Beauty Physics at LHCbBeauty Physics at LHCb

pp

b

b

Andrey Golutvin Andrey Golutvin Vladimir ShevchenkoVladimir Shevchenko

ITEP & CERNITEP & CERN

11th INTERNATIONAL MOSCOW SCHOOL OF PHYSICS11th INTERNATIONAL MOSCOW SCHOOL OF PHYSICSSession Session ««Particle PhysicsParticle Physics» » February 8-16, 2008 February 8-16, 2008

ABC of LHC

Flavor physics – informal introduction

The CKM matrix and Unitarity Triangle

LHCb detector

Search for New Physics in CP violation

Physics of loops

Rare decays at LHCb

Conclusions

Outline

1

2

LHCb experiment:LHCb experiment:700700 physicistsphysicists5050 institutes institutes 1515 countriescountries

LHCbLHCb

ATLASATLAS

CMSCMSALICEALICE

CERNCERN

Mont Blanc,4808 m

Jet d’ Eau140 m

ABC of LHC

• Tonnel length - 27 kilometers

• Depth below ground - between 50 and 175 meters

• p-p beams, 2808 bunches, 1.15×10 particles/bunch

• v = 0.99999998 c

• Energy

• Nominal luminosity <L> ~ 1034 cм-2 сек -1

11

TeVs 14 Tevatrontotal

LHCtotal EE 200

Energy of a proton in the beam = 7 TeV = 10-6 J

Question: why not to use mosquitos in particle physics?

Answer: because NAvogadro = 6.0221023 (mol)-1

Energy of a mosquito is distributed among ~ 1022 nucleons.

On the other hand, total energy stored in each beam is 2808 bunches 1011 protons/bunch 7 TeV/proton = 360 MJIt is explosive energy of ~ 100 kg TNT or kinetic energy of “Admiral Kuznetsov” cruiser traveling at 8 knots.

It is about kinetic energy of a flying mosquito:

Particle acceleration Charged particles influenced by applied electric and magnetic fields

according to the Lorentz force: F = q (E + v B) = dp/dt

E field → energy gain, B field → curvature

CERN has a wide variety of accelerators, some dating back to 1950s

LHC machine re-uses the tunnel excavated for previous accelerator (LEP)Others (PS/SPS) used to accelerate protons before injection into the LHC

Neutrino beam,low energy beamsand p fixed-target beams all running in parallel with LHC

The LHC Original idea

Reality

From an article in the CERN Courier

• Dipole magnets used to deflect the particlesRadius [m] = 3.33 p [GeV] / B [T]

• For the LHC, the machine has to fit in the existing 27 km tunnel, about 2/3 of which isused for active dipole field → ~ 2800 mSo to reach p = 7 TeV requires B = 8.3 T

• Beams focused using quadrupole magnetsBy alternating Focusing and Defocusing quadrupoles, can focus in both x and y views

N-poleS-pole

S-poleN-pole

x

y

Beam

The LHC has 1232 dipoles 392 quadrupoles

View of LHC tonnel

Flavor physics: informal introduction

The Standard Model Zoo SU(3)SU(2)U(1) [ g; W, Z; ]

Masses come out of interactions in the Standard Model

and these interactions conserve (or do not conserve…) particular symmetries.

d

u

s

c

b

t

e

e

Mass hierarchies (from hep-ph/0603118). Theheaviest fermion of a given type has unit mass.

Invariance properties with respect to transformations have been always important in physics

1. translations in

2. rotations in

3. time translations

3R3R

invariance conservation

1. momentum

2. angular momentum

3. energy

Gauge symmetry – invariance withrespect to transformations in

«internal» space

In the SM this space has structure of U(1) × SU(2) × SU(3)

U(1) × SU(2) × SU(3)gluonphoton Z, W

leptons

quarks

Quarks are unique probes of the whole «internal space», hence flavor physics has to deal with weak, electromagnetic

and strong interactions altogether

And gravity iseverywhere

Besides continuous symmetries of prime importance in high energy physics are discrete transformations

• С – charge conjugation• P – space inversion• Т – time reflection

Experimental fact: Experimental fact: strong and electromagnetic interactions in the SM are C, P, T, CP, CT, PT and CPT invariant.

Beauty slightly broken symmetry

Maximal symmetry is not so interesting…

The breaking should not be too strong, however…

СРТСРТ theorem theorem::Antiparticles and their interactions are indistinguishable from particles moving along the same world-lines but in opposite directions in 3+1 dimensional space-time.

