1 / 62

CP Violation and Rare Decays in K Mesons

CP Violation and Rare Decays in K Mesons. CP Violation in Kaon Systems in the Standard Model CP Violation in Kaon Systems Beyond the SM Why rare decays Which rare decays Conclusions.

milica
Télécharger la présentation

CP Violation and Rare Decays in K Mesons

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. CP Violation and Rare Decays inK Mesons • CP Violation in Kaon Systems in the Standard Model • CP Violation in Kaon Systems Beyond the SM • Why rare decays • Which rare decays • Conclusions Dipartimento di Fisica di Roma IGuido Martinelli Paris June 5th 2003

  2. Consequences of a Symmetry p1 p3 p4 p2 [S, H] = 0  | E , p , s › We may find states which are simultaneously eigenstates of S and of the Energy CP | K10› = + | K10› CP | K20› = _| K20› sin sout ‹| K10›   ‹| K20› = | KS,L0› = | K10› +  | K20› if CP is conserved either =0 or =0

  3. CP Violation in the Neutral Kaon System +- =‹+-| HW| KL › 00 =‹00| HW| KL › ‹+-| HW| KS › ‹00| HW| KS › Expanding in several “small” quantities ~  - 2 ´ ~  + ´ Conventionally: | KS › = | K1 ›CP=+1 + | K2 ›CP= - 1 | KL › = | K2 ›CP= - 1 + | K1 ›CP= + 1

  4. Indirect CP violation: mixing HW K0 K0  HW | KL › = | K2 ›CP= - 1 CP= + 1  W s d u,c,t S=2 ( ) s d W O Box diagrams: They are also responsible for B0 - B0 mixing md,s Complex S=2 effective coupling

  5. |  | ~ CA26  sin  {F(xc , xt)+ F(xt)[A24 (1-  cos )] - F(xc)} BK Inami-Lin Functions + QCD Corrections (NLO) =  sin   =  cos  G2F M2W MK f2K C = 6 √2 2 MK ‹K0 | ( s  (1 - 5 )d )2 | K0›= 8/3 f2K M2KBK

  6. K0-K0 mixing in the Standard Model (and beyond)  K0 | (sLA dLA) (sLB dLB) | K0 = 8/3 f2K M2K BK ()

  7. NEW RESULTS FOR BK BNDRK(2 GeV) BK World Average by L.Lellouch at Lattice 2000 and GM 2001 0.63  0.04 0.10 0.86 0.06 0.14 CP-PACS perturbative renorm. 0.575 0.006 0.787 0.008 (quenched) DWF 0.5746(61)(191) RBC non-perturbative renorm. 0.538 0.008 0.737 0.011 (quenched) DWF SPQcdR 0.66  0.070.90 0.10 Wilson Improved NP renorm. NNC-HYP Overlap Fermions 0.66  0.040.90 0.06 perturbative Garron & al. Overlap Fermions 0.61  0.070.83 0.10 Non-perturbative Lattice 2002 preliminary

  8. Lellouch summer ‘2002

  9. B0 - B0 mixing O B=2 Transitions ( ) H11 H12 H = H22 H21 W b d B0 B0 t HeffB=2 = b d W Hadronic matrix element (d (1 - 5 )b)2  CKM G2F M2W m2t < O > A26 Ftt () md,s = 16 2 M2W

  10. 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)

  11. from the study: CKM Triangle Analysis A critical review with updated experimental inputs and theoretical parameters M. Ciuchini et al . 2000 (& 2001) upgraded for ICHEP 2002-presented by A. Stocchi see also the CERN Yellow Book (CKM Workshop) similar results from Hoecker et al. 2000-2001 Dipartimento di Fisica di Roma IGuido Martinelli Paris June 5th 2003

  12. Results for  and  & related quantities Allowed regions in the -plane (contours at 68% and 95% C.L.) With the constraint fromms = 0.178  0.046  = 0.341  0.028 [ 0.085 - 0.265] [ 0.288 - 0.397] at 95% C.L. sin 2  = - 0.19  0.25sin 2  = 0.695  0.056 [ -0.62 - +0.33] [ 0.68 - 0.79]

  13. Direct CP violation: decay  HW CP= + 1 | KL › = | K2 ›CP= - 1  u  s K s  Complex S=1 effective coupling

  14. A0e i0= ‹ (π π)I=0IHWI K0› A2e i2= ‹ (π π)I=2IHWI K0› Where 0,2is the strong interaction phase (Watson theorem) and the weak phase is hidden in A0,2 CP if Im[A0*A2 ]  0 = i e i( 2- 0 ) [ Im A2 - ImA0] Re A2 Re A0 √2  = Re A2 / Re A0 ~1/22

