Bounds on New Physics from the Unitarity Triangle fit: Summer'06 update

Transcription

1 Bounds on New Physics from the Unitarity Triangle fit: Summer'06 update University of Wisconsin, Madison on behalf of UTfit Collaboration M. Bona, M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Parodi, M. P., P. Roudeau, C. Schiavi, L. Silvestrini, A. Stocchi, V. Vagnoni 1

2 Unitarity Triangle Using the Unitarity of the CKM matrix in the SM we can build the Unitarity Triangle. CP violation in SM is ruled only by one parameter. UTfit Coll, Determine it in several ways (test of SM) hep ph/ Fit simultaneously for SM and New Physics quantities UTfit Coll, hep ph/ hep ph/ normalized: normalized: 1 +i +i 2

3 Unitarity Triangle Analysis md εk Vub Vcb Adding the m Classic m constraints... s d 3

4 Unitarity Triangle Analysis...to the new measurements of,, and 4

5 Unitarity Triangle fit ρ = ± [0.143, 95% Prob. ρ η = ± [0.300, 95% Prob. η η 5

6 Tension in the fit? Several determinations of Vub available: (3.80 ± 0.27 ± 0.47)10 3 from HFAG value of experimental BR+ quenched lattice QCD (similar results from FNAL staggered fermion calculation) (4.38 ± 0.19 ± 0.27)10 3 combining x incl & excl (4.20 ± 0.20)10 3 from inclusive determination (HFAG average) (3.48 ± 0.20)10 3 using the other bounds on the UTfit and thanks to the over-constraining of the CKM matrix IN THE STANDARD MODEL Since Summer'05 there is a tension in the fit NP free measurement of Vub vs NP sensitive indirect determination 6

7 Tension in the fit? If the Vub value will be confirmed by more precise data and theory calculations (excl vs incl agreement needs to improved) the tension will become a bound on NP phase in Bd mixing sin2 = from indirect determination of and sin2 = From direct measurement We can use the abundance of constraints to fit NP & SM parameters together model independent estimation of theoretical error on sin2 Maurizio Pierini (Ciuchini,M.P, Silvestrini SUSY06 hep ph/ ) UC Irvine 7

8 First Step: NP independent fit ρ = ± 0.18 ± 0.11 η = ± 0.41 ± 0.05 Assuming no NP at tree level the effect of the D0 D0 mixing to is negligible wrt the present error semileptonic decays are clean We have a NP free determination of ρ and η UTfit Coll, hep ph/ hep ph/ reference starting point for all NP models

9 Second Step: Inclusion of NP SM model independent assumptions ρ, η CBd, φbd Vub/Vcb γ (DK) εk sin2β md α (ρρ,ρπ,ππ) ASL Bd d/ d s/ s ms Maurizio ACH Pierini CεK tree level CBs, φbs (Vub/Vcb)SM SM mssm ssm (Vub/Vcb)SM SM Bd Mixing SM SM md SM+NP Bs Mixing SM+ Bd SM- Bd CBd md CBs mssm ssm+ Bs K Mixing C KSM SM J. M. Soares and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 1021; N. G. Deshpande et al. hep-ph/ J. P. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, hep-ph/ A. G. Cohen et al., hep-ph/ ] Y. Grossman, Y. Nir and M. P. Worah, hep-ph/

10 Additional Bounds: ASL Not precise enough to bound CKM in SM, but good for reducing allowed parameter space of New Physics SM prediction ( )10 3 Larger Values in case of contribution from New Physics Direct measurement ( )

11 charge Asymmetry from D0 =( )10 3 SM peak NP solution (disfavored by data) admixture of Bd and Bs dependent on and and on NP effects (CBd, Bd, CBs, Bs) 11

12 in Bd and Bs sectors The constraint on Bd is not effective (experimental error~ 10 times the precision from the rest of the fit) The experimental measurement of s actually measures scos( s+ Bs) (Dunietz et al., hep-ph/ ) NP can only DECREASE the experimental result wrt the SM value Experimental WA > SM expectation (NP suppressed) Since all the other parameters are fixed by other constraints, this gives the first available bound on NP phase in Bs mixing!!!! 12

13 The UTfit beyond the SM SUMMER'06 including NP we go back to SM dark: 65% light: 95% NP parameter space strongly constraint for Bd dark: 65% light: 95% η = ρ = First time we can bound NP in Bs 13

14 Bounds on C and parameters CBs = 0.97 ± 0.27 Bd = (-4.2 ± 2.1)o CBd = 1.17 ± 0.39 C K = 0.95 ± 0.18 Bs = (-2 ± 15)o U (-93 ± 15)o 14

15 Bounds on NP size and phase dark: 65% light: 95% dark: 65% light: 95% The allowed NP amplitude is still large for small phase shift MFV scenarios are strongly favored at this point, but we still Maurizio Pierini 15 some chance to see a NP phase SUSY06 UC have Irvine

16 The UUT & MFV analysis Buras et al. hep ph/ We can determine and in a universal way for (MFV) NP and SM. εk and md are not used. η = UUTfit ρ = UUTfit 16 16

17 We are testing TeV scales... NP enters as additional contribution to the top box diagram D'Ambrosio et al. hep ph/ Common shift S0 to Inami-Lim function in B and K mixing for small tan Two different shifts for large tan (b Youkawa coupling also important) a = 1 (as a reference) Λ0 = 2.4 TeV (equivalent SM scale) Λ > % for large tan Λ > % for small tan 17

18 Future Developments now 2008 now 2008 Assuming the ~500 fb statistics (BaBar physics reach study) Adding the benefits of LQCD improvements (~5% errors) Even better when LHCb (and SuperB?) will start!!! Assuming ( s/ s)~0.04 dark: 65% light: 95% Assuming (SJ/ )~0.3 dark: 65% light: 95% 18

19 Conclusions The CKM matrix gives a good description of the CP violation observed in flavor physics The improved experimental precision reveled a >2 discrepancy in Vub vs since last year. It might be a problem with theory/measurements... but new data might confirm it In this scenario, we have A model independent parameterization of NP effects Improved measurements from Bd physics New inputs from Bs physics Bad News: the only allowed solution (@95% probability) is the SM one (New Physics effects cannot be too big) Good News: we already have a strong bound on NP parameters New result: we can bound the NP phase in Bs mixing with 15o accuracy in advance respect to the experimental data If we restrict the analysis to MFV scenarios, we can test the presence of New Physics up to the TeV scale Future improvements will depend on: Progresses in lattice Calculation B-Factories & Tevatron taking more data New facilities (LHCb and a (maybe?) a superb) to start as soon as possible 19

20 Backup 20

21 sin2 pull 21