The SM strictly conserves CPT. There are no however any theoretical reason why C, P and T should conserveseparately.

Often in physics if something can happen – it does.

In particular, the mass of any particle is strictly equal to the mass of its antiparticle (experimentally checked in 1 part to 1018 in K-meson studies).

Weak interactions violate P-parity

T.D.Lee, C.N.Yang, 1956 C.S.Wu, 1957

L.D.Landau, 1959:hypothesis ofcombined CP-parityconservation

J.Cronin, V.Fitch, 1964: CP-violationdiscovery in neutral K-mesons decays.

In the world of elementary particles: (CPLEAR 1999)

neutral kaondecay time distribution

anti-neutral kaondecay time distribution

CP violation

Later CP-violation has been beautifully measured by experimentsBaBar and BELLE at the B factories

These are machines (in the US and Japan) running on the (4S) resonance: ee (4S) B0B0 or BB

The CP asymmetry A(t) = (B0 J/ KS) (B0 J/ KS) (B0 J/ KS) (B0 J/ KS)

A(t) = sin 2 sin m t in the Standard Model

BABAR + BELLE measuresin 2 = 0.674 ± 0.026

This can be compared withthe indirect measurementfrom other constraints on theUnitarity Triangle

M. Kobayashi, T.Maskawa, 1974:theoretical mechanism forCP-violation in the SM

Idea: nontrivial superposition of non-interacting particles forms flavor eigenstate that interacts weakly In other words: it is impossible to diagonalize simultaneously the mass term and charged currents interaction term:

..ˆ,,22

int chW

b

s

d

Vtcug

L

L

L

L

CKMLLL

b

s

d

VVV

VVV

VVV

b

s

d

tbtstd

cbcscd

ubusud

'

'

'

It is easy to show that arbitrary complex unitary N×N matrix can be parameterized by N(N-1)/2 generalizedEuler angles and (N-1)(N-2)/2 complex phases.

For N<3 the matrix can always be rotated to an equivalent one which is real. But not for N=3.

In other words, there exist 3×3 unitary matrices which cannot be made real whatever phases quark fields are chosen to have.

26

Baryogenesis

Big Bang (~ 14 billion years ago) → matter and antimatter equally produced; followed by annihilation → nbaryon/ng ~ 10-10

Why didn’t all the matter annihilate (luckily for us)?

No evidence found for an “antimatter world” elsewhere in the Universe

One of the requirements to produce an asymmetric final state (our world) from a symmetric matter/antimatter initial state (the Big Bang)is that CP symmetry must violated [Sakharov, 1967]

CP is violated in the Standard Model, through the weak mixing of quarksFor CP violation to occur there must be at least 3 generations of quarksSo problem of baryogenesis may be connected to why three generations exist, even though all normal matter is made up from the first (u, d, e, e)

However, the CP violation in the SM is not sufficient for baryogenesisOther sources of CP violation expected → good field to search for new physics

CKM matrix can be parameterized by four parameters in many different ways. The so called «Wolfenstein parametrization» is based on expansion in powers of

0010.02272.0)( 7 OVus

It is convenient to discuss the properties of CKM matrix in parametrization-invariant terms. Such invariant are absolute values of the matrix elements and «angles»between them

*

*

arglklj

ikij

VV

VV

If any of these angles is different from zero, it means that there is a complex phase in CKM matrix which cannot be rotated away. This violates CP.

5** 103~Im jiji VVVVJ«Jarlskog invariant»

0*** tbtdcbcdubud VVVVVV

tbtstd

cbcscd

ubusud

VVV

VVV

VVV

*tbtdVV

*cbcdVV

*ubudVV

The Unitarity triangle:

0*** tbubtsustdud VVVVVV

Off-diagonal unitarity conditions can be represented astriangles on complex plane.

All 6 unitarity triangles haveequal area but only two of them are not degenerate.

B-mesons decays arevery sensitive to СР !

The Unitarity triangle ,21, 2

*

*

cbcd

ubud

VV

VV

*

*

cbcd

tbtd

VV

VV

01

Im

Re

*

*

cbcd

tbub

VV

VV

*

*

cbcd

tdud

VV

VV

0

+

Im

Re** / cbcdtsus VVVV

: Bd mixing phase: Bs mixing phase: weak decay phase

2

2

,

*

*

DB

KDB

DKDKB

d

ss

d

..... ,/ 00SKJB

..... ,/0 JBs

,.....,,0 B

Precise determinationof parameters throughB-decays study.

