Upload
alaula
View
33
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Cracking the Unitarity Triangle — A Quest in B Physics —. Masahiro Morii Harvard University Tohoku University Physics Colloquium 21 November 2005. Outline. Introduction to the Unitarity Triangle The Standard Model, the CKM matrix, and CP violation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Cracking the Unitarity Triangle— A Quest in B Physics —
Masahiro MoriiHarvard University
Tohoku University Physics Colloquium
21 November 2005
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 2
Outline Introduction to the Unitarity Triangle
The Standard Model, the CKM matrix, and CP violation CP asymmetry in the B0 meson decays
Experiments at the B Factories Results from BABAR and Belle
Angles , , from CP asymmetries |Vub| from semileptonic decays
|Vtd| from radiative-penguin decays
Current status and outlook
Results presented in this talk are produced by the BABAR, Belle, and CLEO Experiments,the Heavy Flavor Averaging Group, the CKMfitter Group, and the UTfit Collaboration
The Unitarity TriangleThe Unitarity Triangle
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 3
What are we made of?
Ordinary matter is made of electrons and up/down quarks Add the neutrino and we have a complete “kit” We also know how they interact with “forces”
quarksleptons
e
e u
d
0Q
1Q
13Q
23Q
strong E&M weak
u Yes Yes Yes
d Yes Yes Yes
e− No Yes Yes
e No No Yes
u
u d
e
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 4
Simplified Standard Model Strong force is transmitted by the gluon
Electromagnetic force by the photon
Weak force by the W and Z0 bosons
uu
g
dd
g
uu
dd
e−
e−
uu
Z0
dd
Z0 Z0
e−
e−
Z0
ee
du
W+
e
e−
W−
Note W± can “convert”u ↔ d, e ↔
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 5
Three generations We’ve got a neat, clean, predictive theory of “everything”
Why 3 sets (= generations) of particles? How do they differ? How do they interact with each other?
strong E&M weak
g W ±
Z 0
− c
s
− t
b
leptons quarks
e− u
e d1st generation
2nd generation
3rd generation
It turns out there are two “extra”
copies of particles
It turns out there are two “extra”
copies of particles
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 6
A spectrum of masses The generations differ only by the masses
The structure is mysterious The Standard Model has no explanation
for the mass spectrum All 12 masses are inputs to the theory The masses come from the interaction
with the Higgs particle ... whose nature is unknown We are looking for it with the Tevatron,
and with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in the future
310
410
510
610
710
810
910
1010
1110
Part
icle
mas
s (e
V/c
2 )
1210
e
u
c
t
d
s
b
Q = 1 0 +2/3 1/3The origin of mass is one of the most urgent
questions in particle physics today
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 7
If there were no masses Nothing would distinguish u from c from t
We could make a mixture of the wavefunctions and pretend it represents a physical particle
Suppose W connects u ↔ d, c ↔ s, t ↔ b
That’s a poor choice of basis vectors
u u
c c
t t
M
d d
s s
b b
N M and N are arbitrary33 unitary matrices
1 1 1
u u d d d
c c s s s
t t b b b
M M M N V
Weak interactions between u, c, t, and d, s, b are “mixed” by matrix V
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 8
Turn the masses back on Masses uniquely define the u, c, t, and d, s, b states
We don’t know what creates masses We don’t know how the eigenstates are chosen M and N are arbitrary
V is an arbitrary 33 unitary matrix
The Standard Model does not predict V ... for the same reason it does not predict the particle masses
ud us ub
cd cs cb
td ts tb
Wu d V V V d
c s V V V s
t b V V V b
V
Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix or CKM for short
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 9
Structure of the CKM matrix The CKM matrix looks like this
It’s not completely diagonal Off-diagonal components are small
Transition across generations isallowed but suppressed
Matrix elements can be complex Unitarity leaves 4 free parameters,
one of which is a complex phase
0.974 0.226 0.004
0.226 0.973 0.042
0.008 0.042 0.999
V
0.974 0.226 0.004
0.226 0.973 0.042
0.008 0.042 0.999
V
There seems to be a “structure”separating the generations
This phase causes “CP violation”Kobayashi and Maskawa (1973)
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 10
What are we made of, again? Dirac predicted existence of anti-matter in 1928
Positron (= anti-electron) discovered in 1932
Our Universe contains (almost) only matter
Translation: he would like the laws of physics to be different for particles and anti-particles
e e
I do not believe in the hole theory, since I would like to have the asymmetry between positive and negative electricity in the laws of nature (it does not satisfy me to shift the empirically established asymmetry to one of the initial state)
Pauli, 1933 letter to Heisenberg
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 11
CP symmetry
C and P symmetries are broken in weak interactions Lee, Yang (1956), Wu et al. (1957), Garwin, Lederman, Weinrich
(1957)
Combined CP symmetry seemed to be good Anti-Universe can exist as long as it
is a mirror image of our Universe To create a matter-dominant Universe,
C charge conjugation particle anti-particle
P parity x x, y y, z z
CP symmetry must be broken
e e
One of the three necessary conditions (Sakharov 1967)
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 12
CP violation CP violation was discovered in KL decays
KL decays into either 2 or 3 pions
Couldn’t happen if CP was a good symmetry of Nature
Laws of physics apply differently to matter and antimatter The complex phase in the CKM matrix causes CP violation
It is the only source of CP violation in the Standard Model
Christenson et al. (1964)
(33%)LK
(0.3%)LK 1CP
1CP
Final states have different CP eigenvalues
Nothing else?
