1 / 54

Beauty and Charm: An Assault on the Standard Model Steven Blusk Syracuse Colloquium

Beauty and Charm: An Assault on the Standard Model Steven Blusk Syracuse Colloquium. Outline Introduction to SM & Flavor Physics, Phenomenology CLEO-c and Charm, why now? Leptonic decays The new B frontier: LHCb Summary. Fundamental Questions. How did the Universe evolve?

semah
Download Presentation

Beauty and Charm: An Assault on the Standard Model Steven Blusk Syracuse Colloquium

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. Beauty and Charm: An Assault on the Standard ModelSteven BluskSyracuse Colloquium Outline Introduction to SM & Flavor Physics, Phenomenology CLEO-c and Charm, why now? Leptonic decays The new B frontier: LHCb Summary

  2. Fundamental Questions • How did the Universe evolve? • What laws of physics were present in the early Universe to produce the Universe we see today? • Multi-pronged attack • Cosmology • Particle Physics • Terrestrial based • Astrophysical

  3. Cosmological Breakthroughs A lot of excitement over our new view of the Universe WMAP Data: Cosmic Microwave Background Type 1 Supernovae • Dark Matter candidates? • Dark Energy? • Inflation? New Physics

  4. Another “cosmological” mystery • Why is the Universe composed almost entirely of matter? • Matter = Antimatter, just after Big Bang(natural, simplest assumption) • Today, matter dominated Universe. • How can this asymmetry be explained? • Do the interactions (forces) in nature favor matter over antimatter? AND • Is it large enough to account for the preponderance of matter over antimatter. • If “NO”, what new interactions are manifest at high energy scales? • Particle physics may be able to answer these and many other fundamental questions.

  5. The(sub)Standard Model

  6. u c t +2/3 s d b -1/3 t- m- -1 nm nt 0 Peeling back the layers of matter e - ne Each of these 6 quarks and 6 leptons have corresponding antiparticles

  7. Standard Model Forces + … HiggsBoson H0 Energy-Momentum exchange Interactions == Particle Exchange EM Force g Strong Force g WeakForce W± Z0 There MUST be a strongerforce present within the confines of the nucleus. Why do atomsstay together? Why does the nucleus stay together, despite the repulsive EM forcebetween protons ? • Introduce a new (Higgs) field into SM. • Unifies EM & Weak (Electroweak) • SM particles acquire mass via their interactions with the Higgs field. Introducing mass terms into the SM Lagrangian destroys the gauge invariance  BADOther problems as well.. Massive ForceCarriers • How do heavy quarks decay? • Why do neutrinos interact so weakly?

  8. “Box” Diagrams “Tree” Diagrams +2/3 -1/3 “Penguin” Diagram Interactions via Feynman Diagrams

  9. The (sub)Standard Model • Success as a description of observed phenomena • Many key questions unanswered • Why 3 generations? • Hierarchy problem? • Why do the quarks (leptons) have the masses that they do? • Are the forces unified at some high energy scale? • How does gravity fit in? • Is the dark matter a new BSM particle?

  10. Weak Interaction and CKM • Photons and gluons couple to “flavor” (quark) eigenstates • BUT, weak interaction eigenstates  flavor eigenstates.CKM elements give relative strength of CC transitions amongst the 3 families • VCKM is 3x3, Unitary  3 real parameters, 1 phase. • Phase  0  Decay rates of particle  decay rates of antiparticle • Note: for 2 generations: Only 1 real par, Cabibbo Angle, sinqC=0.22 (to a specific final state) CP Violation No “SM” mechanism for CP Violation with only 2 generations

