Celebration of Panofsky Prize - … · Celebration of Panofsky Prize Jonathan Dorfan David Hitlin...

transcript

Celebration of Panofsky Prize

Jonathan Dorfan David Hitlin Fumihiko Takasaki Stephen Olsen

“For leadership in the BaBar and Belle Experiments, which established theviolation of CP symmetry in B-meson decay, and furthered our understanding of

quark mixing and quantum chromodynamics.”

B-factory Science ImpactZoltan Ligeti

Celebration of Dorfan/Hitlin Panofsky Prize

SLAC, January 13, 2016

Personal recollections

• I met Dave when as a postdoc at Caltech (1994–97); was fun to think independentof the available data (then mostly CLEO), imagining the huge future data sets

Some were done by BABAR & Belle: B → Xsγ spectrum and moments, B →Xc`ν moments and |Vcb|, B → Xu`ν hadron mass spectrum, B → D∗∗`ν (LLSW)

Some are still left for the future: B → Xsνν, B → Xcτ ν, etc.

• Discussions with Dave — remember vividly being stunned by deep commentsat a level as if he has been working on the same problem, immediate picture ofdecay properties that he heard about for the first time

• The BABAR workshops took place in my 3rd year at CaltechI went to Rome, Princeton, Paris...

Z L – p. 1

• Once, on a weekend, jump-starting Dave’s porschefrom my crappy nissan sentra

Z L – p. 1

• Once, on a weekend, jump-starting Dave’s porschefrom my crappy nissan sentra

Z L – p. 1

Summary — version one

• Flavor physics was crucial for the development of the standard model(KL → µµ⇒ GIM, charm; εK ⇒ 3rd generation; ∆mK ⇒mc; ∆mB ⇒heavy mt)

• LEP & SLC in the 90s probed the gauge sectorto better than 1%, testing the theory at one-loop level

Nobel Prize, 1999⇒

• Before 1999, ε was the only unambiguous measurement of CP violationCould be fit with KM phase, but O(1) deviations in SM flavor sector were allowed

• BABAR and Belle probed the Yukawa sector much better

Nobel Prize, 2008⇒

• However, O(20%) BSM contributions to FCNC processesstill allowed — lot of room for Belle II & LHCb to find NP

Z L – p. 2

Large impacts on theory

• Flavor physics triggered lots of developments + testing grounds for new methods

CPV motivated: CP invariance of QCD, isospin & SU(3) flavor, Dalitz analyses

FCNC motivated: Heff at high orders, multi-loop perturbative calculations

Heavy quark symmetry: symmetries, HQET at high orders, many applications

Operator product expansions: Develop / use / test expansions to high orders

Soft-collinear effective theory: Started with B → Xsγ and semileptonic

[Developments continue, expect a lot more, data always motivate theory]

BSM: Hundreds of papers motivated by anomalies, elaboration of MFV, GMSB,other frameworks to address lack of NP signals in flavor [all started pre-BABAR]

• Broad impacts: perturbative / nonperturbative / logs vs fixed order / interfacesBroad impacts: (LHC jet vetos, cross sections, jet substructure, EFT for DM signals, ... )

Z L – p. 3

Rough outline

• B physics before BABAR + progress since

• New measurements at BABAR not done / seen beforeNew measurements at BABAR some impacts constraining BSM

• Future: Belle II, LHCb, current anomalies, prospects

Z L – p. 4

Rough outline

• B physics before BABAR + progress since

• New measurements at BABAR not done / seen beforeNew measurements at BABAR some impacts constraining BSM

• Future: Belle II, LHCb, current anomalies, prospects

Disclaimers

I’ll mostly say BABAR throughout this talk — comparable results from Belle

Focus on topics relevant to understand short-distance physics

Thousands of missing references...

