Unitarity Triangle Analysis: Past, Present, Future

# Unitarity Triangle Analysis: Past, Present, Future

Télécharger la présentation

## Unitarity Triangle Analysis: Past, Present, Future

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
##### Presentation Transcript

1. Unitarity Triangle Analysis: Past, Present, Future • INTRODUCTION: quark masses, weak couplings and CP in the Standard Model • Unitary Triangle Analysis: PAST • PRESENT • FUTURE Dipartimento di Fisica di Roma IGuido Martinelli Cortona May 25th 2005

2. C, CP and CPT and their violation are related to the foundations of modern physics (Relativistic quantum mechanics, Locality, Matter-Antimatter properties, Cosmology etc.) Although in the Standard Model (SM) all ingredients are present, new sources of CP beyond the SM are necessary to explain quantitatively the BAU Almost all New Physics Theories generate new sources of CP

3. Quark Masses, Weak Couplings and CP Violation in the Standard Model

4. In the Standard Model the quark mass matrix, from which the CKM Matrix and CP originate, is determined by the Yukawa Lagrangian which couples fermions and Higgs Lquarks = Lkinetic + Lweak int +Lyukawa CP invariant CP and symmetry breaking are closely related !

5. QUARK MASSES ARE GENERATED BY DYNAMICAL SYMMETRY BREAKING Charge +2/3 Lyukawa  ∑i,k=1,N[ Yi,k (qiL HC ) UkR +Xi,k (qiL H) DkR + h.c. ] Charge -1/3 ∑i,k=1,N[ mui,k (uiL ukR) +mdi,k (diL dkR)+ h.c. ]

6. Diagonalization of the Mass Matrix Up to singular cases, the mass matrix can always be diagonalized by 2 unitary transformations uiL  UikL ukL uiR  UikR ukR M´= U†L M UR (M´)† = U†R (M)† UL Lmass  mup (uL uR +uR uL ) +mch(cL cR +cR cL )+mtop(tL tR +tR tL )

7. 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

8. NO Flavour Changing Neutral Currents (FCNC) at Tree Level (FCNC processes are good candidates for observing NEW PHYSICS) CP Violation is natural with three quark generations (Kobayashi-Maskawa) With three generations all CP phenomena are related to the same unique parameter (  )

9. Quark masses & Generation Mixing e- -decays | Vud | = 0.9735(8) | Vus | = 0.2196(23) | Vcd | = 0.224(16) | Vcs | = 0.970(9)(70) | Vcb | = 0.0406(8) | Vub | = 0.00363(32) | Vtb | = 0.99(29) (0.999) W e down up Neutron Proton | Vud |

10. The Wolfenstein Parametrization + O(4)  ~ 0.2 A ~ 0.8  ~ 0.2  ~ 0.3 Sin12 =  Sin23 = A 2 Sin13 = A 3(-i )

11. The Bjorken-Jarlskog Unitarity Triangle | Vij | is invariant under phase rotations a1 b1 a1 = V11 V12* = Vud Vus* a2 = V21 V22* a3= V31 V32* d1 a2 b2 e1 a1 + a2 + a3 = 0 (b1 + b2 + b3 = 0 etc.) a3 b3 c3  a3 a2 Only the orientation depends on the phase convention a1  

12. From A. Stocchi ICHEP 2002

13. 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) + (Bd0 J/ Ks , t) AJ/ Ks = sin 2 sin (md t)

14. DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THEORETICAL UNCERTAINTIES (STRONG INTERACTIONS) First class quantities, with reduced or negligible uncertainties 2) Second class quantities, with theoretical errors of O(10%) or less that can be reliably estimated 3) Third class quantities, for which theoretical predictions are model dependent (BBNS, charming, etc.) In case of discrepacies we cannot tell whether is new physics or we must blame the model

15. Quantities used in the Standard UT Analysis

16. THE COLLABORATION M.Bona, M.Ciuchini, E.Franco, V.Lubicz, G.Martinelli, F.Parodi, M.Pierini, P.Roudeau, C.Schiavi, L.Silvestrini, A.Stocchi Roma, Genova, Torino, Orsay THE CKM NEW 2004 ANALYSIS IN PREPARATION • New quantities e.g. B -> DK will be included • Upgraded experimental numbers after Bejing www.utfit.org