  11. Huh, what is “CP”?Symmetries of Nature • Continuous Symmetries • Translational symmetry  Conservation of Linear Momentum • Rotational Symmetry  Conservation of Angular momentum • Time shift symmetry  Energy conservation • U(1) gauge symmetry  Conservation of electric charge • Discrete Symmetries • Parity (“mirror” symmetry): x  -x • Charge Conjugation: Particle  Antiparticle • Time Reversal: time  -time • The fall of discrete symmetries • Parity Violation – C. S. Wu et al, 1957, 60Co60Ni b decay, WEAK INTERACTION • CP Violation – 1964, Christenson, Cronin, Fitch & Turlay, KS = CP+, KL=CP- • If CP conserved in Weak Interaction  [CP,H]  CP Eigenstates also Weak Eigenstates. • CCFT observe that the “CP odd” state, KL  p+p- (CP even) ~ 10-3…CP Violation! • Large asymmetries expected in B decays, observed at Belle & BaBar (~2001) • CP Violation is a key ingredient to generating the BAU  Intimately tied to our very existence

  12. Triangle inComplex Plane • (r,h) contains SM prescription of CP Violation, thus allowing for a matter/antimatter asymmetry • BUT, the amount of CP Violation is ~billion timestoo small to account for observed BAU. • Additional sources of CP Violation (BSM) “must” be lurking • Worldwide assault, multi-pronged, on measuring (r,h) • Length of sides • CPV angles • LOOK FOR INCONSISTENCIES ( r, h ) a g b (0,0) (1,0) CP Violation & Unitarity (Triangle) Taking into account the magnitudes of the elements, oft used Wolfenstein parameterization

  13. l n Vub u b Vtb Vtd B0, Bs Mixing Vtd Vtb top quark dominates loop B0 B0 B0 B0 B0 B0 B0 B0 B0 B0 Mixing buln CLEO Dt (ps) Constraining the UT Measuring Sides of the “b-d” Triangle ( r, h ) a B0 B0 B0 B0 B0 g b (1,0)

  14. l n Vub u b Vtb Vtd bulnB(p,r) ln B0, Bs Mixing Vtd Vtb top quark dominates loop B0 Mixing buln CLEO Dt (ps) Constraining the UT Measuring Sides of the “b-d” Triangle ( r, h ) a g b (1,0)

  15. “Form factor” f+(q2), encapsulates the long-distance QCD effects as afunction of momentum transfer (q2). Effectively, gives probability for theformation of the final state hadron Hadronic plague • We want to get at the quark-level process, but often we measure hadrons. • The weak interaction physics we want is augmented by the strong dynamics between the quarks Example 1: Semileptonic Decays Normalization of f+(q2), taken from theory (lattice QCD, etc) Experiment can measure the shape, test shape predictions from theory 

  16. Example 2: B0B0 Mixing Theory errors dominant on Vub and Dmd/ Dms a W- (r,h) W+ Requires theoretical input, e.g., lattice QCD Reduced uncertainty in the ratio: Hadronic plague • We want to get at the quark-level process, but often we measure hadrons. • The weak interaction physics we want is augmented by the strong dynamics between the quarks

  17. Cracking CKM: Sides vs Angles • Large Errors • Large overlapregion… • New Physicsmasked! Angle Measurement Angle Measurement Side Measurement ( r, h ) a Side Measurement g b (1,0)

  18. Cracking CKM: Sides vs Angles Reduced errors  New Physicsrevealed !! Angle Measurement Angle Measurement Side Measurement ( r, h ) a Side Measurement g b (1,0)

  19. VtdVtb*=Al3(1-r-ih) a,b,g can be measured via asymmetries, which expose the interference terms (which contain the CPV angles). Time Evolution of B0 and B0. ME for decay: Compute Weak Inter. Eigenstates Hocus, pocus, after some algebra q/p is the phase of B mixing W- W+ Direct CPV Term Mixing induced CP Violation term Measuring the CKM Angles • We also must measure the angles of the UT. • Interference between 2 (or more) amplitudes with differing phases

  20. Belle(Preliminary) Born as B0 B0J/yKS W- A(t) Born as B0 W+ |l|=1 Cf = 0 1 amplitude |A/A|=1 K0 Mixing B Mixing Vcs K0 Vcb J/y J/y Measuring Angles: sin(2b) in B0J/yKs Im(l) = sin(2b) A(t) = sin2b sin(Dmt)