  15. In the Standard Model r = GF  /(2 || Re A0 ) t = Vtd Vts* Extracting the phases: /  = Im t e i(/2+2- 0 - ) r [|A0|- |A2|] 1 

  16. GENERAL FRAMEWORK HS=1 = GF/√2 Vud Vus*[(1-) i=1,2 zi (Qi -Qci) +  i=1,10 (zi + yi ) Qi ] Where yi and zi are short distance coefficients, which are known in perturbation theory at the NLO (Buras et al. + Ciuchini et al.)  = -Vts*Vtd/Vus*Vud We have to computeAI=0,2i= ‹ (π π)I=0,2 IQ i I K› with a non perturbative technique(lattice, QCD sum rules, 1/N expansion etc.)

  17. New local four-fermion operators are generated Q1 = (sLA uLB) (uLB dLA) Current-Current Q2 = (sLA uLA) (uLB dLB) Q3,5 = (sRA  dLA)∑q (qL,RB qL,RB) Gluon Q4,6 = (sRA  dLB)∑q (qL,RB qL,RA) Penguins Q7,9 = 3/2(sRA  dLA)∑q eq (qR,LB qR,LB) Electroweak Q8,10 = 3/2(sRA  dLB)∑q eq (qR,LB qR,LA) Penguins + Chromomagnetic end electromagnetic operators to be discussed in the following

  18. A0 = ∑i Ci() ‹ (π π)IQi () I K ›I=0 (1- IB)  = renormalization scale -dependence cancels if operator matrix elements are consistently computed ISOSPIN BREAKING A2 = ∑i Ci() ‹ (π π)IQi () I K ›I=2 IB = 0.25 0.08 (Munich from Buras & Gerard) 0.25 0.15 (Rome Group) 0.16 0.03 (Ecker et al.) 0.10 0.20 Gardner & Valencia, Maltman & Wolf, Cirigliano & al.

  19. 100 GeV Large mass scale: heavy degrees of freedom (mt , MW, Ms ) are removed and their effect included in the Wilson coefficients perturbative region renormalizazion scale  (inverse lattice spacing 1/a); this is the scale where the quark theory is matched to the effective hadronic theory 1-2 GeV non-perturbative region Scale of the low energy process  ~ MW THE SCALE PROBLEM: Effective theories prefer low scales, Perturbation Theory prefers large scales

  20. if the scale  is too low problems from higher dimensional operators (Cirigliano, Donoghue, Golowich) - it is illusory to think that the problem is solved by using dimensional regularization on the lattice this problem is called DISCRETIZATION ERRORS (reduced by using improved actions and/or scales  > 2-4 GeV

  21. VACUUM SATURATION & B-PARAMETERS A= ∑i Ci() ‹ (π π)IQi () I K › ‹ (π π)IQi () I K › = ‹ (π π)IQi I K ›VIAB ()  -dependence of VIA matrix elements is not consistent With that of the Wilson coefficients e.g. ‹ (π π)IQ9 I K ›I=2,VIA =2/3 fπ (M2K- M2π ) In order to explain the I=1/2 enhancement the B-parameters of Q1 andQ2 should be of order 4 !!!

  22. Relative contribution of the OPS B6 B83/2

  23. The Buras Formula that should NOT be used but is presented by everyone ('/ )EXP = ( 17.2  1.8 ) 10-4 t = Vtd Vts* = ( 1.31  1.0 ) 10-4 '/  = 13 Im t [ 110 MeV]2[B6 (1- IB) - 0.4B8 ] ms () a value of B6 MUCH LARGER than 1 (2 ÷ 3 ) is needed to explain the experiments The situation worsen if also B8is larger than 1

  24. Theoretical Methods for the Matrix Elements (ME) • Lattice QCDRome Group,M. Ciuchini & al. • NLO Accuracy and consistent matching  • PT (now at the next to leading order) and quenching  • no realistic calculation of <Q6> • Fenomenological ApproachMunichA.Buras & al. • NLO Accuracy and consistent matching  • no results for <Q6,8> which are taken elsewhere  • Chiral quark modelTriesteS.Bertolini & al. • all ME computed with the same method  • model dependence, quadratic divergencies,matching 

  25. From S. Bertolini Lattice B6 = 1 Lattice from K- QM Trieste Typical Prediction 5-8 10-4

  26. In my opinion only the Lattice approach will be able to give quantitative answers with controlled systematic errors Quenching for I=1/2 transitions ! GladiatorThe SPQcdR Collaboration & APE (Southapmton, Paris, Rome,Valencia)

