slides - MIT

New physics discoveries @ the quark & lepton luminosity frontier From precision tests to LHC discoveries & back

Gilad Perez 7(50*

Weizmann Institute

 [O7HY[PJSLZ 5\JSLP0U[LYUH[PVUHS*VUMLYLUJL 1\S`¶ [O4HZZHJO\ZL[[Z0UZ[P[\[LVM;LJOUVSVN`*HTIYPKNL4(====== 2 and < 0 or ind vice versa afΓsd = adir + a , aind = am + ai Γsd f

sign(Γss ) = −sign(Γdd ),

and

In this case still expect |!s |, |!d | = O(1), and |φ12 | ! 0.01 at CDF (due to cut on proper decay time):

Γdd Γss ultimately, will be> able to constrain |!s |,ind |!d |(π by sums over exclusive ind dir − and 2 and < 0 or ind vice versa afΓsd = adir + a , aind = am + ai Γsd f

ould require

sign(Γss ) = −sign(Γdd ),

and

In this case still = O(1), and |φ12 | ! 0.01 0.6expect |!s |, |!d |Comparable the �K at CDF (due to cut on proper decayto time):

bound! Γss part needs to be controlled. Dispersive

Γdd ultimately, will0.4 be> able to constrain |!s |,ind |!d |(π by sums over exclusive ind dir − and O (10 TeV) [66, 67] are a clear manifestation of the RS little CP oblem can be amended by various alignment mechanisms [101, 103, 104, 176, the bounds from the up sector, especially from CPV in the D system [18, 23], nt. Constraints from ∆F = 1 processes (in either the down sector [66, 67, t → cZ [189]) are not included here, since they are weaker in general, and e contributions can be suppressed (see [186, 187, 188]) due to incorporation (constraining alignment) mmetry [190]. ing to combine measurements from the down and the up sector in order to unds (as done for supersymmetry above). Using K and D mixing, Eq. (86), the RS framework is [23]