Z L – p. 4

Started before BABAR

Discovery of B0–B0 mixing, 1987

• ARGUS: At much higher rate than expected

• Preceded by: discovery of Υ

Preceded by: long B lifetime

• Flurry of theory papers, SM interpretation:

– Probably mt > mW ⇒ no top hadrons– Expect Bs mixing near maximal

• SM predicts large CP violationSM predicts large FCNC B decay rates

Z L – p. 5

Resolving Bs oscillations: CDF, 2006

• Current world averages:

∆md = (0.5055± 0.0020) ps−1 0.4% precision

∆ms = (17.757± 0.021) ps−1 0.1% precision

(Both dominated by LHCb now)

• ∆ms more precise, frequency measurement...

decay time [ps]0 1 2 3 4

Tagged mixed

Tagged unmixed

Fit mixed

Fit unmixed

Z L – p. 6

B lifetime, Vcb — the beginning

• 1983: Long B meson lifetime⇒ |Vcb| is small

(Panofsky prize 2006)

• ARGUS: oscillation & decay timescale comparable: ∆m/Γ ' 0.77 (and ∆Γ� Γ)

• Crucial to allow experimental study of CP violation in B system

• If |Vcb| were as large as |Vus|, probably BABAR & Belle would not have been built

No precision CKM tests? no KM Nobel Prize?

Z L – p. 7

Vub — the beginning

ARGUS, PLB 234 (1990) 409, Received 28 Nov 1989 (201+69 pb−1)

“If interpreted as a signal of b → u cou-pling . . . |Vub/Vcb| of about 10%.”

CLEO, PRL 64 (1990) 16, Received 8 Nov 1989 (212+101 pb−1)

“|Vub/Vcb| . . . is approximately 0.1; itis sensitive to the theoretical model.”

Z L – p. 8

Vcb and Vub since...

• PDG 1988: |Vcb| = 0.046± 0.010, |Vub/Vcb| < 0.2

• Huge experimental and theoretical efforts since late 1980s

• |Vub|: If it were 0, no CP violation in CKM matrix

|Vub|: Dominant uncertainty of the side of the UT opposite to β

|Vub|: Crucial for NP sensitivity (compare “tree” and “loop” constraints)

• |Vcb|: Large part of the uncertainty in the εK constraint

|Vcb|: Large part of the uncertainty in B(K → πνν)

• Same theoretical tools as for inclusive and exclusive rare b → sγ, b → s `+`−,b→ sνν decays, which are sensitive probes of NP

Z L – p. 9

|Vcb| alone excluded GUT models / textures

B → K∗γ and B → Xsγ before BABAR

• CLEO discovered radiative B decays — only bounds on B → K∗`+`− & Xs`+`−

• Series of elaborate calculations of FCNC B decays started about ’87

• Surprisinglyprecise!

Z L – p. 10

B → Xsγ now

• One (if not “the”) most elaborate SM calculationsConstrains many models: 2HDM, SUSY, LRSM, etc.

• NNLO practically completed [Misiak et al., 1503.01789]

4-loop running, 3-loop matching and matrix elements

Scale dependencies significantly reduced ⇒

• B(B → Xsγ)∣∣Eγ>1.6GeV

= (3.36± 0.23)× 10−4

Measurement: (3.43± 0.22)× 10−4

O(104) diagrams, e.g.:

Z L – p. 10

PEP-II and BABAR

Asymmetry is a key to time-dependent measurements

(P. Oddone, Panofsky prize 2005)

The Machine

(APIARY is no more contrived than BaBar for B and B-bar Experiement)

The Physics

[No...][No...]

The BABAR Physics Book

• No executive summary, neither a list of killer apps or gold-plated measurements...

• Serves now as a model for the Belle II Theory Interface Platform

Z L – p. 13

Cites > 500

↑ Unexpected

↓ Expected

CP violation — views around 1999

• Until 1999, ε was the only measured CPV, ε′/ε unambiguously measured in ’99

The SM with 3-generationscould accommodate ε, but ...

[Y. Nir]

• Are there detectable new particles / interactions, which couple to flavor?

Z L – p. 15

Questions around 1999

• Is the SM the only source of CPV? Does the SM fully explain flavor physics?

– CPV in ∆F = 2 only (superweak)? Also in ∆F = 1?

– Are all CPV effects small? Or only small in kaons due to small mixing angles?

– One or more CPV parameters?

– CPV relates to charged currents only? Also in neutral currents?

– Does CPV treat 3rd generation special? Up / down sectors?

– CPV in flavor changing interactions only? EDM searches?

– CPV only in quark sector? Also in lepton sector?

– Find new sources of CPV that could help with baryogenesis?

• It was not known if the SM picture of CPV was even approximately correct

Z L – p. 16

Views of FCNCs around 1999

• Many models with SM-like 1st and 2nd generations, while 3rd is different

• The very high scale sensi-tivity of neutral meson mixingwas known since the 70s

[M. Wise]

While publicity of BABAR relied on CPV, to test the SM, no deep distinction (argM12 or |M12|...)