  27. The IRproblemarises from two sources: • The (unavoidable) continuation of the theory to Euclidean space-time (Maiani-Testa theorem) • The use of a finite volume in numerical simulations An important step towards the solution of the IR problem has been achieved by L. Lellouch and M. Lüscher (LL), who derived a relation between the K  π π matrix elements in a finite volume and the physical amplitudes Commun.Math.Phys.219:31-44,2001 e-Print Archive: hep-lat/0003023 presented by L. Lellouch at Latt2000 Here I discuss an alternative derivation based on the behaviour of correlators of local operator when V  D. Lin, G.M., C. Sachrajda and M. Testa hep-lat/0104006 (LMST)

  28. The finite-volume Euclidean matrix elements are related to the absolute values of the Physical Amplitudes|‹  E |Q(0) |K ›| by comparing, at large values of V, finite volume correlators to the infinite volume ones |‹  E |Q(0) |K ›| = √F ‹  n |Q(0) |K ›V F = 32 2 V2V(E) E mK/k(E) where k(E) = √ E2/4-m2 and V(E) = (q ’(q) + k ’(k))/4  k2is the expression which one would heuristically derive by interpreting V(E) as the density of states in a finite volume (D. Lin, G.M., C. Sachrajda and M. Testa) the corrections are exponentially small in the volume On the other hand the phase-shift can be extracted from the two-pion energy according to (Lüscher): Wn = 2√ m2 + k2 n  -(k) = (q)

  29. THE CHIRAL BEHAVIOUR OF ‹π π IHW I K ›I=2 by the SPQcdR Collaboration and a comparison with JLQCD Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 054503 no chiral logs included yet, analysis under way preliminary This work 0.0097(10)GeV3 Aexp= 0.0104098 GeV3 Lattice QCD finds BK = 0.86 and a value of ‹π π IHW I K ›I=2 compatible with exps

  30. I=0  States in the Quenched Theory (Lack of Unitarity) 1)the final state interaction phase is not universal, since it depends on the operator used to create the two-pion state. This is not surprising, since the basis of Watson theorem is unitarity; 2)the Lüscher quantization condition for the two-pion energy levels does not hold. Consequently it is not possible to take the infinite volume limit at constant physics, namely with a fixed value of W; 3) a related consequence is that the LL relation between the absolute value of the physical amplitudes and the finite volume matrix elements is no more valid; 4) whereas it is usually possible to extract the lattice amplitudes by constructing suitable time-independent ratios of correlation functions, this procedure fails in the quenched theory because the time-dependence of correlation functions corresponding to the same external states is not the same D. Lin, G.M., E. Pallante, C. Sachrajda and G. Villadoro There could be a way-out …..

  31. I=1/2 and / • I=1/2 decays (Q1 and Q2) • / electropenguins (Q7 and Q8) • / strong penguins (Q6) • K  π π from K  π and K  0 • Direct K  π π calculation

  32. Physics Results from RBC and CP-PACSno lattice details here Total Disagrement with experiments ! (and other th. determinations) Opposite sign ! New Physics?

  33. Artistic representation of present situation B6 3.0 2.5 2.0 '/  ~ 13 (QCD/340 MeV) Im t  (110 MeV/ms ) [B6 (1-IB ) -0.4 B8 ] 1.5 '/  =0 1.0 Donoghue De Rafael 0.5 B8 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

  34. Physics Results from RBC and CP-PACS • Chirality • Subtraction • Low Ren.Scale • Quenching • FSI • New Physics • A combination ? Even by doubling O6 one cannot agree with the data K  π π and Staggered Fermions (Poster by W.Lee) will certainly help to clarify the situation I am not allowed to quote any number

  35. CP beyond the SM (Supersymmetry) Spin 0 SQuarks QL , UR , DR SLeptons LL , ER Spin 1/2 Quarks qL , uR , dR Leptons lL , eR Spin 1/2 Gauginos w , z , , g Spin 1 Gauge bosons W , Z , , g Spin 0 Higgs bosons H1 , H2 Spin 1/2 Higgsinos H1 , H2

  36. In general the mixing mass matrix of the SQuarks (SMM) is not diagonal in flavour space analogously to the quark case We may eitherDiagonalize the SMM z , , g FCNC QjL qjL Rotate by the same matrices the SUSY partners of the u- and d- like quarks (QjL )´ = UijLQjL or g UjL UiL dkL

