1 / 43

BaBar Outlook for next 3 years Jawahery University of Maryland June 6, 2006 Outline

BaBar Outlook for next 3 years Jawahery University of Maryland June 6, 2006 Outline A few comments on the status of the experiment. A brief overview of impact of BaBar physics & outlook for the 1/ab phase. For a summary of the best and freshest results wait for R. Faccini’s talk next.

tass
Télécharger la présentation

BaBar Outlook for next 3 years Jawahery University of Maryland June 6, 2006 Outline

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. BaBar • Outlook for next 3 years • JawaheryUniversity of Maryland • June 6, 2006 • Outline • A few comments on the status of the experiment. • A brief overview of impact of BaBar physics & outlook for the 1/ab phase. • For a summary of the best and freshest results wait for R. Faccini’s talk next.

  2. BABAR Detector EMC 6580 CsI(Tl) crystals 1.5T solenoid e+(3.1GeV) DIRC (PID) 144 quartz bars 11000 PMs Drift Chamber 40 layers e-(9GeV) Silicon Vertex Tracker 5 layers, double sided strips Instrumented Flux Return Iron / Resistive Plate Chambers or Limited Streamer Tubes (muon / neutral hadrons) Collaboration founded in 1993 Detector commissioned in 1999

  3. INFN, Perugia & Univ INFN, Roma & Univ "La Sapienza" INFN, Torino & Univ INFN, Trieste & Univ The Netherlands [1/4] NIKHEF, Amsterdam Norway [1/3] U of Bergen Russia [1/13] Budker Institute, Novosibirsk Spain[2/3] IFAE-Barcelona IFIC-Valencia United Kingdom [11/75] U of Birmingham U of Bristol Brunel U U of Edinburgh U of Liverpool Imperial College Queen Mary , U of London U of London, Royal Holloway U of Manchester Rutherford Appleton Laboratory U of Warwick USA[38/311] California Institute of Technology UC, Irvine UC, Los Angeles UC, Riverside UC, San Diego UC, Santa Barbara UC, Santa Cruz U of Cincinnati U of Colorado Colorado State Harvard U U of Iowa Iowa State U LBNL LLNL U of Louisville U of Maryland U of Massachusetts, Amherst MIT U of Mississippi Mount Holyoke College SUNY, Albany U of Notre Dame Ohio State U U of Oregon U of Pennsylvania Prairie View A&M U Princeton U SLAC U of South Carolina The BABAR Collaboration 11 Countries 80 Institutions 623 Physicists Stanford U U of Tennessee U of Texas at Austin U of Texas at Dallas Vanderbilt U of Wisconsin Yale Canada [4/24] U of British Columbia McGill U U de Montréal U of Victoria China [1/5] Inst. of High Energy Physics, Beijing France [5/53] LAPP, Annecy LAL Orsay LPNHE des Universités Paris VI et VII Ecole Polytechnique, Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet CEA, DAPNIA, CE-Saclay Germany [5/24] Ruhr U Bochum U Dortmund Technische U Dresden U Heidelberg U Rostock Italy [12/99] INFN, Bari INFN, Ferrara Lab. Nazionali di Frascati dell' INFN INFN, Genova & Univ INFN, Milano & Univ INFN, Napoli & Univ INFN, Padova & Univ INFN, Pisa & Univ & Scuola Normale Superiore

  4. BaBar Data

  5. The 1/ab Phase of BaBar 2006-2008 20 Sep 05 plan Feb 06 (D. MacFarlane’s Guess) Integrated Luminosity [fb-1] 17 12 Lpeak = 9x1033

  6. Status of the experiment • The BaBar detector: • Upcoming shutdown Aug through Dec. 06- complete the upgrade of the Instrumented Flux Return (IFR)- replace RPC’s with LST’s in the remaining 4 sectors (2 sectors were done in 2002). • Recently completed an upgrade of the DCH electronics to reduce data flow. • Some work needed on Level 1 trigger (NOT Hardware) to prepare for possible increases in the rate – beyond the maximum 5 KHZ. • May involve some tightening in trigger lines with possible impact on lower priority physics. • No other major hardware work is planned on other sub-detectors. • BaBar computing & Data Management: • New computing model in place and functioning well. Able to keep up with data and simulation production. • Caring for BaBar data - management, quality control, calibration...- is a huge part of the our activities and is expected to increase in importance, size and requirement for manpower in time. • Will also require significant attention and support beyond 2008. The collaboration has just began discussing the requirements and strategy for BaBar beyond 2008.

