1 / 64

A New Solution for Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe

A New Solution for Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe. July 3 2008, 2nd Open meeting for proto-sBelle @ KEK. Outline. I. The Lore that Despairs the Experimenter BAU; KM; Heavenly TH; Belle’04, D A K p and P EW II. Going Up a Hill ...

aretha-rivera
Download Presentation

A New Solution for Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe

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. A New Solution for Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe July 3 2008,2nd Open meeting for proto-sBelle@ KEK

  2. Outline I. The Lore that Despairs the Experimenter BAU; KM; Heavenly TH;Belle’04, DAKp and PEW II. Going Up a Hill ... Embark; Constraints; Consistency; b → s CP Phase III. ... (maybe) Becoming a Mountain sin2FBs; AFB;DmD; [KL → pnn] expexp (exp) IV. Soaring to the Starry Heavens Boxes, Penguins, Yukawas; CPVBAU Redux V. Towards Solution of BAU CPV — 2-3-4 Dominance; Phase Trans. — Strong Coupling? VI. Verification @ LHC ? sin2FBs Confirmation VII. Conclusion s b 4 ; b’, t’ Discovery

  3. I. The Lore that Despairs the Experimenter

  4. Dispair Obligé

  5. Sakharov Conditions:MatterUniverse Sakharov (1967) Antimatter →Matter if: (1) Proton Decay(Baryon # Violation) (2) Matter-antimatter Asymm.(CP Violation) (3) Out of Equilibrium Particle Physics Astrophysics

  6. Electroweak Baryogenesis !? Kuzmin, Rubakov, Shaposhnikov, 1986 Sakharov (1967) Antimatter →Matter if: (1) Proton Decay(Baryon # Violation) (2) Matter-antimatter Asymm.(CP Violation) (3) Out of Equilibrium ✔ Too Small ! Challenge EWPhT a crossover ! (not strong enough ...) Particle Physics Astrophysics Continue Search for CP Violation

  7. Too Small in SM Normalize by T ~ 100 GeV in SM is common (unique) area of triangle B.A.U. fromCPV in KM? WMAP Why? Jarlskog Invariant in SM3 (need 3 generation in KM) masses too small ! CPV Phase

  8. Heavenly TH “Affleck-Dine”, SUSY etc.: Extra Scalars (strongly) coupled to H0 Leptogenesis: Heavy Majorana Neutrinos ⊕ LFV/CPV Decay ⊕ B/L Violation (“EW Baryogenesis”) More Scalars! Popular! Driving q13 study for neutrinos. But, “Heavenly”— Could be(come) Metaphysics

  9. Belle 2004 PRL: Seed by “yours truly” PEW Z’

  10. 275M BB New ACP(B  K+p0 ) Sakai Kp0 : 728 53 ACP(Kp0) = 0.04  0.05  0.02 hint thatACP(K+p- ) ¹ACP(Kp0 ) ? (2.4s) [also seen by BaBar] d p0 Large EW penguin (Z0) ? New Physics ? _ d B- b s K- u u ICHEP 2004, Beijing

  11. 3.8s 2005

  12. Belle 2008 Nature: Simple Bean Count DA =AK+p0-AK+p-=+0.1640.037 4.4s +0.070.03vs-0.0940.020

  13. +0.0500.025 -0.0970.012 ? A lot of (hadronic) finesse d p0 _ d b s B- K- u u World = +0.1470.028> 5s Experiment is Firm DAKp~ 0 expected Why aPuzzle ? Large C ? Large EWPenguin? Baek, London, PLB653, 249 (2007) Need NP CPV Phase PEW has practically no weak phase in SM t, ?

  14. Wisdom from Peskin C PEW

  15. color suppressed Peskin (private communication) “I must say that I am very skeptical that the new Belle result is new physics -- a larger than expected color suppressed amplitude is an explanation that is ready at hand. On the other hand, I felt that it was necessary to push the new physics interpretation when writing for the Nature audience, people outside of high energy physics, because this is why the result is potentially newsworthy.” Ya, ya! Need 1010anyway ! I’ll keep crawlin’.

  16. d p0 _ d B- b s K- u u II. Going Up a Hill ...

  17. My first B paper dimensions nondecoupling

  18. My first B paper ... also on 4th generation 

  19. +0.0500.025 -0.0970.012 ? A lot of (hadronic) finesse d p0 _ d b s B- K- u u World = +0.1470.028> 5s Experiment is Firm DAKp~ 0 expected Why aPuzzle ? Large C ? Large EWPenguin? Baek, London, PLB653, 249 (2007) Need NP CPV Phase PEW has practically no weak phase in SM t, ? t, t’ 4th Gen. in EWP Natural nondecoupling

  20. d p0 _ d B- b s K- u u ,t’ Embark Going Up a Hill ...