Precise determinationof parameters throughB-decays study.

31

UT as a standard approach to test the consistency of SM

Mean values of angles and sides of UT are consistent with SM predictions

Accuracy of sides is limited by theory:

- Extraction of |Vub|

- Lattice calculation of

Accuracy of angles is limited by experiment:

= ± 13° = ± 1° = ± 25°

Define the apex of UT

using at least 2 independent quantities out of 2 sides:

and 3 angles: , and

Extract quantities Rb and from the tree-mediated processes,that are expected to be unaffected by NP, and compare computed

values for

with direct measurements in the processes involving loop graphs.

Interpret the difference as a signal of NP

Standard method to search for New Physics

b q1

d, s

q2W−

qB

Topologies in B decays

g

d (s)

q

q

W −

b u,c,t

b

q

u,c,t

u, c, t

q

bqBqB W+ W−

V*ib Viq

Viq V*ib

Trees

Penguins

Boxes

mbγ

L+mqγ

R

b q

W–

u, c, t

Z, γ

d (s)

l+

l−

W −

b u, c, t

Define the apex of UT

using at least 2 independent quantities out of 2 sides:

and 3 angles: , and

Extract quantities Rb and from the tree-mediated processes,that are expected to be unaffected by NP, and compare computed

values for

with direct measurements in the processes involving loop graphs.

Interpret the difference as a signal of NP

Standard method to search for New Physics

The sensitivity of standard approach is limited due to:

- Geometry of UT (UT is almost rectangular)

Comparison of precisely measured with is not meaningful due to errorpropagation: 3° window in corresponds to (245)° window in

Precision comparison of the angle and side Rt is very meaningful !!!

However in many NP scenarios, in particular with MFV, short-distancecontributions are cancelled out in the ratio of Md/Ms.So the length of the Rt side may happen to be not sensitive to NP

Precision measurement of willeffectively constrain Rt and thuscalibrate the lattice calculationof the parameter

Compare observables and UT angles: , and measured in different topologies:

In trees:

Complementary Strategy

Theoretical uncertainty in Vub extraction

*tbtsVV

Set of observables for (at the moment not theoretically clean):*

tbtsVV

Theoretical input: improved precision of lattice calculations for fB , BB and B,,K* formfactorsExperimental input: precision measurement of BR(BK*, )

Search for NP comparing observables measured in tree and loop topologies

(tree+box) in B J/ Ks

(tree) in many channels(tree+box) in Bs J/

(peng+tree) in B,, (peng+box) in B Ks

(peng+box) in Bs

New heavy particles, which may contribute to d- and s- penguins,could lead to some phase shifts in all three angles:

(NP) = (peng+tree) - (tree)

(NP) = (BKs) - (BJ/Ks) ≠ 0 (NP) = (Bs) - (BsJ/)

39

Contribution of NP to processes mediated by loops (present status)

to boxes:

vs |Vub / Vcb | is limited by theory (~10% precision in |Vub|) (d-box)

not measured with any accuracy (s-box)

to penguins:

((NP)) ~ 30° (d-penguin) ((NP)) ~8° (s-penguin) ((NP)) not measured (s-penguin)

PS (NP) = (NP) (NP) measured in B and B decays may differ depending on penguin contribution to and final states

Search for NP comparing observables measured in tree and loop topologies

LHCb is aiming at search forNew Physics

in CP-violation and Rare Decays

Large Hadron Collider - LHCb

• Bunch crossing frequency: ~ 40 MHz• Number of reactions in unit of time:

since pp inelastic

~ 80 mbarn

for nominal LHC luminosity

N ~ 8108

• For LHCb L ~ 2 × 1032 cm-2s-1

(local defocusing of the beam)

→ multi-body interactions are

subdominant

Inelastic pp reactions

bunchreact

bunches NT

NLN

20bunch

reactN

• vertices and momenta reconstruction • effective particle identification (π, К, μ, е, γ)• triggers

Pythia

100μb

230μb

η of B-hadronP

T o

f B

-ha

dro

n

bb angular distribution

-

b

b

b

b

View of the LHCb cavern

It’s full!Installation of major structures is essentially complete

Muon detector

Calorimeters

RICH-2

Magnet

OT

VELO

RICH-1

LHCb in its cavernShielding wall(against radiation)