Z L – p. 17

BABAR novelties

Quantum entanglement in Υ(4S)→ B0B0

• B0B0 pair created in a p-wave (L = 1) evolve coherently and undergo oscillations

Two identical bosons cannot be in an antisymmetric state — if one B decays asa B0 (B0), then at the same time the other B must be B0 (B0)

• EPR effect used for precision physics:

Measure B decays and ∆z

• First decay ends quantum correlation and tags the flavor of the other B at t = t1

Z L – p. 18

One of the cleanest cases: CPV in B → ψKS

• CP violation can be an O(1) effect: sin 2β = 0.691± 0.017

afCP =Γ[B

0(t)→ ψK]− Γ[B

0(t)→ ψK]

Γ[B0(t)→ ψK] + Γ[B

0(t)→ ψK]

= sin 2β sin(∆mt)

• CP violation is large in some B decays — it is small in K decays due to smallCKM elements, not because CP violation is generically small

Z L – p. 19

sin 2β in “penguin modes”

• Huge stakes: robust deviation from expectations would indicate new physics

• Proliferation ofblind analyses...

[ c© Hitlin @ ICHEP 2000]

MeasuringCP violation is no longer auto-

matically interesting — If Sη′K were near

0, we’d have a many σ discovery of NP!

• Some of these measurements willget near current sin 2β levels

sin(2βeff

) ≡ sin(2φe1ff) vs C

CP ≡ -A

Contours give -2∆(ln L) = ∆χ2 = 1, corresponding to 60.7% CL for 2 dof

-0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

sin(2βeff

) ≡ sin(2φe1ff)

CCP ≡ -ACP

b→ccs

η′ K0

H F A GH F A GMoriond 2014

PRELIMINARY

Z L – p. 20

Beyond expectations: α and γ

• ’97 CLEO: B(B → Kπ) > B(B → ππ)⇒ |P/T | >∼ 0.3

Isospin analysis to isolate CPV in ππI=2 state (tree)

• Sometimes lucky with hadronic physics:B(B→ρ0ρ0)B(B→ρ+ρ0)

≈ 0.03 vs. B(B→π0π0)B(B→π+π0)

≈ 0.23

Largest BABAR / Belle difference? (deg)α

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

EPS 15

CKMf i t t e r

(WA)ρρ→B

(WA)ππ→B

(WA)πρ→B

Combined

CKM fit

• γ: interfere b→ cus (B− → D0K−) withγ: interfere b→ ucs (B− → D0K−)

Problem: small ratio, rB = |A(B−→D0K−)||A(B−→D0K−)| ≈ 0.1

• Most precise: D0, D0 → KS π+π−

Both amplitudes CA; integrate over Dalitz plotγ

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

CKM 14

CKMf i t t e r

GLW+ADS

Combined

• Tree-level phase information — became interesting ’03–04 [Richman, Physics Coordinator]

Z L – p. 21

Direct CPV is also O(1)

• Have we seen new physics in CPV?

AK+π− = −0.082± 0.006 (P + T )

AK+π0 = 0.040±0.021 (P+T+C+A+Pew)

• Large difference — small SM sources?

AK+π0 −AK+π− = 0.122± 0.022

(T ) (P )

(C) (Pew)

(Annihilation not shown) [Belle, Nature 452, 332 (2008)]

SCET / factorization predicts: arg (C/T ) = O(ΛQCD/mb) and A+ Pew small

• Large fluctuations? Breakdown of 1/m exp.? Missing something subtle? BSM?

• Can we understand theory well enough, to possibly disprove SM?

• Even larger ACP (Bs → π+K−) = 0.27± 0.04 understood in terms of SU(3)[Grossman, ZL, Robinson, 1308.4143]

Z L – p. 22

D0 –D0 mixing only established in 2007

• Complementary to K, B, Bs

Mixing generated by down quarksor in SUSY by up-type squarks

• Value of ∆m? Not even 2σ now!