30% contributionsinvolving [4, 5] The in the Bfirst system. Theapplies analytical to expressions in squark bound the up doublets, while5D to t d (K)third min minthe max ing (60%) ∆F of=the1SMprocesses the generation (Sec. 5.2.2), the M following Observable or fQ.second G [TeV] 3 doublets, average of the doublet & singlet massysplitting the table have roughly a squark 10% accuracy over 1TeV; the relevant range of parameters. Contributions IR Higgs β = 0 IR Higgs β=0 from scalar exchange, either Higgs [178, 182] or radion [183], are not included, since these are LLLL 2 2 max max doublet mass splitting and the singlet mass splitting. The range CPV-Bd 12fQ3 12fQ3 fQ3 = 0.5 fQ3 = 0.5 in ea more model dependent and known to be weaker [184] in the IR-localized Higgs case. LLRR min min 42 CPV-B 4.2/y5D 2.4/y5D y5D = 1.4 y5D = 0.82 Constraints from �� /�K have a different parameter dependence than the �K constraints. dLLLL 2 2 0.73fQ3 0.73f no bound no boundWe ca corresponds to When values of with theCPV-D phase zero maximal. Q3 and Explicitly, for β = 0, the �� /�K bound reads MGmin = 1.2y5D TeV. combined the �K LLRR between min min CPV-D 4.9/y5D 2.4/y5D y5D = 1.6 y5D = 0.8 min constraint, we find MGmin = 5.5 TeV with a corresponding y5D = 4.5 [173]. 2 2 max max �LLLL 7.9f 7.9f f = 0.62 f = 0.62 K models of Q3 alignment: Q3 Q3 Q3 The constraints summarized in Tablefollowing 7 and the contributions to the neutron EDM which conclusions concerning LLRR min �K 49/y5D 24/y5D above (142) y5D = 8 generically require MKK > O (10 TeV) [66, 67] are a clear manifestation of the RS little CP problem. The problem can be amended by various alignment mechanisms [101, 103, 104, 176, Table 7: Most significant flavor constraints RS framework from [78]). Csaki, Falkowskiin&the Weiler, PRD (09);(taken Gedalia, et. al (09).Th 185]. In this case, the bounds from the up sector, especially from CPV in themin D system [18, 23], 1. The mass splitting the first two squark doublet generations of y5D andbetween fQmax correspond to M = 3 TeV. The bounds are obtained assuming m KK become important. Constraints from ∆F = 1 processes (in either the down sector3 [66, 67, CPV phases and g = 3. Entries marked ‘above (142)’ imply that for MKK = 3 TeV 186, 187, 188] or t → cZ [189]) are not included here, since they are weaker in general, s∗and outsideof the order perturbative range. For one, the bound is about 2 − 3 times strong furthermore, these contributions can be suppressed14%. (see [186, 187,phases 188]) due to incorporation of a custodial symmetry [190]. It is interesting to combine measurements from the down and the up sector in order to the D number of Eq. KK levels, NKK , by the the requirement that Yukawa 2above). IR interactions (bulk) Higgsare pertu obtain general bounds (as done for supersymmetry K and mixing, 2. In theUsing simplest models of(86), alignment, mass splitting between th KK KK Q below the cutoff of the theory, Λ . In addition, it is bounded from below in order to 3 5D the constraint on the RS framework is [23] 5D range for y is obtained (see e.g. [104, 17 for the large top mass. Hence the following 5D 2 should be smaller than about four percent. mKK > 2.1fQ3generations TeV , (144) Q3 1 2π 1 4π √ � the y5D case � for brane Higgs ; � y5D � √ for bulk Higgs , for a maximal phase, where fQ3 is typically in the range of 0.4- 2. We thus learn that 2 NKK 2 NKK where the third generation doublet is maximally localized on the IR brane (fully composite) is √ 3. second (stronger) bound can be avoided in more mo excluded, if we insist on mKK = 3 TeV, as allowed byThe electroweak precision tests (see e.g. [191]). where we use the rescaling y → y 1 + β, which producescomplicated the correct β → ∞ lim 5D 5D KK The bounds derived from ∆F = 1 and ∆F = 2 processes involving thirdsubtleties generation andthe avoids in the β = 0 case. are [58, 59] 29[10 With anarchical 5D Yukawa matrices, an RS residual little singlet CP problemsector. remains where holomorphic zeros suppress the mixing in the

Randall-Sundrum

Generic

Robust

m

> 2.1f

m

TeV ,

√

>

4.9 (2.4) TeV (144) y

ase, where f is typically in the range of 0.4- 2. We thus learn that the case eneration doublet is maximally localized on the IR brane (fully composite) is sist on m = 3 TeV, as allowed by electroweak precision tests (see e.g. [191]). ved from ∆F = 1 and ∆F = 2 processes involving the third generation

n o r t a v e T e h t News from ) b C H L e h t m o fr y r a (& prelimin

!"#$%&'()*+,-'*./##-0+/ !

!1

!

!1

!

! "#$%#&'()#$"# *+,-&.+,/$+/$%+0+/1$('+/1$ 1 1 ¯ B2-(*/.2 ψφ ← B0)-'2"#$%&'()*+,-'*./##-0+/'%3'.-#"4-50%&"('! s → ψφ s

" #   " #  & {  " #  " #  #

%$3 $%&&'($%íí í$/(%4#)$,5$#*#/.'$6+.7$.6,$% 7&8),/'$8#9&:+/1$ '#%+-#;.,/+9&--:$&/8$;),8(9+/1$.6,$%(,/'$,5$.7#$'&%#$97&)1# í! 3

The quantity of most interest to theory is the weak phase φ

al-meson (90)] given byφ1 is a weak phase contributing 2 , φM − φdecays Γ and φ[Eq. M +φ 1 − φis 1 (where b

2 ad 2 + (0.494 ± a = (0.506 ± 0.043) 'P |P # = |p| =0. SL SL known. H L the asymmetry requires, however, that |Γ12 /M12−| |q| is T

�

�

Γ12 !! ∗ 2 (99) The above result should be interpr SL = distance physics that is difficult to calculate. V V ! sin(φM − φΓ ). d,s m cb From now on we assume that CPT is conserved. cd,s −2,−4 M c rward the various asymmetries in terms of the tion theoretical 12 with three other measurements: (i ♦ to evaluate ! ! − !!