Electronics + CPU farm

Offset interaction point (to make best use of existing cavern)

Detectors can be moved away from beam-line for access

LHCb detector

p p

~ 300 mrad

10 mrad

Forward spectrometer (running in pp collider mode)Inner acceptance 10 mrad from conical beryllium beam pipe

LHCb detector

Vertex locator around the interaction region

Silicon strip detector with ~ 30 m impact-parameter resolution

Vertex detector• Vertex detector has silicon microstrips with r geometry

approaches to 8 mm from beam (inside complex secondary vacuum system)• Gives excellent proper time resolution of ~ 40 fs (important for Bs decays)

Beam

Vertex detector information is used in the trigger

LHCb detector

Tracking system and dipole magnet to measure angles and momenta p/p ~ 0.4 %, mass resolution ~ 14 MeV (for Bs DsK)

LHCb detector

Two RICH detectors for charged hadron identification

LHCb detector

Calorimeter system to identify electrons, hadrons and neutrals. Important for the first level of the trigger

e

h

LHCb detector

Muon system to identify muons, also used in first level of trigger

S : LHC prospects

In SM S = - 2arg(Vts) = - 22 ~ - 0.04

Sensitive to New Physics effects in the Bs-Bs system if NP in

mixing S = S(SM) + S(NP)

2 CP-even, 1 CP-odd amplitudes, angular analysis needed to separate, then fit to S, S, CP-odd fraction

LHCb yield in 2 fb-1 131k, B/S = 0.12

Bs J/ is the Bs counterpart of B0J/ KS

will reach s(s) ~ 0.08 (10/fb, ms=20/ps, 90k J/ evts)

LHCb

ATLAS

0.021

0.021

Vcs* Vub: suppressedFavored: Vcb Vus

*

b

u

s

u u

b

u

cD(*)0

K(*)-

B-

u

s

u

cD(*)0

f

Common

final state

K(*)-

B-

Interference between tree-level decays

iiBKDBA

KDBA eer B

0

0 Parameters: γ, (rB, δB) per mode

Three methods for exploiting interference (choice of D0 decay modes):

(GLW): Use CP eigenstates of D(*)0 decay, e.g. D0 K + K- / π+π– , Ksπ0

(ADS): Use doubly Cabibbo-suppressed decays, e.g. D0 K+π -

(Dalitz): Use Dalitz plot analysis of 3-body D0 decays, e.g. Ks π+ π-

Mixing induced CPV measurement in Bs Ds K decays Specific for LHCb

UT angle : LHCb (BaBAr & BELLE & Tevatron ~12° precision for at best)

Combined precision after 2 fb-1 () 5 (from tree only)

UT angle : LHCb summary table

LHCb (10fb-1 ) and SFF (50-75 ab-1) & SLHCb (>100 fb -1) sensitivities

LHCb

SFF & SLHCb

Channel Yield Precision

From tree channels () < 3

Bd +-0

B +0, +-,00 70k45k,10k,5k

() < 4

Bd J/()KS

Bd KS

1200k 4k

(sin2) < 0.01(sin2) ~ 0.1

s Bs J/()Bs

750k 20k

(s) ~ 0.01(s) ~ 0.05

> 2014

SLHCb (stat. only) ~ 0.003 < 1 (BsDsK) - - -

S(K0S) 0.02-0.03

S() 0.01

Physics of loops

Loops can be also explored in rare decays. But before discussing LHCb prospects let us take more generalattitude and ask ourselves: why is it important to study loop processes in general?

Main reason is the following: loop physics is intimately related to overall integrity and the deepest features of quantum theory (Heisenberg uncertainty principle, unitarity, causality etc).

f

iSffi

Example: optic theorem & all that

iTS 11SS

TTTIm2n

nn1

2Im2

n

nTiiTi

At order e2 n

2

TT ReIm by means of dispersion

relations (causality)

Each green arrow is nontrivial.Deep relations between

trees and loops.

Sum over everything!

Loop processes contain loop momentum integrals and hence can indirectly probe physics at large mass scale

Example: quantum electrodynamics at small distances or in strong fields is sensitive to the electron mass in loops

a) the potential between static sources deviates from Coloumb law at small distances:

b) the energy stored by the static magnetic field is different from its classical value: 2/2H

rcmrrV

e

1log

3

21)(

4

222

451

2 em

HH

+

+classic

Analogously rare B-decays mediated by loop processesare sensitive to heavy particles masses and couplings:logarithmically for radiative penguins and power-like forbox diagrams. However the concrete form of functional dependence is much more complicated than in consideredsimple examples.