Bounds on |q/p| − 1 fairly weakx (%)

−0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

1.2CPV allowed

HFAG-charm

CHARM 2015

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

HFAG-charm

CHARM 2015

•no mixing

• Measurements will remain interesting in the next decade

SUSY: interplay with LHC searches (required degeneracy of squarks)

• Direct CPV: ∆ACP ≡ AK+K− −Aπ+π− = −(8.2± 2.4)× 10−3 (LHCb, 2011)

Current WA: ∆ACP = −(2.5± 1.0)× 10−3 ↖(a stretch in the SM, imho)

• I think we still don’t know how big an effect could (not) be accommodated in SM

Z L – p. 23

Very broad program

• Many fascinating topics I cannot talk about — hundreds of papers on each:

– B → K(∗)`+`− and B → Xs`+`−: first observations to good precision

– Search for decays violating conservation laws

– Search for invisible modes

– Hidden sector searches

– New hadronic states

Z L – p. 24

Very broad program

• Many fascinating topics I cannot talk about — hundreds of papers on each:

– B → K(∗)`+`− and B → Xs`+`−: first observations to good precision

– Search for decays violating conservation laws

– Search for invisible modes

– Hidden sector searches

– New hadronic states

I do not know how many CP violating quantities have been measured, neitherhow many new hadronic states discovered / seen by BABAR

Anyone...?

Z L – p. 24

Putting it all together: the SM CKM fit

• Huge progress compared to pre-BABAR

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1ρ_

(BABAR Physics Book, 1998, p.957)

sm∆ & dm∆

βsin 2

(excl. at CL > 0.95)

< 0βsol. w/ cos 2

luded a

t CL >

1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0η

excluded area has CL > 0.95

EPS 15

CKMf i t t e r

• KM phase is the dominant source of CPV in flavor changing transitions of quarks

Z L – p. 25

Nobel Prize 2008

• Before BABAR we did not know that the CKMpicture was (essentially) correct

O(1) deviations in CP violation were possible

• Nobel Prize is formal recognition that the KMphase is established as the dominant sourceof CPV in flavor changing transitions of quarks

• Confirmation of the SM ⇒ looking for corrections to the SM

• Future: What can flavor physics teach us about beyond SM physics?

Z L – p. 26

New physics in meson mixing

• Meson mixing:

Meson mixing:

Simple parametrization:M12 = MSM

12 (1+he2iσ)

SM: CSM

NP: CNP

What is the scale Λ? How different is CNP from CSM?

If deviation from SM seen⇒ upper bound on Λ

• Assume: (i) 3× 3 CKM matrix is unitaryAssume: (ii) tree-level decays dominated by SM

• Mature topic, conservative picture of future progress

Z L – p. 27

The CKM fit with NP allowed in mixing

• Allowed ρ– η region becomes much larger: [1309.2293]

2003 2013 LHCb 50/fb + Belle II 50/ab

1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

CKMf i t t e r γ

)α(γ

ubV) & α(γ & γ

1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

CKMf i t t e r

ubV) & _(a & a

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Stage II

CKMf i t t e r

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.250.25

Tree-level constraints unaffected, loop-dominated observables sensitive to NP

• Tree-level measurements (Vub, γ) crucial to isolate new physics contributions

Z L – p. 28

New physics in B0d mixing

2003 Now LHCb 50/fb + Belle II 50/ab

dh0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

1.0pvalue

CKMf i t t e r

dh0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

1.0pvalue

CKMf i t t e r

HFAG 2014s

dh0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

1.0pvalue

Stage II

CKMf i t t e r

[color: 2σ, dotted: 3σ] M(d)12 = MSM

12 × (1 + hd e2iσd) [1309.2293]

NP <∼ (many×SM) → NP <∼ (0.3 × SM) → NP <∼ (0.05 × SM)

h '|Cij|2

|V ∗ti Vtj|2

(4.5 TeV

— will reach: Λ ∼

{2.3× 103 TeV

20 TeV (tree + CKM)2 TeV (loop + CKM)

• Right sensitivity to be in the ballpark of gluino masses explored at LHC14

Z L – p. 29

Sensitivity to NP in B0d and B0

s mixing

2003 Now LHCb 50/fb + Belle II 50/ab

dh0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

1.0pvalue

CKMf i t t e r

dh0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

1.0pvalue

CKMf i t t e r

HFAG 2014s

dh0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

1.0pvalue

Stage II

CKMf i t t e r

[color: 2σ, dotted: 3σ] M(q)12 = MSM

12 × (1 + hq e2iσq) [1309.2293]

NP <∼ (many×SM) → NP <∼ (0.3 × SM) → NP < (0.05 × SM)

Sensitivity caught up with that in Bd mixing, and will improve comparably

• MFV and non-MFV regions will have comparable constraints (unlike in the past)