  21. Indirect “measurements” of the top quark mass from precision EW observables Indirect determination of top quark mass fromB mixing (1993, before top discovery) Barger et. al.PRL 1990, 4 years beforetop was discovered! Log L Direct (2006)171.4±2.1 GeV Top mass (GeV) • Bounds on Standard Model Higgs mass obtained using precision EW, MW, Mtop! H W t W W W W W W b H H Loop diagrams & discovery

  22. New Physics • If there is New Physics at some large mass scale, AND it couples to SM particles, it will modify SM observables. • How might the New Physics manifest itself ? • New particle X produced directly (requires Ecm 2*MX) • Affect rates of processes involving LOOPS (penguin, box diagrams) • B mixing, FCNC, (g-2)m , etc. • Produce observable signals where SM rate ~ 0 • Rare B decays, D mixing, CP Violation, proton decay, etc.. • Plan of attack in B,D decays • Measure (r,h) using a variety of techniques: • Vub – SM Trees dominate • B(s) mixing - Loop diagram, NP can compete, but SM passed test so far. • Measure CKM angles using TREES only vs LOOPS only. Do we get the same result? If not, evidence of new physics! • Search for rare/SM forbidden decays (generally involve loop diagrams) • Key is to make a multitude of measurements and look for inconsistencies • Hadronic uncertainties need to be understood/quantified • Ideally make measurements in which hadronic uncertainties are “known” to be small

  23. How does CLEO-c Fit In? • To conclude New Physics in B, D decays, one needs tounderstand (uncertainties from) hadronic effects.(in some cases, they’re expected to be negligible) • Several key measurements are limited by: • theoretical errors on non-perturbative hadronic parameters • Poorly known D decay branching fractions (normalizes B BF’s) • Resonant substructure of DXYZ, e.g., DPZ, PXY, etc • Final state interactions effects. • Primary goals of CLEO-c are to provide precision measurements to test models/theories, such as lattice QCD, in predicting non-perturbative matrix elements. • Precision tests in D decays provide a crucial test for any theory/modelattempting to predict similar quantities in B decays.

  24. e+e- y(3770)  DD D e - D e+ The CLEO-c Experiment Collide electrons and positrons, Ee=1885 MeV, each • No extra particles, ED = Ebeam! • 93% of 4p coverage • Unobserved particles can be inferred via (E,p) conservation (neutrino reconstruction) e+ e - CLEO-c

  25. e+e-y(3770)DD K Dsig e+ e- Dtag Kinematic Variables: p p p • Fully reconstruct one D (“tag”): Single tags • Other charged particles + photons MUST come from the other D meson (Dsig). • Absolute branching fractions can be computed, independent of s, L • Needn’t fully reconstruct Dsig. If 1 particle is missing from decay, missing mass ( MM ) is the signal. • Used extensively for analyses involving n’s ! Cleo-c Analysis 101

  26. q=s,d A Sampling of Physics from CLEO Leptonic Decays Semileptonic Decays Hadronic Decays q=s,d

  27. Currently limited by uncertainty in fB W- W+ Would you want to tell your daughter that we don’t have a clue as to why we exist? Leptonic Decays & the Decay Constant Recall _

  28. W- _ W+ Vub b Getting to fB? • Currently, (unquenched) lattice QCD predicts fB with O(10%) uncertainty. Further reductionof uncertainties are possible in the “near” future. fB/fBs predicted to ~4% • Experimental prospects: • fB can be measured in B decays, B+l+n. • l = e,m experimentally possible, but rate is tiny! ~10-7(m),10-12 (e) • BF(B+t+n)~10-5, but experimentally more challenging (t decays, neutrinos) • Belle recently reported ~20 events from ~500 million BB sample…need much moredata to make this measurement meaningful.. fB gives the wavefunction overlap amplitude. How can we “test” decay constants predictions/uncertainties of lattice QCD?