!

SM (GIM): aSL ∼

�

�

= O 10 ∗ 2 Im V V m tb tonic 3. In the approximations that single weak Thethat realare andoften imaginary parts of thea eigenvalues of corre td,s asymmetry, dominated byHphase the B here. do so phase with approximations relevant toonly theoryWe is will the weak φM − φΓ . ItsWextraction from d −3

ments, aSL =respectively. −(4.7 ±|λ4.6) ×mass 10anddiff[3 i(δf +φ sent masses and /M decay-widths, The f ) ,their |a |e and that |Γ | = 0, we obtain | = 1 t f 12 12 f measured , that |Γasymmetries. /M | is known. This quantity depends on long 12 12 specific asymmetry measured in the tim difference ∆Γ are defined0 as follows: µ+ Ds−with X and its CP conjugate, to a (88)] final isCP eigenstate f B[Eq. eigenvalue ηf = ±1a try in charged meson decays [Eq. given by s → (93)] o calculate.

1.5) × 10−3 [4]; and (iii) the measurem 31 ∆m ≡ M − M ,

∆Γ ≡ Γ − Γ .

cently the DØ Collaboration reported a measurement of other ++ −− the like-sign dimuon charge asymmetry in semileptonic b tribu N − N b −3 b b a ≡ = −(9.57±2.51±1.46)×10 SL ++ −− decay with improved precision excee Nb + N[1], b much ++ −− Nb −where Nb N ++ is the number of b¯b →−3µ+ µ+ X events We b (-0.787 ± 0.172 (stat) ± 0.093 (syst) )% b aSL ≡ ++ = −(9.57±2.51±1.46)×10 , (1) abov Nb +similarly Nb−− for Nb−− ). This is Penny; 3.2σD0,from the q See talk result by KASPER, 1106.6308. � b �SM +0.5 −4 ing p SM prediction, a = (−2.3 ) × 10 [2]. A ++ + + −0.6 SL . Lenz & Nierste, where Nb is the number of b¯b0JHEP → µ(07).µ0 X events (and Tevatron both Bd and Bs are produced, and contr henc −− similarly for Nb ). This result is 3.2σ from the quoted tudes is�a blinear of the two asymmetries [1] �SM combination +0.5 −4 resul SM prediction, aSL = (−2.3−0.6 ) × 10 [2]. At the 0 Sψ. Tevatron both Bda0 bSL and produced, hence±abSL =B (0.506 0.043) adSLand + (0.494 0.043) of asSL s are± is B a slinear combination of the two asymmetries [1] Nir & Raz, PRL trivia Grossman, (06). Bd ↔ Ne The above result should be interpreted in con b d s aSL = (0.506tion ± 0.043) aSL +other (0.494measurements: ± 0.043) aSL . (i)(2) with three the Bobser d sem tonic asymmetry, dominated by the B factory mea The above ments, result should interpreted −3 adSL = be −(4.7 ± 4.6) ×in10conjunc[3]; (ii) the tion with threespecific other measurements: (i) the in Bdthe semilepasymmetry measured time dependen tonic asymmetry, by the B factory measure0 dominated + − s B → µ D X and its CP conjugate, a ± s s fs = −(1.7 d −3 wher ments, aSL =1.5) −(4.7 ±−34.6) 10 (iii) [3];the(ii)measurements the flavor of ∆Γ × 10 [4];×and specific asymmetry measured in the time dependence ofpart tion S (the CP asymmetry in the CP-even of th ψφ 0 + − s done Bs → µ Ds Xfinal and state) its CP [5–8]. conjugate, afs∆Γ = −(1.7 ±− 9.1Γ± , is the Here = Γ s L H the a 1.5) × 10−3 [4]; and (iii) the measurements of ∆Γ and s difference of the heavy and light Bs mass eigenstat new Sψφ (the CP asymmetry inisthe CP-even of the ψφ CP violation negligible in part the relevant tree-level de abov final state) [5–8]. Here ∆Γ s s s = ΓL − ΓH , is the width then afs = aSL . The SM predictions for the asymm difference of the Bs mass eigenstates. If the rea adSLheavy and and asSL light are negligibly small, beyond |∆ CP violation isthe negligible in the relevant tree-level decays, Tevatron experiments [9–11]. If the evidence fo s s 32 then a = a . The SM predictions for the asymmetries