Loop processes contain sums over all relevant degrees of freedom (Lorentz structure of the interaction, symmetries related to New particles etc…).

Example: neutral kaon oscillations

Neutral K-mesons made of d and anti-s quarks oscillate in vacuum with the frequency ~ 1010 sec-1 because of the following loop process, mediated by “box” diagram:

s

d

u, c, t

u, c, t

d

s

0K0K W+ W−

Viq V*ib

Notice that it is the same diagram which describes oscillationsof B-mesons if we replace s-quark by b-quark!

Suppose we know nothing about the existence of heavy c- and t-quarks.

Then naïve estimate of the box diagram with one internal u-quark gives for the level splitting (which is nothing but the oscillation frequency)

12m

26222

122 10~~~

GeVMG

mf

mG WF

KK

while experimental result is It seems we have a problem…

Solution: GIM - S.Glashow, J.Iliopoulos, L.Maiani, 1970Box diagram with internal c-quark cancels the one with u-quark (up to the quarks mass difference):

2222

2

2 cossin)(16

~ ucF mm

GG

2132 10~ GeVG

Comparison of calculated with experimentally measured leads to correct prediction for

2G12m GeVmc 1~

This is how it actually happened: GIM mechanism was suggested in 1970, while direct experimental discovery of c-quark took place only in 1974!

Historical remark #2. Original idea about possible fourth quark (c-quark) Was suggested by M.Gell-Mann in his original ’1964 paper devoted to thequark model with three light quarks (u-, d-, and s- quarks) on aesthetic grounds of symmetry between quarks and leptons.

Historical remark #1. Perhaps even more spectacular is that the famousKobayashi-Maskawa paper where the quarks of third generation (b- andt-quarks) and current paradigm of CP-violation were introduced was also published a few months before c-quark discovery (and about fouryears before b-quark discovery).

Historical remark #3. The analogous mixing matrix in lepton sector was proposed by Z.Maki, M.Nakagawa and S.Sakata in 1962, i.e. well beforeCKM!

Main theoretical tool here is the formalism of effective low-energy ( μ << MW ) Hamiltonians

In Wilson’s operator product expansion the quantities – coefficient functions – take into account physics at largescales p > μ, while local operators care about low energy (p < μ) physics.

New Physics can manifest itself both via corrections to SMcoefficient functions (the so called «minimal flavor violation»scenario) and via new operators.

Notice that full Hamiltonian is μ-independent! (at each order in αs)

iOfCVVG

iHf kk

kijfjFF

eff )()(2

*1

Computation of Loop processes

How does it work in practice?

Simple example – Fermi interaction

In the SM muon decay is described by the diagram e

eν

W

-μ μνWg

Wg

-μ

μν

e

eν

GF

The corresponding amplitude

)1()1( 522

2

5

W

We Mq

ge

There are two different scales: and 232 105.6 GeVMW

2222 101.1~ GeVmq

Thus one can replace 2

822

2F

W

W G

Mq

g

(factor 8/√2 is of historical origin)25 GeV10166.1 FG

])1()1([82

55 e

F eG

A

Not so simple example – neutral B-mesons mixing.This process is described by «box» diagrams

The corresponding effective Hamiltonian has the form (leading order in QCD coupling) :

coefficientfunction

localoperator

M.Vysotsky, ‘80T.Inami, C.Lim,‘81

])1()1()[(16 550

2*22

22 qbqbxSVVM

GH ttdtbW

FBeff

Rare decays of main interest at LHCb

radiative «penguin» decays B → K* γ, Bs → φ γ, B → Kφγ, related mode B → K* μμ and «box» decays, notably Bs → μμ

Name «penguin» was coined by John Ellis in 1977 as a result of the darts bet between him and Melissa Franklin…

Different views

b s exclusive

LHCb control channel: Bd K* ~75k signal events per 2fb-1

Bs BELLE observed 16±8 events

2 weeks run at (5S); no TDCPV

LHCb annual yield ~11k with B/S < 0.6

The effective Hamiltonian for these processes has the form:

In the SM

Thus the photons are dominantly right-handed in the decays of B-mesons and left-handed in the decays of anti-B mesons

Real life is a little bit more complicated, npQCD corrections also contribute to “wrong” helicity amplitude… But not much.

