arxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 14 Nov 2014

Transcription

1 August 27, 2018 The like-sign dimuon asymmetry and New Physics arxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 14 Nov 2014 Miguel Nebot 1 Centro de Física Teórica de Partículas, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, Lisbon, PORTUGAL The measurement by the D0 collaboration of a large like-sign dimuon asymmetry deviates significantly from Standard Model expectations. New Physics may be invoked to account for such a deviation. We analyse how generic extensions of the Standard Model where the Cabibbo-Kobayashi- Maskawa 3 3 mixing matrix is enlarged can accommodate a significant enhancement of A b SL with respect to standard expectations through enhancements of the individual semileptonic asymmetries A d SL and As SL in the Bd 0 B0 d and Bs B 0 0 s systems. The potential enhancement reachable in this class of scenario is, nevertheless, insufficient to reproduce the D0 measurement. PRESENTED AT 8th International Workshop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle (CKM 2014), Vienna, Austria, September 8-, Work supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT, Portugal) through the projects CERN/FP/3580/2011 and CFTP-FCT Unit 777.

2 1 Introduction Phenomena related to Flavour Physics and CP violation constitute a fundamental window to probe the Standard Model () and its extensions. In this context, one results from the D0 collaboration has received much attention: the measurement of the like-sign dimuon asymmetry A b SL [1]. The value reported by the D0 collaboration [1] is approximately 3σ away from expectations, and a large number of works have explored the potential of models beyond the to reproduce it [2]. In the following, we first review the predictions and then address NP analyses, focusing on scenarios where the mixing matrix is enlarged with respect to the usual 3 3 unitary Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa. 2 Mixing and asymmetries in B q meson systems In the, the dispersive B q B q transition amplitude,, is dominated by one loop box diagrams with virtual t quarks: [ ] = G2 F M 2 W π 2 M Bq f 2 B q B Bq η B (V tb V tq) 2 S 0 (x t ). (1) The absorptive part,, is on the contrary dominated by intermediate real (onshell) u and c quarks. The short-distance prediction [3] requires a Heavy Quark Expansion giving as an expansion in α s (m b ) and Λ/m b. Our interest lies on the flavour structure, which has, in general, the following form [ Γ cc = (V cb Vcq) Γuc (V ub VuqV cb V and in particular in the the flavour structure is [ ] (V Γ cc cb Vcq) 2 (V tb Vtq) + 2 2Γuc V ub VuqV cb Vcq (V tb V tq) 2 cq) + Γuu Γ ab are Γ cc = c, 2Γ uc = 2c a, Γ uu = b + c a, where (V ub V uq) 2 ], (2) (V + Γ uu ub Vuq) 2 (V tb Vtq). (3) 2 a = (10.5 ± 1.8) 10 4, b = (0.2 ± 0.1) 10 4, c = ( 53.3 ±.0) (4) In an expansion in powers of (m c /m b ) 2, it is important to stress that at zero-th order only c is present. Unitarity of the CKM mixing matrix, through the orthogonality condition V ub Vuq + V cb Vcq + V tb Vtq = 0, implies [ ] [ = K (q) c + a V ub V ( uq Vub V ) ] 2 uq + b, (5) V tb Vtq V tb Vtq 1