  7. Status of the experiment • Physics Analysis of BaBar Data: (See the details in R. Faccini’s talk) • A well oiled analysis machine at work: • Over 200 different analysis projects are underway • Have published/(submitted for publication) over 200 papers so far. • 150 abstracts submitted to ICHEP 2006 in Moscow

  8. BaBar’s initial Physics Goals & Reach • Examine breaking of the CP symmetry in B decays • The CKM Test: • Does the CKM picture accommodate all CP conserving and CP violating observables in the flavor sector? • Any room for New Physics effects? • Search for New Physics in EW & Gluonic penguin-domoniated B decays • A major focus of this phase of BaBar • The physics reach far exceeds B physics: • Charm physics (D mixing, new Ds states…), Tau physics (LFVt->mg,.......), ISR phys. • New states [found several- X, Y, Z’s (molecules?….)]…. • The Unitarity test: measure angles (a, b, g) & sides of the triangle: Picture from A. Hoecker Check: a + g + b=p ?

  9. How much of the program is done? • CP symmetry is broken in B decays: • Sin2b measured in 2001 (BaBar & Belle) • Direct CPV in BKp [2004] (BaBar & Belle) • CKM established as the primary source of CPV in laboratory (as declared by Y. Nir- ICHEP2002). • All three angles of the CKM unitarity triangle are now measured. • Dms is now tightly bound- the SM emerging as the winner again(Tevatron’s part). • With the B factories in their “1/ab” phase, Tevatron onward to 4-8/fb, Cleo-c & more theoretical advancements, new goals are set for CKM observables- & s(Vtd/Vts)<4%. Consistency of the CKM picture

  10. Any room for New Physics contributions? SM solution CBd=1 & fBd=0 The analysis by the UTfit collab. allows NP amplitude and phase:[ Hep-ph/0509219] Non –SM solution is disfavored (0.4% probability)by Semileptonic asymmetry (Asl) from BaBar & D0 New UTfit analysis with SL Asym & Bs mixing measurement At Tevatron hep-ph/0605213

  11. The message from New Physics Fits to CKM observables (As presented at LP2005- by L. Silvestrini) – • New sources of CP violation in bd & sd are strongly constrained. • New Physics contributions to the bs transitions are much less constrained & are well motivated - further emphasizing the need to pursue NP searches in bs transitions: • Gluonic penguins bsg :: rates, direct CPV, “the sin2b penguin” test. • EW radiativebsg :: rates, direct CPV, photon helicity. • EW radiativebs ll :: rates, direct CPV, AFB(q2), polarization effects,…. • Bs mixing: Dms, DGs, (The Tevatron Territory for now)

  12. We have also had a few pleasant unexpected results • By 2002, measuring a with Bpp seemed hopeless- penguins too large to deal with & then came along the Brr system -longitudenally polarized rr system & small penguin contributions- •  a to an accuracy of ~11o • The Dalitz (GGSZ) method for measuring g; expect eventual accuracy of few degrees • The family of gluonic bs decays significantly expanded beyond BfKs -and CPV measured, increasing the sensitivity to NP searches • New ways of exploiting the bsg: Now have access to photon helicity (via BKsp0 g), in addition to the rate and Direct CPV. • Many new states observed; DsJ, , X, Y, Z states- rejuvenated the world of spectroscopy and their interpretation.

  13. Physics Outlook for the 1/ab phase (~ +1/ab from Belle)

  14. David MacFarlane’s tables of BaBar’s 1/ab physics reach

  15. |Vub|- One of the oldest and slowest advancing measurements BaBar The goal: s(|Vub|) ~5% Inclusive Approach: Measure BXul n in a region of phase space where bcl n pollution is small, e.g.: Belle theoretical input to convert: DGu(meas) |Vub| - several approaches new & old BNLP: use bsg & B->Xcln to determine parameters of fermi motion of b in B mb, l etc. the shape function. DGE : go from inclusive Semileptonic b decay to SL B meson decay- inputs: mb etc from bsg & B->Xcln E.g. one of several lepton endpoint analyses with shape function

  16. Inclusive From E. Barberio’s talk at FPCP06 Ultimate limitation Charm may help ~7% measurement now An overall eventual error of 5- 6% is not inconceivable. Need confirmation

  17. |Vub|-Exclusive approach: Identify b->u modes, such as Bpln,Brl n, Bwl n,.. Measure partial decay rates, branching ratios & compare with theoretical expressions.. Lattice QCD provides normalization of F+(q2) From Kevin Varvell’s talk at FPCP06

  18. Experimental errors to shrink significantly, which may allow discriminations amongst various lattice calculations. Other checks on lattice calculation from Charm decays?

