two important experimental novelties:
DESCRIPTION
Utfit & QCD in the Standard Model and beyond. + 0.56. + 0.39. - 0.49. - 0.46. Two Important Experimental Novelties:. CDF Δ m s = (17.77 ± 0.10 ± 0.07) ps -1. + 0.68. BaBar : (0.88 ± 0.11) x 10 -4. Belle : (1.79 ) x 10 -4. - 0.67. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Two Important Experimental Novelties:
Dipartimento di Fisica di Roma La Sapienza Guido Martinelli Martina Franca 17/6/2007
Utfit & QCDin the Standard Model and beyond
sin 2 measured = 0.726 0.037 0.675 0.026
CDFΔms = (17.77 ± 0.10 ± 0.07) ps-1
BaBar: (0.88 ± 0.11) x 10-4 + 0.68- 0.67Belle: (1.79 ) x 10-4 + 0.56
- 0.49+ 0.39- 0.46
Average: (1.31 ± 0.48) x 10-4
STANDARD MODEL1)Generalities 2)Predictions vs Postdictions3) Lattice vs angles4) Vub inclusive, Vub exclusive vs sin 2
5) Experimental determination of lattice parameters
Flavor Physics Beyond the SM
N(N-1)/2 angles and (N-1)(N-2) /2 phases
N=3 3 angles + 1 phase KM the phase generates complex couplings i.e. CP violation; 6 masses +3 angles +1 phase = 10 parameters
Vud Vus Vub
Vcd Vcs Vcb
Vtb Vts Vtb
CP Violation is natural with three quark
generations (Kobayashi-Maskawa)With three generations all CP
phenomena are related to the sameunique parameter ( )
NO Flavour Changing Neutral Currents (FCNC) at Tree Level
(FCNC processes are good candidates for observing NEW PHYSICS)
Vud Vus Vub
Vcd Vcs Vcb
Vtd Vts Vtb
Quark masses &Generation Mixing
NeutronProton
e
e-
downup
W
| Vud |
| Vud | = 0.9735(8)| Vus | = 0.2196(23)| Vcd | = 0.224(16)| Vcs | = 0.970(9)(70)| Vcb | = 0.0406(8)| Vub | = 0.00409(25)| Vtb | = 0.99(29) (0.999)
-decays
1 - 1/2 λ2 λ A λ3(ρ - i η)
- λ 1 - 1/2 λ2 A λ2
A λ3 × (1- ρ - i η)
-A λ2 1
+ O(λ4)
The Wolfenstein Parametrization
λ ~ 0.2 A ~ 0.8 η ~ 0.2 ρ ~ 0.3
Sin 12 = λSin 23 = A λ2Sin 13 = A λ3(ρ-i η)
Vtd
Vub
a1
a2
a3
b1
b2
b3
d1
e1
c3
The Bjorken-Jarlskog Unitarity Triangle| Vij | is invariant under
phase rotationsa1 = V11 V12
* = Vud Vus*
a2 = V21 V22* a3
= V31 V32*
a1 + a2 + a3 = 0(b1 + b2 + b3 = 0 etc.)
a1
a2a3
Only the orientation dependson the phase convention
Physical quantities correspond to invariantsunder phase reparametrization i.e.|a1 |, |a2 |, … , |e3 | and the area of the Unitary Triangles
a precise knowledge of themoduli (angles) would fix J Vud
*Vub+ Vcd* Vcb+Vtd
* Vtb =
0
CP J
J = Im (a1 a2 * ) = |a1 a2 | Sin
Vud*Vub Vtd
*Vtb
Vcd*Vcb
= CKM
From A. StocchiICHEP 2002
For details see:UTfit Collaboration
hep-ph/0501199hep-ph/0509219hep-ph/0605213hep-ph/0606167
http://www.utfit.org
sin 2 is measured directly from B J/ Ks
decays at Babar & Belle
(Bd0 J/ Ks ,
t) - (Bd0 J/ Ks , t)
AJ/ Ks =
(Bd0 J/ Ks , t) + (Bd
0 J/ Ks , t)
AJ/ Ks = sin 2 sin (md t)
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THEORETICAL UNCERTAINTIES (STRONG INTERACTIONS)
1)First class quantities, with reduced or negligible uncertainties
2) Second class quantities, with theoretical errors of O(10%) or less that can be
reliably estimated3) Third class quantities, for which
theoretical predictions are model dependent (BBNS, charming, etc.)