Z L – p. 30

Future

Missed opportunity

• Dave and I were in the small minority convinced >10 yearsago that a super B factory at SLAC should be a part of ahealthy US HEP program

(My first super-BABAR talk in 2001, Dave’s probably 1–2 years earlier)

• “Lower bound” on future progress (only statistics improvements, maximally conservative)

(2009 BABAR data set)(1999 CLEO data set)

∼(Belle II data set)(Belle data set)

∼(LHCb upgrade)

(LHCb 1 fb−1)∼ 50

Increase in sensitivity to high scales 4√

50 ∼ 2.5, similar to LHC 7-8→ LHC 13-14(Expect unexpected progress — data has always motivated new ideas)

Z L – p. 31

Questions for the future

• Will LHC see new particles beyond the Higgs?SUSY, something else, understand in detail?

• Will NP be seen in the quark sector?

Near future: current anomalies have the largestchance to become significant

Several hints of lepton flavor universality violation

With 50/fb LHCb and 50/ab Belle II data,large discovery potential in many modes

• Will NP be seen in the lepton sector (CLFV)?µ→ eγ, µ→ eee, τ → µγ, τ → µµµ, ...?

Current flavor anomalies

1 2 3 4

significance (σ)

h→τμ

B→Ke+e-/B→Kμ+μ-

D0 μμ CP asym

B→D(*)τνBd→μμ

B→K *μ+μ- angular

Bs→ϕμ+μ-

|Vcb| incl/excl

|Vub| incl/excl

ϵ'/ϵ

• No one knows — that’s why it’s research...

Z L – p. 32

The B → D(∗)τ ν story: ∼4σ

• Belle & LHCb results on the anomaly seen by BABAR in R(X) =Γ(B → Xτν)

Γ(B → X(e/µ)ν)

R(D) R(D∗)

BABAR 0.440± 0.058± 0.042 0.332± 0.024± 0.018

Belle 0.375± 0.064± 0.026 0.293± 0.038± 0.015

LHCb 0.336± 0.027± 0.030

Average 0.391± 0.050 0.322± 0.022

SM expectation 0.300± 0.010 0.252± 0.005

Belle II, 50/ab ±0.010 ±0.005R(D)

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

0.5BaBar, PRL109,101802(2012)Belle, arXiv:1507.03233LHCb, arXiv:1506.08614Average

= 1.02χ∆

SM prediction

EPS 2015

) = 55%2χP(

Prel. EPS2015

SM predictions fairly robust: heavy quark symmetry + lattice QCD for R(D) [1503.07237, 1505.03925]

• Tension: R(D(∗)) vs. B(b→ Xτ+ν) = (2.41± 0.23)% (LEP) [ZL, Tackmann]

Tension: SM predicts R(Xc) = 0.223± 0.004 — precisely [Freytsis, ZL, Ruderman]

Need NP at fairly low scales (leptoquarks, W ′, etc.), likely visible in LHC Run 2

• Soon: LHCb result with hadronic τ decays, measure R(D), maybe Λb decay

Z L – p. 33

What are the largest useful data sets?

• Which measurements will remain far from being limited by theory uncertainties?

– For γ ≡ φ3, theory limit only from higher order electroweak

– Bs,d → µµ, B → µν and other leptonic decays (lattice QCD, [double] ratios)

– Probably CP violation in D mixing (firm up theory)

– Ad,sSL (can get around exp. syst. limits?)

– CLFV, EDM, etc.

• Crude guess: until∼102× Belle II & LHCb upgrade data, sensitivity to high scaleswould improve

• In some decay modes, even in 2030 we’ll have: (exp. bound)/

SM >∼ 103

E.g., B → τ+τ−, e+e− — can build models... I hope to be wrong!

Z L – p. 34

Conclusions — have come a long way

• Flavor physics probes scales�1 TeV; sensitivity limited by statistics, not theory

• New physics in most FCNC processes may still be ∼ 20% of the SM, or more

• Few tensions with the SM; some of these (or others) may become decisive

• Precision tests of SM will improve by 101 – 104 in many channels (CLFV)

I think Mu2e is fantastic — good luck, Dave!

• Many interesting theoretical questions, relevant for experimental sensitivity

• I cannot imagine a scenario in which there is no complementarity between flavorand LHC searches of new physics, and hopefully understanding it

Z L – p. 35

Bonusl slides

The big question: where is new physics?

