to superb or not to superb ? francesco forti infn-pisa ifae, torino, 14-16 aprile 2004 babar tm and...

33
To SuperB or not to SuperB ? Francesco Forti INFN-Pisa IFAE, Torino, 14-16 Aprile 2004 Babar TM and © Nelvana

Upload: rose-ella-eaton

Post on 03-Jan-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

To SuperB or not to SuperB ?

Francesco FortiINFN-Pisa

IFAE, Torino, 14-16 Aprile 2004

BabarTM and © Nelvana

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 2

That is the SuperQuestion !

• What: – PEP-II/Babar and KEK-B/Belle operate currently at a

luminosity 1034 cm-2s-1 with – Integrated sample of about 1ab-1 for each machine by 2009– Upgrade ideas/proposals to increase luminosity by a factor 10 to 100,

for a sample size of 5-50 ab-1.• Why:

– High precision Standard Model Unitarity Triangle (UT) measurements– New Physics (NP) contributions to rare decays B.R. & ACP

– Distinctive patterns may discriminate between models• How:

– Different upgrade scenarios are being considered– Detector and machine complexity/cost undergo a phase transition

around a few x 1035 cm-2s-1 mainly because of backgrounds• When:

– in the era of LHCb, BTeV and LHC experiments.– Competitiveness and complementarity with hadron machines is a real

issue.

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 3

The Physics Menu• UT sides measurements

– From (semi)leptonic decays, inclusive or exclusive

– |Vub|, |Vcb|, |Vtd|• UT angles precision measurements

– bs penguin transitions very sensitive

– CPV Asymmetries in BKs, Ks0 compared with sin2.– Sin2 measurement with B and ; direct CPV– measurement with BDK or similar channels.

• Rare decays– Exclusive and inclusive b sBFs, direct asymmetries, photon

helicities– Exclusive and inclusive b sl+l- BFs, AT, AL, AFB, CP asymmetries– B decays to states with large missing energy, such as B(d,s) +-, B

K(*), b s, B D(*), B XC

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 4

NP in B physics

• In most cases the rates, particularly in hadronic decays, suffer from large theory uncertainties and not considered suitable for NP studies.

• The best NP observables in B physics seem to be:– Time-dependent CPV asymmetries in bsss(bar), bs

dd(bar), and bs– Direct CP asymmetries in some cases (e.g. b->s/d-

maybe)– Ratio of rates (maybe)– bsl+l-: CP asym., Forward-Backward asymmetry & its CP

asym.– Rate of very rare decays Bl+l-– BXrate and polarization– Other near zeros: e.g. CPV in mixing

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 5

Why – The Physics Case

• Find NP effects in flavour physics.– Strong endorsement from the B experts in the theory

community for the potential of direct NP studies with super b-factories.

– What is the scaleof NP ?

• NP is 1 TeV fromhierarchy problem.

• …But NP >1000TeVfrom flavor bounds.

– Model dependanceis unavoidable.

– Theoretical uncertaintycan be crucial.

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 6

Neubert

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 7

Ingredients of the physics case

• Experimental sensitivities for B experiments (2 to 50 ab-1)– Statistical and systematical

• Theoretical uncertainties of the reference points based on SM. – Given these uncertainties, is there still any sensitivity to

NP? • Comparison with sensitivities from the planned hadron

collider experiments. – Can the super-B measurements compete and/or provide

better information than Hadron experiments?• If possible, range of expected (NP-SM) values for these

observables given the physics landscape in the LHC era (2010-2012?). – Very hard to do. What changes if NP is (or is not)

discovered at LHC ?

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 8

Sources

• A lot of activity has been going on in the past couple of years– Study groups, Workshops, Theorists involvement– Many detailed, in-depth studies.

• Try to summarize numbers and conclusions from– Several Belle workshopsbelle.kek.jp/workshops

– Two Babar workshopswww.slac.stanford.edu/BFROOT/www/Organization/1036_Study_Group

– Hawaii joint workshopwww.phys.hawaii.edu/~superb04

• In the following tables:– several empty spaces

• Different assumptions, missing studies, etc.– LHCb and BTeV numbers always come from their

presentations – Updating…

Standard Model ReferenceObservable SM: reference point SM: Expected range

Time dependent CP Measurementsbsss(bar) & bsdd(bar) & bs

S(Bs) ~Sin2 |sin2S|<0.25

S(B’Ks) ~Sin2 |sin2S|<0.3

S(Bs ) ~Sin2 |sin2S|<0.2

S(BK*0 (with K*s ) ~2(ms/mb) Sin2 |S|<0.1 (?)

bs/dbs/dl+l-): Rates and Acp(dir)

Acp(b->s Acp(b->d 0.6% [-16%] (?)

(BK*+ (BK*0 sum) ~0 (isospin breaking) 5 to 10% (?)