In case of discrepacies we cannot tell whether is new physics orwe must blame the model
Classical Quantities used in the Standard UT Analysis
NEW !! beforeOnly a lower bound
Inclusive vs ExclusiveOpportunity for lattice QCDsee later
Vub/Vcb K md md/ms
levels @68% (95%) CL
K0 - K0
mixing
UnitaryTriangle SM
B0d,s - B0
d,s mixing Bd Asymmetry
2005
semileptonic decays
New Quantities used in the UT Analysis
M.Bona, M.Ciuchini, E.Franco, V.Lubicz,
G.Martinelli, F.Parodi,M.Pierini,
P.Roudeau, C.Schiavi,L.Silvestrini,
V. Sordini, A.Stocchi, V.Vagnoni
Roma, Genova, Annecy, Orsay, Bologna
THE COLLABORATION
www.utfit.org
2006 ANALYSIS • New quantities e.g. B -> DK
included • Upgraded exp. numbers (after ICHEP)
• CDF & Belle new measurementsTHE CKM
contours @ 68% and 95% C.L.
ρ= 0.193 0.029 η = 0.355 0.019 at 95% C.L.
With the constraint fromms
Results for ρ and η & related quantities
ρ = 0.164 ± 0.029
η = 0.340 ± 0.017
= (92.7 4.2)0 sin 2 = 0.697 0.023
A closer look to the analysis:
1)Predictions vs Postdictions2) Lattice vs angles3) Vub inclusive, Vub exclusive vs sin 2
4) Experimental determination of lattice parameters
CKM origin of CP Violation in
K0 K0 Mixing
UTsites
εK
Ciuchini et al. (“pre-UTFit”),2000
sin 2 measured = 0.668 0.028
Comparison of sin 2 from direct measurements (Aleph, Opal, Babar, Belle and CDF) and UT analysis
sin 2 UTA = 0.759 ± 0.039
Very good agreement no much room for physics beyond the SM !!
sin 2 UTA = 0.698 ± 0.066 prediction from Ciuchini et al. (2000)
sin 2 tot = 0.701 0.022
correlation (tension) with Vub , see later
sin 2 UTA = 0.65 ± 0.12Prediction 1995 from Ciuchini,Franco,G.M.,Reina,Silvestrini
Theoretical predictions of Sin 2 in the years
predictions exist since '95
experiments
sin 2 UTA = 0.65 ± 0.12Prediction 1995 from Ciuchini,Franco,G.M.,Reina,Silvestrini
NEWS from NEWS(Standard Model)
ms Probability Density
CDF
Theoretical predictions of msin the years
predictions exist since '97
A closer look to the analysis:
1)Predictions vs Postdictions2) Lattice vs angles3) Vub inclusive, Vub exclusive vs sin 2
4) Experimental determination of lattice parameters
Vincenzo Vagnoni ICHEP 06, Moscow, 28th July 2006
The UT-angles fit does not depend on The UT-angles fit does not depend on theoretical calculations (treatement oftheoretical calculations (treatement of
errors is not an issue)errors is not an issue)
η = 0.325± 0.021
ρ = 0.188 ± 0.036
η = 0.373 ± 0.027
ANGLES VS LATTICE
UT-lattice
UT-angles
ρ = 0.139 ± 0.042
Still imperfect agreement in η due to sin2 and Vub tension
Comparable accuracy due to the precise sin2 value and substantial improvement due to the new ms measurement
Crucial to improve measurements of the angles, in particular (tree level NP-free determination)
A closer look to the analysis:
1)Predictions vs Postdictions2) Lattice vs angles3) Vub inclusive, Vub exclusive vs sin 2
4) Experimental determination of lattice parameters
sin 2 measured = 0.668 0.028
Correlation of sin 2 with Vub
Although compatible, these resultsshow that there is a ``tension” . This is due to the correlation of Vub with sin 2
sin 2 UTA = 0.759 ± 0.039
~2σ
VUB PUZZLE
Inclusive: uses non perturbative parameters most not from lattice QCD (fitted from the lepton spectrum)
Exclusive: uses non perturbative form factors from LQCD and QCDSR
S.Hashimoto@ICHEP’04
INCLUSIVE
EXCLUSIVE
INFN Roma I 11/06/2001
Belle: (1.79 ) x 10-4 + 0.56- 0.49
+ 0.39- 0.46
BaBar: (0.88 ± 0.11) x 10-4 + 0.68- 0.67
Average: (1.31 ± 0.48) x 10-4
4( ) (0.89 0.16) 10BR B ττ −→ = ×fB= (190 ± 14) MeV [UTA]
Vub = (36.7 ± 1.5) 10-4 [UTA]
4( ) (0.84 0.30) 10BR B ττ −→ = ×fB= (189 ± 27) MeV [LQCD]
Vub = (35.0 ± 4.0) 10-4 [Exclusive]
4( ) (1.39 0.44) 10BR B ττ −→ = ×fB= (189 ± 27) MeV [LQCD]
Vub = (44.9 ± 3.3) 10-4 [Inclusive]
B→τντ
Potentially large NP contributions (i.e. MSSM at large tanβ, Isidori & Paradisi)
(237 37) MeVBf = From BR(B→τντ) and Vub(UTA):
(Best SM prediction)
(Independent from other NP effects)
INFN Roma I 11/06/2001
fk f e Vus
INFN Roma I 11/06/2001
INFN Roma I 11/06/2001
INFN Roma I 11/06/2001
Using Vud = 0.97377(27)(marciano) and Vus/Vud = 0.2260(5)(31)From fk f we obtain Vus = 0.2200(5)(30)
From Kl3 = 0.2255(9)
A closer look to the analysis:
1)Predictions vs Postdictions2) Lattice vs angles3) Vub inclusive, Vub exclusive vs sin 2
4) Experimental determination of lattice parameters
Hadronic ParametersFrom UTfit
The new measurementsallow the analysis WITHOUT THE LATTICEHADRONIC PARAMETERS
(eventually only those entering Vub)
with VubWithout Vub
IMPACT of the NEW MEASUREMENTSon LATTICE HADRONIC PARAMETERS
BK = 0.79 0.04 0.08 Dawson
BK = 0.75 0.09
fBs √BBs=261 6 MeV UTA 2% ERROR !! = 1.24 0.08 UTA
fBs √BBs = 262 35 MeV lattice
= 1.23 0.06 lattice
fB = 186 0.11 MeV
fB = 189 27 MeV SPECTACULAR AGREEMENT (EVEN WITH QUENCHED LATTICE QCD)
Using the lattice determination of the B-parameters BBd = BBs = 1.28 0.05 0.09fB = 190 14 MeVfB = 189 27 MeV
fBs = 229 9 MeVfBs = 230 30 MeV
OLD
NEW
CP VIOLATION PROVEN IN THE SM !!
Only tree level processes
= 65 ± 20 U -115 ± 20 = 82 ± 19 U -98 ± 19
CP Violation beyond the Standard Model
very important to improve: Vub/Vcb from
semileptonic decays from tree level
processes
Only tree level processes
ρ = 0.00 ± 0.15
η = ± 0.41 ± 0.04 CP VIOLATION PROVEN IN THE SM !!
Even in the favourable case in which the theory above the cutoff is weakly coupled, such as in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), large contributions to FCNC and CP processes are expected contrary to the increasigly precise experimental measurements.