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

Tevatron

proton decay

flavor (quarks)

Experimental reach (with significant simplifying assumptions)

log(Energy[GeV])

dark matter

mu to e

neutrino propertiesE

see−

Dashed arrows show anticipated improvements in next generation of experiments

– Proton decay already ruled out simplest version of grand unification

– Neutrino experiments hope to probe see-saw mechanism

– Flavor physics probes TeV-scale new physics with even SM-like suppressions

– LHC was in a unique situation that a discovery was virtually guaranteed (known since 80’s)

Z L – p. i

Push Bs,d→ µ+µ− to theory limit

• For Bd, CMS (LHCb) expect ultimately 15–20% (30–40%) precision at SM level

SM uncertainty ' (2%)⊕ f2Bq⊕ CKM [Bobeth, FPCP’15]

]9−[10)−µ+µ→0BB(0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

LlnΔ2−

]9−[10)−µ+µ→s0BB(

0 2 4 6 8

LlnΔ2−

]9−[10)−µ+µ→s0BB(

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

]9−[1

0)− µ

+ µ→

68.27%

95.45%

99.73% 5−10

7−10

9−10

×2−1

CMS and LHCb (LHC run I)

[LHCb & CMS, 1411.4413]

• Theoretically cleanest |Vub| I know, only isospin: B(Bu → `ν)/B(Bd → µ+µ−)

• A decay with mass-scale sensitivity (dim.-6 operator) that competes w/ K → πνν

Z L – p. ii

Bound on vector-like fermions

• Do not make hierarchy problem worse; vector-like fermions can Yukawa couple tothe SM fermions via the Higgs in 11 models (⇒ FCNC Z couplings) [Ishiwata, ZL, Wise]

ModelQuantum Present bounds on M/TeV and λiλj for each ij pair

numbers ij = 12 ij = 13 ij = 23

I (1, 1,−1) 310a 7.0b 7.4c

II (1, 3,−1) 220a 4.9b 5.2c

III (1, 2,−1/2) 310a 7.0b 7.4c

IV (1, 2,−3/2) 310a 7.0b 7.4c

∆F = 1 ∆F = 2 ∆F = 1 ∆F = 2 ∆F = 1 ∆F = 2

V (3, 1,−1/3) 66d [100]e {42, 670}f 30g 25h 21i 6.4j

VI (3, 1, 2/3) 3.9k {42, 670}f — 25h — 6.4j

VII (3, 3,−1/3) 47d [71]e {47, 750}f 21g 28h 15i 7.2j

VIII (3, 3, 2/3) 66d [100]e {47, 750}f 30g 28h 21i 7.2j

IX λ(u)}(3, 2, 1/6)

3.9k 67l — 35h — 9.1j

IX λ(d) 66d [100]e {59, 950}f 30g 35h 18m 9.1j

X (3, 2, 7/6) 3.9k 48l — — — —

XI (3, 2− 5/6) 66d [100]e {42, 670}f 30g 25h 18m 6.4j

Strongest bounds from large variety of processes: a) µ to e conversion; b) τ → eπ; c) τ → µρ; d) K → πνν; e) KL →

µ+µ−; f)K mixing; g)B → πµ+µ−; h)Bd mixing; i)B → Xs`+`−; j)Bs mixing; k)D → µ+µ−; l)Dmixing;m)Bs → µ+µ−

Z L – p. iii

Vector-like fermions — future bounds

• Planned experiments increase sensitivity in mass scales by factors of 2.5− 7

ModelQuantum Future bounds on M/TeV and λiλj for each ij pair

numbers ij = 12 ij = 13 ij = 23

I (1, 1,−1) 2000a 19b 21c

II (1, 3,−1) 1400a 13b 15c

III (1, 2,−1/2) 2000a 19b 21c

IV (1, 2,−3/2) 2000a 19b 21c

∆F = 1 ∆F = 2 ∆F = 1 ∆F = 2 ∆F = 1 ∆F = 2

V (3, 1,−1/3) 280d {100, 1000}e 60f 61g 39h 14i

VI (3, 1, 2/3) 8.3j {100, 1000}e — 61g — 14i

VII (3, 3,−1/3) 200d {110, 1100}e 42f 68g 28h 16i

VIII (3, 3, 2/3) 280d {110, 1100}e 60f 68g 39h 16i

IX λ(u)}(3, 2, 1/6)