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 13
CP violation and New Physics
The CKM mechanism fails to explain the amount of matter-antimatter imbalance in the Universe ... by several orders of magnitude
New Physics beyond the SM is expected at 1-10 TeV scale e.g. to keep the Higgs mass < 1 TeV/c2
Almost all theories of New Physics introduce new sources of CP violation (e.g. 43 of them in supersymmetry)
Precision studies of the CKM matrix may uncover them
New sources of CP violation almost certainly existNew sources of CP violation almost certainly exist
Are there additional (non-CKM) sources of CP violation?
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 14
The Unitarity Triangle V†V = 1 gives us
Experiments measure the angles , , and the sides
* * *
* * *
* * *
0
0
0
ud us cd cs td ts
ud ub cd cb td tb
us ub cs cb ts tb
V V V V V V
V V V V V V
V V V V V V
This one has the 3 terms in the same
order of magnitude
A triangle on the complex plane
1
td tb
cd cb
V V
V V
ud ub
cd cb
V V
V V
0
*ud ubV V
*td tbV V
*cd cbV V
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 15
The UT 1998 2005
95% CL
We did know something about how the UT looked in the last century By 2005, the allowed region for the apex has shrunk to about 1/10
in area
The improvements are due largely to the B Factoriesthat produce and study B mesons
in quantity
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 16
Anatomy of the B0 system The B0 meson is a bound state of b and d quarks
They turn into each other spontaneously
This is called the B0-B0 mixing
0 ( )B bd0 ( )B bd
Particle charge mass lifetime
0 5.28 GeV/c2 1.5 ps
0 5.28 GeV/c2 1.5 ps
Indistinguishable from the outside
0B 0B
W+
W-
b
d
d
b
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 17
Time-dependent Interference Starting from a pure |B0 state, the wave function evolves as
Suppose B0 and B0 can decay into a same final state fCP
Two paths can interfere Decay probability depends on:
the decay time t the relative complex phase
between the two paths
0B
0B
Ignoring the lifetime
0B
0BfCP
0B
t = 0 t = t
time
0pure B 0pure B 0pure B
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 18
The Golden Mode Consider
Phase difference is
0 0B J K0 0B J K
b
d d
scc
0B
J
0K
d
b s
d
c c
0B 0K
J
0Bd
b
b
d
s
ds
d0K
Direct path
Mixing path
*cbV csV
*csVcbV*
tbV
tdV
tdV
*tbV
*cdV
csV
csV
*cdV
* 2 *2 * 2 *2 * *arg( ) arg( ) 2 arg( ) arg( ) 2cs cb td tb cb cs cs cd cd cb td tbV V V V V V V V V V V V * 2 *2 * 2 *2 * *arg( ) arg( ) 2 arg( ) arg( ) 2cs cb td tb cb cs cs cd cd cb td tbV V V V V V V V V V V V
td tbV V
cd cbV V
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 19
Time-dependent CP Asymmetry Quantum interference between the direct and mixed paths
makes and different Define time-dependent CP asymmetry:
We can measure the angle of the UT
What do we have to do to measure ACP(t)? Step 1: Produce and detect B0 fCP events
Step 2: Separate B0 from B0
Step 3: Measure the decay time t
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
( ( ) ) ( ( ) )( ) sin(2 )sin( )
( ( ) ) ( ( ) )S S
CPS S
N B t J K N B t J KA t mt
N B t J K N B t J K
Solution:Asymmetric
B Factory
0 0( )B t J K0 0( )B t J K
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 20
B Factories Designed specifically for precision measurements of the CP
violating phases in the CKM matrix
SLAC PEP-II
KEKB
Produce ~108 B/year by colliding e+ and e− with ECM = 10.58 GeV
Produce ~108 B/year by colliding e+ and e− with ECM = 10.58 GeV