  29. or cs (s) D(s) Leptonic Decays CLEO-c: Test lattice QCD in predictions of D and Ds decay constants n K Dsig e+ e- Dtag p p m Ecm = 3770 MeV • Reconstruct a “Dtag” in one of 6 decay modes • Compute missing mass recoiling against the Dtag + m • MM2 peaks at 0 for D+m+n

  30. n K 6 Tag Modes ~150K D± Tags Dsig e+ e- Dtag p p m D+ KLp+ D+ m+n D Leptonic Analysis • 50 signal events • Background ~ 3 events

  31. e+ e- e+ e- n n K+ K+ Ds Ds* Ds Ds g Ds Ds* Ds Ds g Ds Ds g Ds g Ds K- p+ p+ K- m m Ds Leptonic _ • Higher energy beams required to produce DsDs • Largest rate at Ecm = 4160 MeV, but DsDs* dominant (Ds*Dsg ~ 95%). • Two cases need to be considered: • Enough constraints to deal effectively with the extra photon from Ds*Dsg. • Two analyses: • Look for Ds + mn, similar to D+ mn. • Look for Ds+ t+n, t+p+n • Exploit fact that p and m interact differently in the detector (calorimeter)

  32. DStn, tpnsimulation Ds Leptonic MM2 DS+→m+n signal • Subsample 1: “Muon”-like (ala D+mn analysis) • Require Edep<0.3 GeV from track in CC. • Non-negligible pion leak-through • Subsample 2: “Pion”-like • Require Edep>0.3 GeV from track in CC Subsample 3: “Electron”-like Require Edep~ p

  33. D(s) Leptonic Results B(DS+→m+n)=(0.657±0.090±0.028)% B(DS+→t+n) = (7.1±1.4±0.03)% fDs= (282 ± 16 ± 7) MeV Data consistent with most models. Better precision neededin both experiment & theory Subsamples 1 & 2 Combined withexpectation from simulation of D+m+n and D+ t+n ! (100 signal candidates!)

  34. Future of Bottom/Charm Physics • It’s CLEAR we need: • Reduced hadronic uncertainties. • Adequate tests of theories/models of hadronic par’s. • CLEO-c (thru mid-2008) • BES-III (China, similar scope to CLEO-c, ~10X more data, exp. start around 2008) • More precise measurements of CPV in B0 decays • CPV angles: TREES vs LOOPS • CPV in Bs decays is a high priority • Rare/SM forbidden B(s) decays • New Physics in LOOP diagrams LHCb B Physics at the LHC

  35. 250 mrad 10 mrad p p LHCbPrecise Measurements of CPV and Rare Decays TT

  36. 2 kHz output to tape Full detectorinformation p p • HLT: • Confirm Level-0 • Associate PT/IP • Reconstruct Displaced Vertices Level-0: pT of m, e, h, g 1 MHz 40 MHz LHCb 39 MHz 998 kHz Software + lots o’ CPU L0: custom hardware Why do B Physics at a pp Collider

  37. Test BeamSetup from Aug 06 ! Left & RightModule Distribution of unmixed sample after 1 year (2 fb–1) assuming ms = 20 ps-1 st ~ 40 fs 0.1 mm 10 mm Bs→Ds-π+ Time Resolution B Reconstruction

  38. Need to know the “flavor” of the B when it was “born” ( b or b ) d • Flavor Tagging Methods for Signal B Meson • Same side kaon, K+ b, K-  b(points back to the PV) • Away-side kaon, K-  b, K+  b(does NOT point back to PV) • Away-side lepton tag, l -  b, l +  b(does NOT point back to PV) • Vertex charge: Q<0  b, Q>0  b b b b b b b b b Bs s u K+ ~10-23 [m] B0 Flavor Tagging Boom Methods 2-4 are degraded by the fact that the away-sideB meson mixes ~ 25% of the time before decaying ! Expect “Efficiency”, eD2 ~ 7.5% for BS & 4.3% for Bd