Updated results, consistency check ♦ D0 update:

3.9σ deviation from the SM ♦ Fragmentation

correlates

=>

cently the DØ Collaboration reported a measurement of other ++ −− the like-sign dimuon charge asymmetry in semileptonic b tribu N − N b −3 b b a ≡ = −(9.57±2.51±1.46)×10 SL ++ −− decay with improved precision excee Nb + N[1], b much ++ −− Nb −where Nb N ++ is the number of b¯b →−3µ+ µ+ X events We b (-0.787 ± 0.172 (stat) ± 0.093 (syst) )% b a ≡ = −(9.57±2.51±1.46)×10 , (1) SL ♦ abov Nb++ +similarly Nb−− for Nb−− ). This is Penny; 3.2σD0,from the q See talk result by KASPER, 1106.6308. � b �SM +0.5 −4 ing p SM prediction, a = (−2.3 ) × 10 [2]. A ++ + + −0.6 SL . Lenz & Nierste, where Nb is the number of b¯b0JHEP → µ(07).µ0 X events (and Tevatron both Bd and Bs are produced, and contr henc −− similarly for Nb ). This result is 3.2σ from the quoted tudes is�a blinear of the two asymmetries [1] �SM combination +0.5 −4 resul SM prediction, aSL = (−2.3−0.6 ) × 10 [2]. At the 0 b ♦ Sψ. Tevatron both Bda0 bSL and produced, hence±aDependence =B (0.506 0.043) adSLand + (0.494 0.043) of asSL s are± SL o trivia is B a slinear combination of the two asymmetries [1] Nir & Raz, Grossman, PRL (06). Bd ↔ impact para Ne The above result should +*1(ʌĺȝ 63?( in con assl contributions b d s @ĺȝ 56.8(-16AA(,1B64:( aSL = (0.506tion ± 0.043) aSL +on (0.494 ± 0.043) aSL . (i)(2) Cutting impact parameter with three other measurements: the Bobser d sem B6+618:8+(CDEF & Rosner, PRD (10). mea Combined result reduces background. tonic asymmetry, dominated Gronau by the B factory G H583(:58(?8469(,-(*2:-,?8( TABLE XXI: Input quantities for The above ments, result interpreted in:58(:+64I,37(.*A218 conjunc−3muons with IP above 50 µm, 0.02should using adSL = be −(4.7 ± 9.0 4.6) [3]; (ii) the 2-( DØ, fb-1 ×G 10 J6?+*3-(16,3A9(4*18(>+*1( spectively. Only statistical uncertain tion with threespecific other measurements: (i) the in BB+,16+9(,3:8+64:,*3 semilepdthe Ab asymmetry measured time Quantity IP >dependen 50 µm IP > sl (I P < =2*3-(>+*1()(?8469-(56.8( f × 10 6.47 ± 0.18 5.38 (?,12*3(456+78(6 F × 10 6.31 ± 1.73 4.79 × 10 [4];×and of ∆Γ F × 10 9.51 ± 2.36tion 6.39 4*1BA,183:6+9(186-2+8183:-(+8M2,+, specific asymmetry measured in the time dependence of F × 10 0.11 ± 0.06 0.03 Sψφ (the CP asymmetrys in theG DE(N("!$(ȝ1(>*+(O*:5(12*3CP-even part of87.32 th 0 + − f × 10 82.99 ± 0.81done Bs →Lenz µ &D and-0.02 its CP [5–8]. conjugate, afs∆Γ = −(1.7 9.1 Nierste, G DE(P("!$(ȝ1(>*+(O*:5(12*3F ± ×− 10 Γ± 15.91, ±is 11.39 s Xfinal state) Here = Γ the s L H ± 4.38 F × 10 85.63 3.74the 89.88 −3 a 1.5) × 10 [4]; and (iii) the measurements of ∆Γ a × 10s and +0.134 ± 0.004 +0.035 difference of the heavy and light B mass eigenstat a s × 10 +0.146 ± 0.024 +0.068 new 68% and 95% C.L. regions Sψφ (the CP asymmetry in the CP-even part of the ψφ A× 10 −0.302 ± 0.079 −0.386 are obtained CP violation is from negligible in the relevant tree-level de A × 10 −0.043 ± 0.071 −0.139 -0.04 abov the measurements with final state) [5–8]. Here ∆Γ width C 0.81 ± 0.03 0.75 s IP selections s s = ΓL − ΓH , is the then afs = aSL . The SM predictions for the C 0.66 ±asymm 0.03 0.52 difference of the light B mass eigenstates. If 0.108 ± 0.038 0.125 d heavy and s s -0.02negligibly 0 0.02 aSL and -0.04 aSL are small, rea c beyond 0.084 ±the 0.008 0.095 d a |∆ sl C 0.496 ± 0.034 0.510 CP violation isthe negligible in the relevant tree-level decays, Tevatron experiments [9–11]. If the evidence fo )*+,--*./(0,12*3(456+78(6-9118:+9( % s s 32 then a = a . The predictions the asymmetries FIG. 21: SM (color online). Measurements offor A with different