8.3j 67k — 86g — 20i

IX λ(d) 280d {140, 1400}e 60f 86g 39h 20i

X (3, 2, 7/6) 8.3j 48k — — — —

XI (3, 2− 5/6) 280d {100, 1000}e 60f 61g 39h 14i

Expected best sensitivity from large variety of processes: a) µ to e conversion; b) τ → eπ; c) τ → µρ; d) K → πνν; e) K

mixing; f) Bd → µ+µ−; g) Bd mixing; h) Bs → µ+µ−; i) Bs mixing; j) D → µ+µ−; k) D mixing.

Z L – p. iv

A super-B best buy list

• Want observables: (i) sensitive to different NP, (ii) measurements can improve byan order of magnitude, and (iii) not limited by hadronic uncertainties:

• Difference of CP asymmetries, SψKS − SφKS• γ from CP asymmetries in tree-level decays vs. γ from SψKS and ∆md/∆ms

• Search for charged lepton flavor violation, τ → µγ, τ → 3µ, and similar modes

• Search for CP violation in D0 −D0 mixing

• The CP asymmetry in semileptonic decay, ASL

• The CP asymmetry in the radiative decay, SK∗γ

• Search for not yet seen FCNC decays and refinements: b→ sνν, B → τ ν, etc.

• Any one of these measurements has the potential to establish new physics

Z L – p. v

Some theory challenges

• New methods & ideas: recall that the best α and γ measurements are in modesproposed in light of Belle & BABAR data (i.e., not in the BABAR Physics Book)

– Better SM upper bounds on Sη′KS − SψKS, SφKS − SψKS, and Sπ0KS− SψKS

– (and similarly in Bs decays)

– How big can CP violation be in D0 –D0 mixing (and in D decays) in the SM?

– Better understanding of semileptonic form factors; bound on SKSπ0γ in SM?

– Inclusive & exclusive semileptonic decays

– Many lattice QCD calculations (operators within and beyond SM)

– Factorization at subleading order (different approaches), charm loops

– Can direct CP asymmetries in nonleptonic modes be understood enough to– make them “discovery modes”? [SU(3), the heavy quark limit, etc.]

• We know how to make progress on some + discover new frameworks / methods?

Z L – p. vi

Charged lepton flavor violation

• SM predicted lepton flavor conservation with mν = 0

Given mν 6= 0, no reason to impose it as a symmetry

• If new TeV-scale particles carry lepton number(e.g., sleptons), then they have their own mixingmatrices⇒ charged lepton flavor violation

• Many interesting processes:µ→ eγ, µ→ eee, µ+N → e+N (′), µ+e− → µ−e+

τ → µγ, τ → eγ, τ → µµµ, τ → eee, τ → µµe

τ → µee, τ → µπ, τ → eπ, τ → µKS, eN → τN

B(µ→ eγ) ∼ αm4ν

∼ 10−52

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

• Next 10–20 years: 102–105 improvement; any signal would trigger broad program

Z L – p. vii

Electric dipole moments and SUSY

• SM + mν: CPV can occur in: (i) quark mixing; (ii) lepton mixing; and (iii) θQCD

Only observed δKM 6= 0, baryogenesis implies there must be more

• Neutron EDM bound: “The strong CP problem”, θQCD < 10−10 — axion?θQCD is negligible for CPV in flavor-changing processes

• EDMs from CKM: vanish at one- and two-loopEDMs from CKM: large suppression at three-loop level

• E.g., SUSY: quark and lepton EDMs can be generated at one-loop

Generic prediction (TeV-scale, no small param’s) above cur-rent bounds; if mSUSY ∼ O(10 TeV), may still discover EDMs

• Expected 102–103 improvements: complementary to LHCDiscovery would give (rough) upper bound on NP scale

Z L – p. viii

LBL Contributions

ConceptionDesign

Fabrication

CommissioningOperations/Calibration

Reco/Simulation

Analysis

upgrade

LBNL BaBar:

Doing the Physics from Start to Finish

B→VV

B→φK

B→Ds π

B→ρπ

CPT,∆Γ

New computing model

Alignment

Trigger

P. Oddone, Panofsky prize 2005

c© R. Cahn

Celebration of Panofsky Prize - … · Celebration of Panofsky Prize Jonathan Dorfan David Hitlin...

Documents