FLAVOUR PUZZLE
FLAVOUR PUZZLE
Model Independent Analysis of F = 2 transitions
Additional contraintsSemileptonic decay asymmetry
Sensitive to both CBd and phase shift Bd
SM prediction(-1.06±0.09)10-3
Direct measurement(-0.3±5.0)10-3
SM peak
NP contribution
Not precise enough to bound CKM in SM(experimental error too large)…
… but good for reducing NP allowedparameter space
Additional contraintsCP aymmetry in dimuon events
SM peak
NP contribution
fd~0.4, fs~0.1production fractions of Bd and Bs
Admixture of Bd and Bscharge asymmetries
Sensitive to CBd, Bd, CBs, Bs!
Additional contraints
s/s
The experimental measurement of s actually measures scos(s+Bs)(Dunietz et al., hep-ph/0012219) NP can only decrease the experimental result with respect to the SM valueSince all the other parameters are fixed by other constraints, this gives thefirst available bound on NP phase in Bs mixing!
Vincenzo Vagnoni ICHEP 06, Moscow, 28th July 2006
Bounds on C and Bounds on C and parametersparameters
All C parameters compatible with 1 and with 0 SM works just fine
1.5 shift of Bd due to the Vub vs sin2 bare agreement
CK = 0.91 ± 0.15 CBd = 1.24 ± 0.43 Bd = -3.0 ± 2.0
CBs = 1.15 ± 0.36 Bs = (-3 ± 19)o U (94 ± 19)o
UPGRADED
ICHEP 06, Moscow, 28th July 2006
ObservableObservable ρρ, , ηη CCBdBd, , BdBd CCKK CCBsBs, , BsBs
VVubub/V/Vcbcb XX
(DK)(DK) XX
KK XX XX
sin2sin2 XX XX
mmdd XX XX
((ρρρρ, , ρρ, , )) XX XX
AASLSL B Bdd XX XX
dd//dd XX XX
mmss XX
AACHCH XX XX XX
ss//ss XX XX
ρ = 0.20 ± 0.07 (ρ = 0.166 ± 0.029 in SM)
η = 0.37 ± 0.04 (η = 0.340 ± 0.017 in SM)
Even including NP we are still on the SM solution
Using all available constraints in Using all available constraints in NP generalized analysisNP generalized analysis
Vincenzo Vagnoni ICHEP 06, Moscow, 28th July 2006
MFV: Universal Unitarity Triangle MFV: Universal Unitarity Triangle FitFitJust using constraints
which are insensitive to NP in MFV scenarios
Output of UUT fit
In MFV extensions of the SM one can determine CKM parameters independently of NP constributions, but using angles, tree level processes and mixing amplitudes ratio
ρ = 0.153 ± 0.030 (ρ = 0.166 ± 0.029 in SM)
η = 0.347 ± 0.018 (η = 0.340 ± 0.017 in SM)
Vincenzo Vagnoni ICHEP 06, Moscow, 28th July 2006
MFV scenario: translating into a testof the NP scale
NP enters the game as additional contributionto the top box diagram(D'Ambrosio et al. hep-ph/0207036)
0 = 2.4 TeV0 is the equivalent SM scale
a = 1 (as a reference)
Common shift S0 to Inami-Lim functionin B and K mixing in case of small tanwhile two dinstict shifts for large tan(bottom Yukawa coupling important)
> 5.4 TeV @ 95% for large tan
> 5.9 TeV @ 95% for small tan
Small tan S0
B = S0K
Large tan S0
B ≠ S0K
SM Predictions of Bayesian Analysis, using Lattice QCD confirmed by Experiments (sin 2 UTA and ms)
Extraordinary experimental progresses allow the extraction of several hadronic quantities from the data. It is very important to reduce the lattice errors particularly for BK
A special effort must be done for the semileptonic form factors necessary to the extraction of Vub
It is crucial to reduce the error on the direct determination of the angle from B -> DK, D*K and DK* decays
CONCLUSIONS