Updated results, consistency check

D0 update:

3.9σ deviation from the SM =>

b

b

) P >120

A sl

A sl(I

asls

Fragmentation correlates

2

K

2

π

2

p

2

K

2

π

2

p

68% C.L.

2

S

2

bkg

!"#$%#!$""

SS

&'()*+,--*./(0,12*3(

2

bkg

95% C.L.

2

bkg

2

2

2

π

K FLL (FLL +FSL ) b

b

b sl

result, (1), is correlated with the Tevatron measurements [2]. At the TheabSLdimuon vs. Sψφ connection of Sψφanomaly [12] (and ∆Γ& These provide nonhence s ). ∆Γ s measurements trivial tests of our hypothesis. es [1] Neglecting the SM contribution to Sψφ , the following )♦ asSLAssuming . (2) observables-only [13]: βs =is0obtained no direct CP &relation => correlation with

!"#$%&'(")*+',-*",-.&*#.%(/&.#.),(�

� n ! conjunc|∆Γs | s 2 , "#$%&'()*+%,-(*./*!"0, 1%'*#(*$2%'0,%$()*&'$.*$3(*4(%0-2(4('$*./ S 1 − S (3) a = − other observables: ψφ SL ψφ Bd semilep$3(*56*+&.,%$&'7*83%0(*I" %')*ǻī" ∆ms Ligeti, Papucci & GP, PRL (06); Grossman, Nir & GP, PRL (09); 93&0*1.'0$2%&'$*&0*&'*(:1(,,('$*%72((4('$*;&$3*%'**&')(8(')('$* y !measureKagan & Sokolof, PRD (09); Lenz (11). Iwhere &'*#"ĺ$%ȥ )(1%< this rela" %')*ǻī" ∆m s ≡ Im H − mL . Since all quantities in the4(%0-2(4('$*./* flavor Prospec ! 93&0*2(0-,$*&0*%,0.*1.'0&0$('$*;&$3*$3(*5=>*4(%0-2(4('$*&'*$3&0* ♦ Tevatron & LHCb experiments: New CDFbeen measurement of by !s data, our fit below can be tion have constrained endence of 13%''(, done independent of the theoretical calculation of ∆Γs , (1.7 ± 9.1 ± the accuracy of which can be questioned [14]. Using the of ∆Γs and new measurement in Eq. (1) together with Eq. (2), the t of the ψφ above relation implies the width � enstates. If � � � b d 2 |∆Γs | � ∆ms 2.0 aSL − 1.0 aSL 1 − Sψφ Sψφ . (4) evel decays, ?@A@B@CBAD =&4-.'*13%27(*%0