(4 )e e S BB (4 )e e S BB
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 21
SLAC PEP-II site
BABAR
PEP-II
I-280
Linac
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 22
Step 2:
Identify the flavorof the other B
Decay products often allow us to distinguishB0 vs. B0
Asymmetric B Factory Collide e+ and e− with E(e+) ≠ E(e−)
PEP-II: 9 GeV e− vs. 3.1 GeV e+ = 0.56
Step 1:
Reconstruct the signal B decaye− e+
Moving in the lab
(4S)
Step 3:
Measure z tz c t
e
0B
0B
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 23
Detectors: BABAR and Belle Layers of particle detectors surround the collision point
We reconstruct how the B mesons decayed from their decay products
BABARBABAR BelleBelle
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 24
J/y KS eventA B0 → J/ KS candidate (r-view)
Muons from
Pions from
Red tracks are from the other B,which was probably B0
−
+
+
−
−
+
+
K−
J
SK
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 25
CPV in the Golden Channel BABAR measured in B0 J/ + KS and related decays
J/ KSJ/ KS
227 million events227 million eventsBBsin 2 0.722 0.040(stat.) 0.023(syst.)
J/ KLJ/ KL
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 26
Three angles of the UT CP violation measurements at the B Factories give
Angle (degree) Decay channels
B
BccK
BD(*)K(*)
Precision of is 10 times better than and
Precision of is 10 times better than and
12.68.198.6
1.31.221.7
151263
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 27
CKM precision tests Measured angles agree with what we knew before 1999
But is it all? We look for small deviation from the CKM-only hypothesis by
using the precise measurement of angle as the reference
Next steps Measure with different methods
that have different sensitivity to New Physics
Measure the sides
Next steps Measure with different methods
that have different sensitivity to New Physics
Measure the sides
*
*tb
cb
td
cd
V
V V
V
*
*ubud
cd cb
V
V V
V
The CKM mechanism is responsible for the bulk of the CP violation in the quark sector
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 28
Angle from penguin decays The Golden mode is Consider a different decay
e.g., b cannot decay directly to s The main diagram has a loop
The phase from the CKM matrix is identical to the Golden Mode
We can measure angle in e.g.B0 KS
b ccs
b sss
Tree
0Kb
c
sc
d
0B
/J
d
Penguin
0Kb
s
ss
d
0B
d
gW
, ,u c t , ,u c ttop is the main
contributor
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 29
New Physics in the loop The loop is entirely virtual
W and t are much heavier than b It could be made of heavier particles
unknown to us Most New Physics scenarios predict
multiple new particles in 100-1000 GeV Lightest ones close to mtop = 174 GeV
Their effect on the loop can be as big as the SM loop Their complex phases are generally different
W
t t
b s
t t
b s
Comparing penguins with trees is a sensitive probe for New PhysicsComparing penguins with trees is a sensitive probe for New Physics
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 30
Strange hints Measured CP asymmetries
show a suspicious trend
Naive average of penguins give sin2 = 0.50 0.06
Marginal consistency from the Golden Mode(2.6 deviation)
sin 2 (penguin) sin 2 (tree)
Need more data!
Penguin decays
Penguin modes
Golden mode
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 31
The sides To measure the lengths of the
two sides, we must measure|Vub| ≈ 0.004 and |Vtd| ≈ 0.008 The smallest elements – not easy!