  19. Measuringg: Vub= |Vub|e-ig Decays involving interference of tree level bu & bc Processes. + B- (Df)K- F=common to D0 & anti D0 Solve for g, & d=(,d1-d2) – rB=(|A1|/ |A2|) f=DCP (Gronau-London-Wyler)(GLW method) (small asymmetry) f=DCSD (Atwood-Duniets-Soni)(ADS Method) (additional problem of dD) f= Dalitz analysis of D0->Ksp+p- (GGSZ) (combines features of GLW & ADS depending on the location in Dalitz plot)- the dominant method [Giri, Grossman, Soffer, & Zupan, PRD 68, 054018 (2003), Bondar (Belle), PRD 70, 072003 (2004)]

  20. Measuringg: Vub= |Vub|e-ig The method highly sensitive to rB: fits favor rB ~ 0.1 (BaBar) ; rB >0.2 (Belle). Main cause of the difference in errors From the Dalitz Analysis alone: g=(67+/- 28  13 +/- 12 )o (BaBar) φ3=53° +15-18 3° 9°) Belle • Error due to uncertainties in treatment of the DKspp-Dalitz plot (amplitudes and phases) • CLEO-c data can help. • Projected error from this source ~ 3-5 o (??) Combined (CKM fitter): g = 65 +/- 20o

  21. Future of g 2008: 5-10o rB=0.1 Requires improvement in D-Dalitz model – from CLEO-c data and higher statistics tagged D* events at B factories Also needs additional help for rB E.g. Using the ADS observables :

  22. Time-dependent CPV measurement in neutral B’s u,c,t u,c,t W- W- sin 2b J/y K0s E.g. for the Golden modes =

  23. Measuring sin2b: Sin2b is a precision measurement now - the non-SM solution is essentially excluded B->J/yK* & B->D0h No evidence for direct CP violation- consistent with dominance of one diagram only- At 2/ab (together with Belle): Expect another factor of 2 reduction of errors

  24. Measuring a: The prescription Bp p: (p+ p-, p+ p0, p0 p0 ) Brp, B r r, ….. With Tree alone But penguins (gluonic & E.W) can also lead to the same decays: B->p0p0sets the scale of theDa correction Da EstimateDa by constructing the isospin triangle(Gronau & London)

  25. Measuring a A=-C A=-C Good news for a: A very lucky angle! Longitudinal polarization dominates-CP even & small B->r0r0compared to B->r+r0, B->r+r-  suppressed penguin contributions-

  26. a= 96 +/- 13o (Brr only) (Brr, pp, rp) Measuring a Already the error is systematic (theory) dominated. At ~2/ab, expect s(a) ~ 7o- 10odepending on the size of B->r0r0 . Measuring B->r0r0 & its Time-dependent CP asymmetry may shrink errors further- if able to to resolve ambiguities. Other ways of estimating penguin effects

  27. The “sin2b” Test: Mixing induced CP violation in penguin modes b->sqq B0 fcp B0 Forfcp =from b->sqq Within the SM: Dominant amplitude (~l2)- same phase as b->ccs f suppressed amplitude (~l4) Expect within SM Sf~ -hcpsin2b With new physics and new phases, Sf could depart from -hcpsin2b The Task: MeasureDSf=-hcpSf – sin2b & search for deviation from zero A Key Question: How well do we know DSf within the SM?

  28. SM expectation Within the SM: DSf depends on the size and the relative strong phase of this “suppressed “ term Dominant amplitude (~l2)- same phase as b->ccs f suppressed amplitude (~l4) QCDF calculations(Beneke, hep-ph/0505075 Cheng, Chua & Soni, hep-ph/0506268). SU(2) and SU(3) can also be put to work to connect various CP conserving and CP violating observables--generally much less restrictive- but can improve with data.