  39. LHCb Key Measurements

  40. Status in Pictures MUONSYSTEM Electromagnetic Calormter RICH2 (PID) MAGNET

  41. Many reasons to believe SM is only an effective theory • Flavor physics may provide critical input to a more fundamental theory • Studies of B decays at e+e- machines • CKM sides limited by theory errors • CLEO-c paving the road to reduced theory errors • Precise (O(5%) meaurements of sin(2b) • Progress on a, (s~15o) • Only loose constraints on g as of now • B factories have performed marvelously, but are statistically limited. • The torch will be passed to LHCb in 2008 (large bb cross-section in pp!) Possible impact of a LHCb measurementon  Possible scenario in 2007 before LHCb g  (LHCb) sin2 sin2 Summary

  42. Backups

  43. CF DCS K+ D0 p+ p- D0 K- G  |VcdVus|2 G  |VcsVud|2 CS Internal CF p+ K0 D0 D0 p- p0 G  |VcdVud|2 G  |VcsVud|2 CF/CS/DCS Decays • Diagonal elements ~ O(1) • Off diagonal are reduced bypowers of l ~ 0.22.

  44. q=s,d X K Dsig e+ e- Dtag p p e Inclusive Semileptonic Decays In this analysis, the final state hadronis UNSPECIFIED. Measure the inclusive electron yield and momentum spectrum. Check Isospin symmetry: G(D0eX) = G(D+eX)? • Reconstruct D0 and D+ (TAG) • Identify electrons among “other” charged particlesAccount for: • efficiency • particle mis-ID (pe, Ke), etc • backrounds, such as conversions (ge+e-), p0ge+e-, etc, using wrong-sign electrons D0K-p+ D+K- p+ p+

  45. Inclusive Semileptonic Results D  e+ X Isospin Symmetry respected Summing up exclusive final states (0- & 1-) Excusive 0- and 1- final states ~saturate the semileptonic width Perhaps another 5% (relative) still lurking… B(Do→K1(1270)e+n) *B(K1(1270) →K-p+p-) =

  46. q=s,d q2 ~ max, pP~0 n P l l P q2 ~ 0. pP max. P n Rate  P3 Exclusive Semileptonic Decays BF (decay rate) provides a measurement of |Vcq|2 D D • The hadronic complications are contained in form factors, which can be calculated via lattice QCD, HQET, quark models, etc. • Charm SL decays provide a high quality lattice calibration,crucial in reducing systematic errors in the UT. • Techniques validated by charm decays can then be applied to B meson decays. • Two “approaches” • Test lattice prediction for shape of f+(q2). If it passes, use f+(0)  Obtain Vcq. • Take Vcq from CKM fits, test lattice prediction of f+(0)

  47. K- K+ - e+ Semileptonic Reconstruction UEmiss-|pmiss| Peaks at 0 for event witha single neutrino Convert BF’s topartial widths

  48. Semileptonics, compared to LQCD Normalization FF Shapes Lattice predictions* Dpen f+(0)=0.64±0.03±0.06 • a=0.44±0.04±0.07 DKen f+(0)=0.73±0.03±0.07 • a=0.50±0.04±0.07 Assume Vcd = 0.2238 LQCD DATA FIT Vcs = 0.9745 LQCD DATA FIT C. Aubin et al., PRL 94 011601 (2005)

  49. sDp+ p- p0 Determined by generatingthe process via MC methodsand a detailed simulatiion ofthe detector response. In many experiments, it is difficult to ascertain NDtot So, often measure the BF relative to a “well-known” one. In D decays, The “well-known” modes are (before CLEO-c): Branching Fraction Anatomy • D0K-p+ (error~2.3%) • D+ K- p+p+ (error~6.5%) • Ds fp+ (error~25%) CLEO-c can measure absolute branching fractions!

  50. D e+ e- D Absolute Branching Fractions in CLEO-c Single Tags: Reconstructed one D meson Double Tags: Reconstruct both D mesons To first order, Bj is independent of tag modes’ efficiencies, s, L. ISR tail

More Related