Main difficulty: Controlling theoretical errors due to hadronic physics Collaboration between
theory and experiment plays key role
*
*tb
cb
td
cd
V
V V
V
*
*ubud
cd cb
V
V V
V
Vtd
Vub
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 32
|Vub| – the left side
|Vub| determines the rate of the b u transition Measure the rate of b uv decay ( = e or )
The problem: b cv decay is much faster
Can we overcome a 50 larger background?
ubVb
u
W 22 5
2( )
192F
ub b
Gb u V m
22 5
2( )
192F
ub b
Gb u V m
cbVb
c
W 2
2
( ) 1
( ) 50ub
cb
Vb u
b c V
2
2
( ) 1
( ) 50ub
cb
Vb u
b c V
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 33
Use mu << mc difference in kinematics
Signal events have smaller mX Larger E and q2
Detecting b → uℓv
2q
b c
b u
uX
B
u quark turns into 1 or more hardons
q2 = lepton-neutrino mass squaredq2 = lepton-neutrino mass squared
mX = hadron system massmX = hadron system mass
E = lepton energyE = lepton energy
E
b c
b u
Xm
b cb u
Not to scale!Not to scale!
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 34
Figuring out what we see Cut away b cv Lose a part of the b uv signal
We measure
Predicting fC requires the knowledge of the b quark’s motion inside the B meson Theoretical uncertainty Theoretical error on |Vub| was ~15% in 2003
Summer 2005:
What happened in the last 2 years?
2( )u C ub CB X f V
Total b uv rate
Fraction of the signal that pass the cut
Cut-dependentconstant predicted
by theory
expt model SF theory(3.3 2.9 4.7 4.0 )%
7.6%
ub ubV V
expt model SF theory(3.3 2.9 4.7 4.0 )%
7.6%
ub ubV V
HFAG EPS 2005 average
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 35
Progress since 2003 Experiments combine E, q2, mX to maximize fC
Recoil-B technique improves precisions Loosen cuts by understanding background better
Theorists understand the b-quark motion better Use information from b s and b cv decays Theory error has shrunk from ~15% to ~5% in the process
Fully reconstructedB hadrons
v
X
BABARpreliminaryb cv
background
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 36
Status of |Vub|
|Vub| determined to 7.6% c.f. sin2is 4.7%
|Vub| world average as of Summer 2005
Measures the length of the left side of the UT
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 37
|Vtd| – the right side
Why can’t we just measure the t d decay rates? Top quarks are hard to make
Must use loop processes where b t d Best known example: mixing combined with mixing
md= (0.509 0.004) ps−1
mixing is being searched for at Tevatron (and LEP+SLD) ms > 14.5 ps-1 at 95 C.L. (Lepton-Photon 2005)
2 2 4( ) ( ) 10td tbt d t b V V
tdV
tdV
b
b
d
d
t
t
W0B 0BW
0 0-B B 0 0-s sB B2
2tdd
s ts
Vm
m V
B0 oscillation frequency
Bs oscillation frequency
0 0-s sB B
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 38
Radiative penguin decays Look for a different loop that does b t d
Radiative-penguin decays
New results from the B Factories:
Translated to
W
t t
b d
tdV
,u d,u d
B
W
t t
b s
tsV
,u d,u d
B*K
2
2*
( )
( )td
ts
VB
B K V
* 5( ) (4.0 0.2) 10B K B
(B )
BABAR (0.6 0.3) 106
Belle (1.3 0.3) 106
Average (1.0 0.2) 106
0.18 0.03td tsV V 0.18 0.03td tsV V
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 39
Impact on the UT We can now constrain the right side of the UT
Comparable sensitivities to |Vtd|
Promising alternative/crosscheck to the B0/Bs mixing method
B0/Bs mixing
Need more data!
*
( )
( )
B
B K
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 40
The UT today
Angles from CP asymmetriesSides + KL decaysCombined
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 41
The UT today The B Factories have dramatically
improved our knowledge of theCKM matrix All angles and sides measured
with multiple techniques New era of precision CKM
measurements in search of NP The Standard Model is alive
Some deviations observed require further attention
New Physics seems to be hidingquite skillfully
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 42
Constraining New Physics New Physics at ~TeV scale should affect low-energy physics
Effects may be subtle, but we have precision Even absence of significant effects helps to identify NP
In addition to the UT, we explore: rare B decays into Xs, Xs, D0 mixing and rare D decays lepton-number violating decays
Precision measurements at the B Factories place strong constraints on
the nature of New Physicsm
H (
GeV
)
tan
Allowed byBABAR data
B b s
Two Higgs doublet model
21 November 2005 M. Morii, Harvard 43
Outlook The B Factories will pursue increasingly precise measurements
of the UT and other observables over the next few years Will the SM hold up?
Who knows? At the same time,
we are setting a tightweb of constraints on what New Physics can or cannot be
What the B Factories achieve in the coming years will provide a foundation for future New Physics discoveries