  29. QCD factorization calculation of DS Simple average: Spenguins=0.5 +/- 0.06 vs reference point: sin2b=0.69+/-0.03 ~ 2.5 s deviation at this point. Wait for R. Faccini’s talk for a more aggressive interpretation.

  30. Expectation for expt. accuracies of the “sin2b” test in 1/ab phase And hoping (dreaming) for a pattern to emerge! See G. Buchalla et al Hep-ph/050315 – for an analysis of several NP scenarios (albeit with maximal effects)

  31. Direct CP violation results when several diagrams, with different cp conserving and cp breaking phases contributing to the same final state, interfere: BKp: (K+ p- , K0 p+ , K0 p0 ,..) E.g. BKp: • Tests with Direct CP violations + A contributing diagram from “New Physics” can alter Acp from the SM values. But need predictions of Acp within SM- Again rely on QCDF or PQCD, or exploit symmetries (SU2, SU3 etc) to connect Acp in different modes and derive sum rules- to be tested.

  32. Within SM: Expect Acp(b->sg) ~ 0 Acp(B0K+p-)= -0.108+/- 0.017 • superweak is really out; to use as NP observable need reliable QCD predictions; Ample data to test & calibrate the calculations on.

  33. A large body of data for Theories of Hadronic B decays to explain- accuracies to improve significantly- a few examples: Pattern of Br’s & Polarization in BVV Pattern of 2-body Br’s • Many issues for TH to rule on: • Tree/Penguin ratios; relative strong phases & direct CPV; Color suppression

  34. L W sL bR bL tL bsg- & bsl+l- - well established venues for NP searches Measured rates consistent with SM: BF(b→sg)TH = 3.57 ± 0.30 x 10-4 (SM NLO) BF(b→sg)EXP = 3.54 ± 0.30 x 10-4 (HFAG) D0 • But there is more handles in these channels • Photon polarization in bgsL (g left-handed in SM) • Direct CP violation – nearly zero in SM • In BKll- q2 dependence of the rate; FB asymmetry, polariztion • Search for NP modification of Wilson coefficients C7, C9, C10 • (Riccardo Faccini’s talk for more details).

  35. Helicity Flip Suppressed by ~ ms/mb mixing Probing the helicity of the photon in bsg via Time-dependent CP asymmetry measurements (A. Atwood, M. Gronau & A. Soni (1997)) Within SM The value of SK*gas a NP observable depends on SM uncertainties - recent work based on QCDF/SCET, considering the impact of bsg(g) set SK*g~ 0.1 - (Grinstein, Grossman, Ligeti, Pirjol PRD 71, 011504(2005), Grinstein, Pirjol, hep-ph/0510104) TDCP analysis requires modes common to B0 and B0(bar): e.g. BK*(890)g with K*K0p0 , K0 Ks p+p-with Br~13.4x10-6 Needs much more data

  36. BaBar is in excellent health & able to operate, receive & deliver the physics of “1/ab” data. • We are in the precision phase of this physics with achievable goals set for benchmark channels : • Given the large number of observables involved, a pattern is likely to emerge showing evidence for BSM physics. If we continue to see no deviation at these precisions, it’s still a great success- a “win win” situation. We’ll end up with a precisely constrained charged current sector of the Electroweak theory as a reference point for future searches for New Physics in the LHC era. Conclusion: & s(Vtd/Vts)<4% (mostly from Tevatron).

  37. Now: Barrel LSTs Now: Barrel RPCs IFR upgrade Impact

  38. _ B0 tag Measuring sin2b: B0 tag sin2f1= 0.652 ±0.039 (stat) ±0.020 (syst) A = 0.010 ±0.026 (stat) ±0.036 (syst) Back

  39. Observation of direct CP violation in B0K+p- 232x106 BB’s New Belle Result: -0.113+/- 0.022+/- 0.008 BaBar 2004 HFAG Average Acp(B0K+p-)= -0.108+/- 0.017 Includes CLEO & CDF Back

  40. From J. Charles @ FPCP 2006 Vancouver, Ca Check for New Physics contribution Back

  41. An MSSM analysis of b->s observables- ( L. Silvestrini- LP2005) -

More Related