(bd(bs |Vtd/Vts| (from mixing)

cp(Bs l+l-)

cp(Bd l+l-)

<0.5% (0.05% for K* l+l-)~(4.4+/-4 )%

B(BKB(BKe+e-) 1 1.0+/-0.0001

AFB(K*l+l-):s0(zero crossing) 0.162+/-0.008 (5%)

AFB(K*l+l-):CP asymmetry ~0

CPV in mixing: (|q/p|) ~1

Very rare decays: B B

XRate and polarization ~2%

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 10

Theoretical uncertainties

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 11

Unitarity Triangle - Sides

Unitarity Triangle - Sides e+e- Precision 1 YearPrecision

Measurement Goal 3/ab 10/ab 50/ab LHCb BTeV

Vub (inclusive) syst =5-6% 2% 1.3%

Vub (exclusive) () syst=3% 5.5% 3.2%

Vcb (inclusive)

Vcb (exclusive)

fb (B) SM: ~5x10-7

fb B(Btn) SM: ~5x10-5 3.3 6 13fb to

Vtd /Vts ( Theory 12% ~3% ~1%

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 12

Unitarity Triangle - Angles

Unitarity Triangle - Angles e+e- Precision 1 Year Precision

Measurement 3/ab 10/ab 50/ab LHCb BTeV

SBR’s isospin) 6.7 3.9 2.1 - -

() (Isospin, Dalitz) (syst 3) 3, 2.3 1.6, 1.3 1, 0.6 2.5 -5 4

() (penguin, isospin, stat+syst) 2.9 1.5 0.72

(J/ KS) (all modes) 0.3 0.17 0.09 0.57 0.49

(BD(*)K) (ADS) 2-3 ~10 <13

(all methods) 1.2-2

Theory: ~5%, ~ 1% ~0.1%

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 13

CP Violation in bs penguins

Rare Decays – New Physics – CPV e+e- Precision 1 Year Precision

Measurement Goal 3/ab 10/ab 50/ab LHCb BTeV

S(B0fKS) SM: <0.25 16% 8.7% 3.9% 16%? 7%?

S(B0KS+KL) SM:<0.25

S(B'Ks )SM:<0.3 5.7% 3% 1%

S(BKs)SM:<0.2 8.2% 5% 4% (?)

S(BKspg) SM:<0.1 11.4% 6% 4% (?)

ACP (bs SM: <0.6% 2.4% 1% 0.5% (?)

ACP(BK*) SM: <0.5% 0.59% 0.32% 0.14% - -

CPV in mixing (|q/p|) <0.6% X X

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 14

More Rare decays precision

Rare Decays – New Physics e+e- Precision 1 Year Precision

Measurement Goal 3/ab 10/ab 50/ab LHCb BTeV

bd / (bs - -

B(BD(*)tn) SM: : 8x10-3 10.2% 5.6% 2.5% - -

B(Bsnn) (K-,0, K*-,0) SM:Theory ~5%1 excl: 4x10-6

~3 - -

Binvisible) <2x10-6 <1x10-6 <4x10-7 - -

Bd ) - - 1/2 1/2

Bd ) - - - -

) <10-8 - -

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 15

bsl+l- precision

New Physics – Kl+l-, sl+l- e+e- Precision 1 YearPrecision

Measurement Goal 3/ab 10/ab 50/ab LHCb BTeV

(BK/(BKe+e-) SM: 1 ~8% ~4% ~2% X X

ACP(BK* +-) (all) (high mass)

SM: < 0.05%

~6%

~12%

~3%

~6%

~1.5%

~3%

~1.5%

~3% (?)

~2%

~4% (?)

AFB(BK*l+l-) : s0

AFB(BK*+-) : ACP

SM: ±5%

~20% ~9% 9% ~12%

AFB(Bs+-) : ŝ0 27% 15% 6.7%

AFB (Bs+-) : C9 , C10 36-55% 20-30% 9-13%

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 16

Bd- unitarity m(Bs) B->Ks B->Ms indirect CP

b->s direct CP

mSUGRA closed small small small small small

SU(5) SUSY, GUT + R

(degenerate)closed large small small small small

SU(5) SUSY, GUT + R

(nondegenerate)closed small large large large small

U(2) Flavor symmetry large large large large large sizable

Unitarity triangle Rare decay

Pattern of Deviation from SM Predictions

• In most cases SM predictions are sufficiently under control as to motivate these highly sensitive measurements

• NP effects on B and physics are model-dependent– In this context, model-dependent is not a dirty word– In fact, the pattern of New Physics effects in the flavor sector is

diagnostic of the type of SUSY-breaking

Y.Okada

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 17

The international scene

• KEK-B/Belle: A letter of intent has been put forward in February 2004 for a Super KEK-B machine and a Super Belle detector.– Luminosity ranges from 1x1035 to 5x1035

– Detector upgrades include:

• PEP-II/Babar: A “Roadmap committee” is preparing a report summarizing discussions and studies done over the past couple of years. – Current direction is to propose a “upgradable platform”:

• Start with 2x1035 machine and detector, but already include an upgrade path to 7-8x1035 for the 10ab-1/year goal.