  37. In the latter case the Squark Mass Matrix is not diagonal (m2Q )ij = m2average 1ij + mij2 ij = mij2 /m2average

  38. New local four-fermion operators are generated Q1 = (sLA dLA) (sLB dLB) SM Q2 = (sRA dLA) (sRB dLB) Q3 = (sRA dLB) (sRB dLA) Q4 = (sRA dLA) (sLB dRB) Q5 = (sRA dLB) (sLB dRA) + those obtained by L  R Similarly for the b quark e.g. (bRA dLA) (bRB dLB)

  39. TYPICAL BOUNDS FROM MK AND K x = m2g/ m2q x = 1 mq = 500 GeV | Re (122)LL | < 3.9  10-2 | Re (122)LR | < 2.5  10-3 | Re (12)LL (12)RR | < 8.7  10-4 from MK

  40. from K x = 1 mq = 500 GeV | Im (122)LL | < 5.8  10-3 | Im (122)LR | < 3.7  10-4 | Im (12)LL (12)RR | < 1.3  10-4

  41. MB and A(B J/ Ks ) MBd = 2 Abs | Bd|H |Bd| B=2 eff A(B J/ Ks ) = sin 2  sin MBd t 2  = Arg | Bd|H |Bd| eff B=2 eff eff sin 2  = 0.79  0.10 from exps BaBar & Belle & others

  42. TYPICAL BOUNDS ON THE -COUPLINGS A, B =LL, LR, RL, RR 1,3 = generation index ASM = ASM (SM)  B0 | HeffB=2| B0 = Re ASM + Im ASM + ASUSY Re(13d )AB2+ i ASUSY Im(13d )AB2

  43. TYPICAL BOUNDS ON THE -COUPLINGS  B0 | HeffB=2| B0 = Re ASM + Im ASM + ASUSY Re(13d )AB2+ i ASUSY Im(13d )AB2 Typical bounds: Re,Im(13d )AB 1 5 10-2 Note: in this game SM is not determined by the UTA From Kaon mixing: Re,Im(12d )AB 1 10-4 SERIOUS CONSTRAINTS ON SUSY MODELS

  44. Chromomagnetic operators vs '/  and  H g= C+g O+g +C-g O-g Og = g (sL ta dR Ga  sR ta dL Ga ) 162 • It contributes also in the Standard Model (but it is chirally supressed  mK4) • Beyond the SM can give important contributions to '(Masiero and Murayama) • It is potentially dangerous for (Murayama et. al., D’Ambrosio, Isidori and G.M.) • It enhances CP violation in K    decays (D’Ambrosio, Isidori and G.M.) • Its cousinOgives important effects inKL0 e + e- ( ‹ π0 | Q +| K0 › computed by D. Becirevic et al. , The SPQcdR Collaboration, Phys.Lett. B501 (2001) 98)

  45. The Chromomagnetic operator O = ms dL  ta sR Ga mass term necessary to the helicity flip sL sR ‹| O| K › ~ O(MK4) [‹| HW| K › ~ O(MK2) ] dL sR gluon Masiero-Murayama g s d ms s d s 12LR (M2W /m2 q )mg d The chromomagnetic operator may have large effects in ’/ g

  46. CP from SUSY flavour mixing define ±= 21LR ± (12LR )* then + K  K 3  parity even KL 0 e+ e- - K 2  parity odd K  in K0 _ K0 mixing (see next page)

  47. Hmag s d light stuff d HW K0 K0 d S=1 s d ASUSY(K0 K0 ) = Aboxes + A1mag + A2mag 0 , , ’, etc. 2 K0|HW|0 0|Hmag|K0 M2K - M2  Im(+ )  4.8 10-13 GeV2 K1 A1mag = The K-factor K1accounts for other contributions besides the 0 , as the etas, more particle states, etc.

  48. Boxes Im(2+ ) or Im(2- ) 1-mag Im(+ ) 2-magIm(2+ ) KL 0 e+ e-Im(2+ )2 ’/  Im(- ) If the K-factor K1 is not too small, the strongest limits on Im(+ ) come from A1mag in K0 _ K0 mixing (10-4 _ 10-5 ) !! D’Ambrosio, Isidori and G.M.; X-G He, Murayama, Pakvasa and Valencia

  49. GENERAL FRAMEWORK HB=1 = GF/√2 ∑p=u,c Vpb Vps*[C1 Q1p +C2 Q2p +i=1,10 Ci Qi + C7 Q7 + C8g Q8g] penguin ops Where the Ci are short distance coefficients, the evolution of which is known in perturbation theory at the NLO (Buras et al. + Ciuchini et al.) The coefficients of the penguin operators are modified by the SUSY penguins with mass insertions

More Related