Consider angular momentum book-keeping at the quark level. In s-quark rest frame (pb = pγ) we have:

s

b

But coupling between bL and bR in this frame (and hence the ratio γL / γR ) is proportional to small parameter

s

b

or

b

s

b

b

m

m

p

m~

Bs → φ γ

Due to the mixing between Bs and anti-Bs two states with the masses m1 , m2 and widths Γ1 , Γ2 are formed.

The time-dependent decay width with CP-eigenstate and a photon at the final state is given by

where ΔΓq = | Γ1 - Γ2 | and Δmq = | m1 - m2 | for q =s or d

where

if neither nor is small (in SM CKM angle ) – we have a chance to find from the time-dependent rate.

This is exactly the case of Bs mesons.

b s exclusive (will be presented by Lesya Schutska)

Mixing induced CP asymmetries

BKs0 (B-factories)

S = - (2+O(s))sin(2)ms/mb + (possible contribution from bsg) = - 0.022 ± 0.015 P.Ball and R.Zwicky hep-ph/0609037Present accuracy: S = - 0.21 ± 0.40 (BaBar : 232M BB) S = - 0.10 ± 0.31 (BELLE: 535M BB)

Bs (LHCb)

LHCb sensitivity with 10fb-1 :

(A) = 0.09

b s exclusive

Measuring the photon polarization in B h1h2h3 decays

The measurement of the photon helicity requires the knowledge of the spin direction of the s-quark emitted from the penguin loop. Use the correlation between s-spin and angular momentum of the hadronic system (needs partial-wave analysis !!!)

Promising channels for LHCb: Expected yield per 2 fb-1

BR(B+ K+-+) ~ 2.5 10-5 rich pattern of resonances ~60k BR(B+ K+) ~ 3 10-6 highly distinctive final state ~ 7k

Sensitivity to photon helicity measurement is being studied

The b-quark from initial B meson decays into a photon and s-quark. The latter forms the hadron system Y (together with the spectator), which is characterized by total angular momentum J and its projection. Strong dynamics causes consequent decay of Y into apseudoscalar meson (where the spectator quark goes) and a vector or tensor (where the s-quark goes).

s

b

q

)( PJY B

K

s

s

KKKB ][

If only s-wave contributes, Clebsch-Gordan coefficientsare trivial (=1) and there is no sensitivity to λ.

If J = 1 contributions dominate:

Introducing helicity factor asdΓ/dΦ can be rewritten as

B K* (will be presented by William Reece)

In SM this bs penguin decay contains right-handed calculable contribution but this could be added to by NP resultingin modified angular distributions

SM

B → K* μμ

?A very important property isforward-backward asymmetry..

..and position of its zero, which is robust in SM:

)(

2

09

70 sC

Cs

eff

eff

AFB(s), fast MC, 2 fb–1

s = (m)2 [GeV2]

B K*: LHCb prospects

Forward-backward asymmetry AFB (s) in - rest frame is a sensitive NP probe Predicted zero of AFB (s) depends on Wilson coefficients C7

eff / C9eff

AFB(s), fast MC, 2 fb–1

s = (m)2 [GeV2]

7.2 k events / 2fb-1 with B/S ~ 0.4 After 10 fb-1zero of AFB located to ±0.28 GeV2 providing 7% stat. error on C7

eff / C9eff

Full angular analysis gives better discrimination between models. Looks promising

81

Bs

This decay could be strongly enhanced in some SUSY models. Example: CMSSM

LHCb

Current limit from CDF

BR(Bs) < 5.810-8

Very smal BR in SM(3.4 ± 0.5) x 10-9

Will be presented by DiegoMartinez Santos

OUTLOOK Clean experimental signature of NP is unlikely at currently operating experiments

From now to 2014A lot of opportunities (LHCb will start data taking this summer)Important measurements to search for NP and test SM in CP violation : if non-zero NP in boxes < 2010 vs Rb and vs Rt (Input from theory !) (NP) and (NP): if non-zero NP in penguins in Rare decays BR(Bs ) down to SM prediction < 2010 Photon helicity in exclusive bs decays FBA & transversity amplitudes in exclusive bsll decays < 2010

After 2014ATLAS and CMS might or might not discovered New Particles. At the same timeLHCb might or might not see NP phenomena beyond SM.In either case it is important to go on with B physics at SFF & Upgraded LHCb

Need much improved precision because any measurement in b-system constrains NP models

high pTB’s