1 / 5

Exp. Systematic Errors

Exp. Systematic Errors. Most CP measurements use time-dep rate asymmetries a dir,mix = func’s of unitarity angles + 4-quark operators if decay has contrib from >1 CKM amplitude requires tagging flavor of B at production & decay robust to 1 st order in exp. unknowns.

jael
Télécharger la présentation

Exp. Systematic Errors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Exp. Systematic Errors Most CP measurements use time-dep rate asymmetries • adir,mix = func’s of unitarity angles • + 4-quark operators if decay has contrib from >1 CKM amplitude • requires tagging flavor of B at production & decay • robust to 1st order in exp. unknowns Understand w/ Control Samples Categories of Syst. Error • Generally, difference in B & B-bar hadrons • Production Asymmetries • Tagging Efficiencies • Mistag Rates • Final State Acceptance • Backgrounds Columbia D0 Snowmass Meeting - H.Evans

  2. + W+ u - d W+ + u u,c,t K+ g + W+ d - u d u d K0 B+ 0 u d Theoretical Uncertainties • Mainly when hadronic effects don’t cancel in ratio • introduce depend. on hadr. matrix elem’s (4-q op’s) • occur when >1 diagrams contribute to decay • Penguins • calc. |P/T| • Strong Phases •    +  • Final State Interactions • very hard to calc Columbia D0 Snowmass Meeting - H.Evans

  3. Mode by Mode Breakdown Columbia D0 Snowmass Meeting - H.Evans

  4. Beyond the SM Beyond the SM effects: • Large?: Mixing, Penguins • Small: Tree level decays CP Violation in Decays with & without Mixing • Bd J/Ks sin 2  sin (2 + mix) • Bd Ks sin 2  sin (2 + mix + pen) • K   K(meas) ~ 10-3 • D  K mixing effect (~0 in SM) • EDMs Flavor diagonal CP violation (~0 in SM) Supersymmetric Models • In general  43 CP violating phases (c.f. 1 in SM) • CP violation sensitive to (flavor) & (soft-susy-breaking) • F >> S  No new sources of flavor & CP violation • F < S  Flavor & CP violation beyond CKM Columbia D0 Snowmass Meeting - H.Evans

  5. Beyond the SM Effects* * stolen shamelessly from: Y. Nir, “CP Violation in and Beyond the SM” hep-ph/9911321 Columbia D0 Snowmass Meeting - H.Evans

More Related