17. PAST and PRESENT (the Standard Model)

18. Results for  and  & related quantities With the constraint fromms contours @ 68% and 95% C.L. = 0.196  0.045  = 0.347  0.025 [ 0.104 - 0.283] [ 0.296 - 0.386] at 95% C.L. sin 2  = - 0.21  0.24 sin 2  = 0.726  0.028 [ -0.65 - +0.27] [ 0.670 - 0.780]

19. Comparison of sin 2  from direct measurements (Aleph, Opal, Babar, Belle and CDF) and UTA analysis sin 2 measured = 0.726  0.037 sin 2 UTA = 0.725 ± 0.043 sin 2 UTA = 0.698 ± 0.066 prediction from Ciuchini et al. (2000) Very good agreement no much room for physics beyond the SM !!

20. Theoretical predictions of Sin 2 in the years predictions exist since '95 experiments

21. Crucial Test of the Standard ModelTriangle Sides (Non CP) compared to sin 2  and K From the sides only sin 2 =0.734  0.043

22. PRESENT: sin 2 from B ->  &  • and (2+) from B -> DK & B -> D(D*)  FROM UTA

23. ms Probability Density Without the constraint fromms ms = (21.2 ± 3.2 ) ps-1 [ 15.4 - 27.8] ps-1 at 95% C.L. With the constraint fromms ms = (18.5 ± 1.6) ps-1 [ 15.6 - 23.1] ps-1 at 95% C.L.

24. Hadronic parameters fBs √BBs = 276  38 MeV 14% lattice fBs √BBs = 265  13 MeV 5% UTA 5% 10% fBd √BBd = 223  33  12 MeV lattice fBd √BBd = 217  12 MeV UTA BK = 0.86  0.11 lattice BK = 0.69  0.10 UTA

25. Limits on Hadronic Parameters fBs √BBs

26. PRESENT (the Standard Model) NEW MEASUREMENTS

27. sin 2 from B ->     B B B   

28. sin 2 from B ->  • could be extracted by measuring

29. sin 2 from B -> 

30. PRESENT & NEAR FUTURE

31. MAIN TOPICS • Factorization • What really means to test Factorization • B  and B K decays and the determination of the CP parameter  • Results including non-factorizable contributions • Asymmetries • Conclusions & Outlook From g.m. qcd@work martinafranca 2001

32. CHARMING PENGUINS GENERATE LARGE ASYMMETRIES A = BR(B) - BR(B) BR(B) + BR(B) BR(K+ 0)  typical A ≈0.2 (factorized 0.03) BR(K+ -) Large uncertainties BR(+-) From g.m. qcd@work martinafranca 2001

33. CP VIOLATION IN B DECAYS IN THE SM AND BEYOND G. Martinelli – University of Rome With M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, A. Masiero, M. Pierini and L. Silvestrini • General ideas about B->M1M2 • B->,K • Supersymmetry in B decays? • Conclusions

34. General ideas about B -> M1M2 (I) • BBNS, PQCD & SCET: B decays to light mesons can be consistently computed at NLO in terms of form factors & distribution amplitudes in the MB-> limit • Is this limit phenomenologically viable? • Expect O(/M)10-20% corrections to leading factorized amplitudes • Fine unless factorized amplitude suppressed and/or corrections enhanced

35. General ideas about B -> M1M2 (II) • Corrections to penguins in charmless b->s decays doubly Cabibbo-enhanced w.r.t tree contribution: (/M)x(1/2)>>1  dominant effect! Ciuchini, Franco, G.M., Silvestrini • Possible physical idea: long-distance contributions in penguin contractions of current-current operators: Charming (c) and GIM (c – u) penguins CFMS; recently revisited in SCET by Bauer, Pirjol, Rothstein & Stewart

36. B -> K DECAYS (I) • Our analysis: BR’s Ciuchini, Franco, G.M., Pierini, Silvestrini • K00  2 too low: “K puzzle”?Fleischer, Mannel; Buras, Fleischer; Buras, Fleischer, Recksiegel, Schwab;

37. B -> K DECAYS (II) • Our analysis: CP asymmetries CFMPS • Interesting correlations between asymmetries: see plots

38. B -> K DECAYS (III)

39. Repeat with several fCP final states

40. 59(16) Tree level diagrams, not influenced by new physics Using also the Dalitz Plot Method

41. Only tree level processes