3 with K (q) = π 2 M Bq f 2 Bq B Bq G2 F M 2 W η B S 0 (x t). / is accessed through the width difference Γ q and the genuinely CP violating semileptonic asymmetry A q SL ; at leading order in Γ(q) /, ( ) ( ) Γ q = Re, A q SL = Im. (6) M Bq The expectations are [ ] A d SL 10 4, [ Γ d ] = (2.60 ± 0.25) 10 3 ps 1, [A s SL ] = (2.0 ± 0.3) 10 5, [ Γ s ] = (0.090 ± 0.008) ps 1. The smallness of A d SL and As SL can be traced back to the (m c/m b ) 2 suppression in eq.(5): the expected leading contribution, proportional to c, is real and thus absent; the hierarchy of the CKM matrix further suppresses A s SL. For Ab SL, A b SL = Ad SL + gas SL, g = f Γ d (1 ys) 2 1 (1 + x 2 s) g Γ s (1 yd 2) 1 (1 + x, y 2 d ) 1 q = Γ q, x q = M B q, 2Γ q Γ q (7) and f is the B s B d fragmentation fraction ratio in the B sample, f = ± Then, [ ] A b SL = ( 2.40 ± 0.45) 10 4, (8) to be compared with the D0 result [1], A b SL = ( 4.96 ± 1.53 ± 0.72) Underlying these results are two important assumptions: (i) a single weak amplitude, the one-loop induced one with virtual top quarks, dominates, (ii) the CKM matrix is 3 3 unitary, and thus the would-be leading contribution to has the same phase as. 3 NP analyses: 3 3 unitarity and beyond Since the CKM paradigm provides a consistent tree level picture of flavour changing processes, a popular class of beyond analyses [4] considers that NP only affects the dispersive amplitudes in a manner: = [ ] r 2 q e i 2φq. (9) Deviations from (r q, φ d ) = (1, 0) signal the presence of NP in the mixing of B q mesons: r q modifies the prediction for M Bq = 2 while φ q modifies mixing-induced 2

4 time dependent CP asymmetries as in Bd 0 J/ΨK S and Bs 0 J/ΨΦ. Since φ q 0 invalidates the equality among the phases of and the leading contribution to, the suppression can be lifted. Nevertheless, eq.(9) does not exhaust the NP scenarios that could enhance the semileptonic asymmetries and thus A b SL : if the CKM matrix is not 3 3 unitary but, on the contrary, part of a larger unitary matrix, there are additional fields beyond the standard three chiral ones. They will give new contributions to, controlled by mixings beyond the usual 3 3 ones. If V ub V uq + V cb V cq + V tb V tq N bq 0, (10) modified expressions with the following structure [5] should be considered: = G2 F M 2 W π 2 M Bq f 2 B q B Bq η B ( (Vtb V tq) 2 S 0 (x t ) + (V tb V tq) N bq C 1 + N 2 bq C 2 ). (11) C 1 and C 2, both real, are common to both M (d) and M (s) : all the new flavour dependence and CP violation is confined to the mixings N bq. Interesting examples of such scenarios are models where the fermion spectrum is extended through additional vector-like quarks [5]. For each specific model, C 1 and C 2 are then related to fundamental parameters like, e.g., masses. Equations (10) and (11) can provide the central ingredient to escape the suppression in two ways: instead of c in eq.(5), one is left with (λ t bq c + N bq) 2 (λ t bq )2 S 0 (x t ) + 2(λ t bq N, () bq)c 1 + (N bq ) 2 C 2 which, in general, is not real, and thus the semileptonic asymmetries could be enhanced [6]. One can thus conduct NP model independent analyses similar to the ones considering eq.(9), now including beyond 3 3 unitarity. Figure 1 shows the resulting χ 2 profile for the semileptonic asymmetries in this kind of NP scenarios together with the profiles corresponding to scenarios where 3 3 unitarity is maintained but NP introduced in eq.(9), and to the case. In both NP scenarios, semileptonic asymmetries can reach values at the 10 3 level. Despite the very significant increase with respect to the case, those values are still insufficient to account for the D0 measurement. It is important to stress that those enhancements are correlated to deviations in some related observables: in the bd sector, reaching A d SL values at the 10 3 level requires V ub to deviate from the tight V ub A J/ΨKS connection; in the bs sector, reaching A s SL values at the 10 3 level requires A J/ΨΦ to depart from the expectation A J/ΨΦ Both ingredients can be present in NP scenarios with the CKM matrix part of a larger unitary matrix. The same-sign dimuon asymmetry A b SL inherits such correlated deviations, as figures 2(a) and 2(b) show. 3

