fi; : described by 3 Gaussians

N

i kikki tsttGwftt

1

3

10 ),,'()'( R

t = 408.7±0.6 fs

event-by-event st

parameters of R depend slightlyon data taking conditions

trec-tgen/st

K-+



t-integrated CPV in D0 → K+K- / p+p-

Aep from comparison Auntag/Atag

back

=0 (strong int.)

=0 (same for D0, D0)

BaBar, PRL 100, 061803 (2007), 386fb-1

method of



t-integrated CPV in D0 → K+K- / p+p-

back

Aep (pp,cosqp)

Belle, arXiv:0807.0148, 540fb-1


D0 mixing more

back

t-dependent Dalitz analyses selection; Dalitz model;

Belle, PRL 99, 131803 (2007), 540fb-1

Msignalrnd slow pcombin.

13 BW resonances, non-resonant contr.;comb. bkg.: from M sideband

NRr iNR

ir eammBeamm

),(),( 2222A

test of S-wave pp contr. (f0, s1,2): K-matrix formalism

Results (fit fractions, phases) in agreement with (measurement of f3)

Belle, PRD73, 112009 (2006)


D0 mixing more

back

t-dependent Dalitz analyses Belle, PRL 99, 131803 (2007), 540fb-1

Largestsystematics

model dependence [10-4]: x y -10.3 +0.1 K*0(1430) DCS/CF -15% + 6.9 -2.5 K*2(1430) DCS/CF -30% -1.6 -0.9 K*(1410) DCS & CF -20% -5.1 -4.1 G(q2) const. --------------------------------- +10 +6 Total model dep. -14 -8

experimental: x y +7.6 -7.8 p* variation -5.6 -5.7 Dalitz pdf for bkg. from different t bins ----------------------- +9 +8 Total experimental -7 -12

observed discrepancy from

input in MC

statisticaluncertainty:

s(x)=29x10-4

s(y)=24x10-4


D0 mixing more

back

t-dependent Dalitz analyses Belle, PRL 99, 131803 (2007), 540fb-1

efficiency and resol. in M( )pp

rnd ps bkg.:

Prnd [(1-fw) M(m-2,m+

2,t) +fw M(m+2,m-

2,t)] R(t)

fw from fit to Q side band: fw= 0.452 ± 0.005diff. w.r.t. fw=0.5 in systematic error

comb. bkg.:

Pcmb B(m-2,m+

2) * ([ (t) + Exp(t) ]R’(t)

parameters from fit to Dalitz and t distrib. of M(KS + - ) sideband(systematics: Dalitz distrib. in different t intervals)


Ds leptonic decays more

back

Ds →mn projection

B factories with 2 ab-1 ~4% uncertainty on fDs; Charm-factory: syst. on Ds tags? test of LQCD to ~2-3%;

possible NP effects:

Cleo-cDs tags, 2.5%

L / fb-10.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Cleo-c, PRD 76, 072002 (2007)

%5.1/

%1.7)(

0

LLf

f

Ds

DsBelle, PRL100, 241801 (2008), 548fb-1

M: NP mass

B.A. Dobrescu, A.S. Kronfeld,, PRL100, 241802 (2008)


Spectroscopy more

back

X(3872) B →KX (J/yg): B →Kcc1(J/yg) calibration;

B →KX (J/ypp): B →K (2y S) calibration;

B →KX (J/yppp0):

13.6±4.4 evts.(4s)

no. of B’s in bins of M(gJ/y)


Belle, BELLE-CONF-0711,605 fb-1no. of B’s in bins of M(ppp0)

13.1±4.2 evts.(6.4s)M(p+p-p0)>750 MeV

3.04.00.1)/(

)/( 0

JXBr

JXBr



Spectroscopy moreX(3872) tetraquarks: predicted spectrum;

mass difference;

q: mixing angle

DD* molecule: wave function fractions

MeVXMXM lh cos

27)()(

L. Maiani et al., PRD71, 014028 (2005)

back

410)/(

)( 000

JXBr

DDXBrR

E.S.Swanson, PLB588, 189 (2004)

Zi

binding energy back


Spectroscopy moreZ+(4430) S-, P-, D-wave interference: y’

K

q

16 GeV2

22 GeV2

M2(p

y’)

+1.0

-1.0

cosqp

0.25(4.43)2

GeV2

inte

rfer

ence

incoherent

cannot producea single peak at cosqp ~ 0.25

back

Belle, PRL100, 142001 (2008), 605 fb-1


SuperB more

back

energy frontier sesnitivity frontier

not to underestimate power of precision measurements

Two approaches

Competitiveness

A. Roodman, JPS/DPF meeting, Hawaii 06


SuperB more

back

2

tree dominated

2

penguin dominated

NP

NP

Some physics motivation

different models for NP;in any case precise meas.of observables test

specifically for this mode:SM expect. for Dsin2F1: 0 ± 2% current sens.: 6% (b →sqq)current lum.: 1.2 ab-1

needed: >10 ab-1

proposed for Super B-factory


SuperB more

back

More examples of physics motivation

Complementarity

Super KEKB Physics working group


SuperB more

back

Proposed luminosity

Super KEKB: 8x1035 cm-2 s-1

crab cavities

Frascati: ~1036 cm-2 s-1


Crab cavities will be installed and tested with beam in 2006.

The superconducting cavities will be upgraded to absorb more higher-order mode power up to 50 kW.

The beam pipes and all vacuum components will be replaced with higher-current-proof design.

The state-of-art ARES copper cavities will be upgraded with higher energy storage ratio to support higher current.

SuperKEKBe+ 4.1 A

e- 9.4 A

β*y = σz = 3 mm

will reach 8 × 1035 cm-2s-1.

L 2ere

1 y

*

x*

Iyβy*

RLRy

SuperB moreH. Koiso, Inaugural meeting of Super Belle


SuperB more

Item ObjectOku-yen = 1.0 M$

Luminosity

New beam pipesEnable high current

Reduce e-cloud

178(incl. BPM, magnets,

etc.)x1.5

New IR Small β* 31 x2

e+ Damping RingAllow injection with small

increase e+ capture40 incl. linac

upgradeif not, x0.75

More RF and cooling systems

High current179

(incl. facilities)x3

Crab Cavities Higher beam-beam param. 15 x2 - x4

H. Koiso, Inaugural meeting of Super Belle


SuperB moreA. Suzuki, KEK Director General, Inaugural meeting of Super Belle

beauty and charm results from b factories

Documents

charm results

ljubljana univ

b oscillationsb

hqp school

introduction bfactory

title charm

charm factory g

fds charmfactory