– Detector upgrades include

– Base detector possible with current technology, while full upgrade will require significant R&D

•Silicon striplets•Small cell drift chamber•Pure CsI calorimeter endcap

•Silicon striplets thin pixels•Small cell drift chamber all silicon tracker•Pure CsI calorimeter endcap Liquid

Xenon or LSO xtals

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 18

The OSBF Principle

• a.k.a. “One Super B Factory”• It is unlikely that the HEP community has enough

resources to build more than one Super B Factory– Encourage collaboration between Babar and Belle

communities (and others) to join efforts– Joint workshop in January 2004 (Hawaii), second of a

series, more to comehttp://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~superb04/

• Approval process lengthy– Connected to global funding political decisions:

• ITER, NLC– Unlikely to have serious funds before 2008– Only if there is overall community agreement and

support

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 19

Conclusion and outlook

• A 10ab-1/year Super B Factory has a real discovery potential– NP effects in loops are significant and accessible– In the LHC era

• The LHC experiments will measure the NP masses• The B experiments will measure couplings

– Precision UT measurements can help sort out things• It is fully competitive with LHCB/BTeV

– No Bs, but same or better precision with almost anything else

– Very clean sample (including recoil technique)– Accessibility of channels with 0

• Are there enough resources ?– Need to design new collaboration form between Belle and

Babar– External input/additions are welcome

--- Detailed slides on physics processes ---

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 21

Exclusive Charmless Decays

BF measurement S/B

tot) 500fb-1

tot) 10ab-1

B B ll >10 ~14% ~4%

B B ll ~4 ~15% ~5%

B B ll ~2.5 ~16% ~6%

B B ll >10 ~11% ~3%

B B ll ~2 ~15% ~6%

*Assumes negligible systematic error from FF and uses rough estimate of exp. syst. error

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 22

Bt+nut

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 23

Toy MC Study for 2

0.5 ab-1 1 ab-1

2 ab-1 10 ab-1

0 0 0 0

6

,

2.5,1.5 10

BF B B

Assumes

BABAR meas

Scaled from present efficiencies/backgrounds

Isospin analysis in

channel

BABAR Long-Range Task

Force

BF(B0π0 π0) = 2.1 ± 0.6 ± 0.3 x 10-6

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 24

Measurement

sin2 in BD0K (GW, ADS)

Recent developments• BD0

(CP)K

• BD0(non-CP)K, D0K

sin(2+) • B0D(*(*))(*)

• B0DK• D0K0

• Use all methods

– Will measure to ~ 2° (%) (stat) or less at 10 ab-1

– Only ambiguity is left• Excluded theoretically?

– The error is so small that ambiguities won’t matter

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 25

Error on angles

0.5 ab-1

5 ab-1

50 ab-1

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 26

Intriguing Hint from Penguins?

Present average for

.b sss0.24 0.15

~3.1 sigma below charmonium

modesIf central value

remains as is, this would become ~5

sigma by 2005

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 27

Error projection for ACP

0SK

* *D D0,SK

0/ SJ K

10-2 10-1 1 10 10210-2

10-1

1.02009

Integrated Luminosity

Err

or

on

ACP 2006

PEP-II, KEKB Super B-Factory >2010

sin 2

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 28

Use TDCP to probe the helicity structure: (but limited to K*0Ks ~

David Atwood, Michael Gronau, Amarjit Soni (1997)

PRL 79 ,185(1997)

W

t

b s

* 2 sin 2 0sK

b

mS

m

*LK

mixing

CPfA

CPfA

*RK

Helicity Flip Suppressed by ms/mb

Expect:

0.1 ab-1 2 ab-1 5 ab-1 10 ab-1 50 ab-1 LHCB BTEV

S(Ks 0.6 0.14 0.09 (0.12)

0.06 0.04(?) X X

Soni: ms is the “current” mass: ms ~150 +/- 50 MeV), mb ~5 GeV

Theory error ~0.01 to 0.02 (??) (~30% of SM value of S)

~0.042B0 (bar)

B0

The dominant SM amplitude gives: bsL, b(bar)sR

NP can modify helicity structure: e.g. LR symmetry, higgs in loops

BKs

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 29

Recoil Physics

The final efficiency is ~0.4% (per bbbar pair) ~4000 B/fb-1 (at 30% purity) 1500 B0/fb-1

2500 B+/fb-1

> 107 recoil Bs in 10ab-1

Recoil cinematics well knownRecoil flavor and charge is determinedEvent closure needed with neutrinos

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 30

BD

• Sensitive to NP

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 31

SM:S0 NNLO error = 5%

S0 = 0.162+/-0.008 ~ C7/C9

In SM: ACPFB~ 0

Determination of sign of AFB very important.

cp(Bs l+l-) SM: <0.5% (0.05% for K* l+l)

cp(Bd l+l-) SM: -~(4.4+/-4 )%

B(BsB(Bse+e-) SM: ~1

AFB(K*l+l-):s0(zero crossing) SM predicts with ~5% accuracy

AFB(K*l+l-):CP asymmetry Very small in SM

NP observables in s/d l+l- decay

In dilepton rest frameNF = when l+ along b dirNB = when l+ opposite b dir

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 32

Universal extra dimension effects

IFAE, April 14, 2004 F.Forti - To SuperB or not to SuperB ? 33

--- END ---