  21. - Nn counting? 4th “neutrino” heavy Massive neutrinos call for new Physics • 4thgeneration not in such great conflict with EWPrT • Kribs, Plehn, Spannowsky, Tait, PRD’07 4th Generation Still? - Disfavored by EW Precision (see e.g. J. Erler hep-ph/0604035; PDG06

  22. Effective b  s Hamiltonian and t’ Effect SM 3

  23. Arhrib and WSH, EPJC’03 t➯t, t’ CPV Phase t t GIM Respecting

  24. d p0 _ d t, t’ b s B- K- u u NLO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen. WSH, Li, Mishima, Nagashima, PRL’07 DA 15% DS  -0.11 vs -0.340.2x (data) SM3 input DS DA Both and in Right Direction ! DA= AK+p0-AK+p- ~ 15% and LO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen. WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 DA 12% vs 15% (data) Joining C & PEW

  25. Consistency and b  sg Predictions PDG ’06 SM3 SM3 BR OK ACP ~ 0 far away beyond SuperB Heavy t’ effect decoupled for b  sg

  26. _ Z bb b  d x ~ 0.22 4 x 4 Unitarity ➯Z/K Constraints “Typical” CKM Matrix WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’05 s b d s Satisfy b  d: ✓ Cannot tell triangle from quadrangle b  s

  27. ~ SM3 Strength and Size of b → d “Triangle” andb → s Quadrangle b → d negligible b → s b → s Quadrangle Area ~ (-)30x b → d Triangle (almost Triangle)

  28. human ants III. ... (maybe) Becoming a Mountain

  29. Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 Large CPV in Bs Mixing WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 SM (high) rsb Bs Mixing Measured @ Tevatron in 4/2006 • Fixed rsb➯ Narrow fsb Range • destructive with top • For rsb ~ 0.02 – 0.03, [Vcb ~ 0.04 • fsb Range ~ 60°-70° CDF2srange FiniteCPV Phase sin2FBs ~ -0.5 - -0.7 ?

  30. Large CPV in Bs Mixing WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 SM (high) rsb DAKp, DS CDF2srange Can Large CPV in Bs Mixing Be Measured @ Tevatron ? Sure thing by LHCb ca. 2009 Sign Predicted ! sin2FBs ~ -0.5 --0.7 ? Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05

  31. sin2FBs~ -0.5 --0.7 WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 arXiv:0712.2397 [hep.ex] arXiv:0802.2255 [hep.ex] 3.7s ~2.5s ± ? +0.16 -0.14 sin2FBs=-0.64 Incredible !!! UTfit arXiv:0803.0659 [hep.ph]

  32. WSH,Nagashima,Soddu, PRD’07 (hep-ph/0610385) 4th Generation ? Did not ask for this ! Tevatron can compete w/ LHCb iff |sin2FBs|> 0.4

  33. CDF now interested in 4th generation.

  34. Fourth Generation PRD 77, 014016 (2008) Quoted byTsybychev at FPCP08 a: SM; b: 4 Gen. better data: LHCb MC (2 fb-1) (FL and)AFB (and AI) favor the “opposite-sign C7 model” Ali, Mannel, Morozumi, PLB273, 505 (1991) Eigen at FPCP08 349 fb-1 386M 229M

  35. D Mixing (Short-distance Only) PDG06 310 270 From 4 x 4 Unitarity mb’ = 230 GeV x = Dm/G ~ 1 - 3 plausible w/ Sizable (but not huge) CPV in Mixing ~ -15% N.B. SM LD could generate y ~ 1%, x ≈ y [Falk, Grossman, Ligeti, (Nir,) Petrov]

  36. IV. Soaring to the Starry Heavens

  37. On Boxes and Z Penguins Z t, t’

  38. On Boxes and Z Penguins GIM, charm,K small ’/, K  pnn (still waiting) heavy top, sin2f1/b Z dominance for heavy top 1986  2002 Most Flavor/CPV learned from these diagrams

  39. On Boxes and Z Penguins Nondecoupling GIM, charm,K ∵ Large Yukawa! small ’/, K  pnn (still waiting) heavy top, sin2f1/b Bs Z dominance for heavy top AFB 1986  2002 All w/ 3-generations, Just wait if there’s a 4th D ! b’,t’ @ LHC

  40. Large Yukawa!

  41. Normalize by T ~ 100 GeV in SM is common (unique) area of triangle CPV Phase B.A.U. fromCPV in KM? WMAP Too Small in SM Why? Jarlskog Invariant in SM3 (need 3 generation in KM) masses too small !

  42. in SM is common (unique) area of triangle Only fac. 30 in CPV per se CPV Phase B.A.U. fromCPV in KM? Enough CPV? WMAP Too Small in SM If shift by One Generation in SM4(need 3 generation in KM) Providence WSH, arXiv:0803.1234 [hep/ph] Moriond QCD ~ 10+15 Gain Nature would likely use this !? Gain mostly in Large Yukawa Couplings !

  43. b → d b → s Only fac. 30 in CPV per se 10+15 Gain mostly in Large Yukawa Couplings ! ~ 10+15 Gain 10+13

  44. V. Towards Solution of BAU

  45. 4 generations: 3 indep. phases long and short d-s degenerate 2-3-4 generation only ! Effectively 3 generations (on v.e.v. scale) CPV for BAU: 2-3-4 Dominance Jarlskog’87,n generations Jarlskog’85, 3 generations “3 cycles” also Gronau, Kfir, Loewy ’87 J(1,2,3) small

  46. b → d b → s If Vus shrinks to a point Difference in area for b → s Small b → s Quadrangle Area ~ (-)30x b → d Triangle (almost Triangle) 2nd argument that is predominant CPV 4 generations: 3 indep. phases 4 generations: 3 indep. phases

  47. 1st Order Phase Trans. for BAU ? Ran out of time, and knowledge ... • Fok & Kribs: Not possible in 4th generation • Conjecture: Could Strong Yukawa’s do it ? Beyond Unitarity Limit Holdom

  48. VI. Verification @ LHC ? • sin2FBs Confirmation — “Easy” for LHCb • b’, t’ Discovery —Straightforward at LHC

More Related