5 4 Conclusions Scenarios where the CKM mixing matrix is not 3 3 unitary but part of a larger mixing matrix, as e.g. extensions including vector-like quarks, provide incorporate the ingredients that can avoid the suppression of semileptonic asymmetries in B meson systems and enhance the same-sign dimuon asymmetry at the 10 3 level. NP scenarios with 3 3 unitarity and arbitrary contributions in the B mixings can accommodate similar enhancements. Despite these significant departures from the, the values remain insufficient to reproduce the D0 measurement. (a) χ 2 vs. A d SL. (b) χ2 vs. A s SL. (c) χ2 vs. A b SL. Figure 1: χ 2 profiles of the semileptonic asymmetries from [6]; the blue line is the non 3 3 unitary NP scenario eqs. (10) and (11), the red dotted line is the 3 3 unitary NP scenario of (9) and the red dashed line, the case. The D0 measurement is A b SL = ( 4.96 ± 1.69) 10 3 [1]. (a) A b SL vs. V ub. (b) Ab SL vs. A J/ΨΦ. Figure 2: χ 2 68%, 95% and 99% CL regions from [6]. Blue regions correspond to the non 3 3 unitary NP scenario, red regions correspond to the case. 4

6 References [1] V. M. Abazov, et al., Phys.Rev. D89(2014) 0002, [2] P. Ko, J.-h. Park, Phys.Rev. D82(2010) , , J. Parry, Phys.Lett. B694(2011) 363, , H. Ishimori, Y. Kajiyama, Y. Shimizu, M. Tanimoto, Prog.Theor.Phys. 6(2011) 703, , N. Deshpande, X.-G. He, G. Valencia, Phys.Rev. D82(2010) , , A. Datta, M. Duraisamy, S. Khalil, Phys.Rev. D83(2011) , , K. Y. Lee, S.-h. Nam, Phys.Rev. D85(20) , , M. Jung, A. Pich, P. Tuzon, JHEP 1011(2010) 003, , B. A. Dobrescu, P. J. Fox, A. Martin, Phys.Rev.Lett. 105(2010) , , W.-S. Hou, N. Mahajan, Phys.Rev. D75(2007) , hep-ph/ , A. Soni, A. K. Alok, et al., Phys.Rev. D82(2010) , , F. J. Botella, G. C. Branco, M. Nebot, Phys.Rev. D79(2009) , , F. Botella, G. Branco, M. Nebot, JHEP (20) 040, , Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, G. Perez, J. Zupan, Phys.Rev.Lett. 105(2010) , , C. W. Bauer, N. D. Dunn, Phys.Lett. B696(2011) 362, , C. Bobeth, U. Haisch, et al. JHEP06 (2014) 040, , S. Descotes-Genon, J. F. Kamenik, Phys.Rev. D87(2013) , [3] M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, et al., Phys.Lett. B459(1999) 631, hep-ph/ , M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, A. Lenz, U. Nierste, Phys.Lett. B576(2003) 173, hep-ph/ , M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, et al., JHEP 0308(2003) 031, hep-ph/ , J. Hagelin, Nucl.Phys. B193(1981) 3, A. Lenz, U. Nierste, JHEP 0706(2007) 072, hep-ph/ [4] F. J. Botella, G. C. Branco, M. Nebot, Nucl.Phys. B768(2007) 1, hep-ph/ , S. Laplace, Z. Ligeti, Y. Nir, G. Perez, Phys.Rev. D65(2002) , hep-ph/ , Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, G. Perez, Phys.Rev.Lett. 97(2006) , hep-ph/06041, P. Ball, R. Fleischer, Eur.Phys.J. C48(2006) 413, hep-ph/ , Y. Grossman, Y. Nir, G. Raz, Phys.Rev.Lett. 97(2006) , hep-ph/ , M. Bona, others (UTfit Collaboration), Phys.Rev.Lett. 97(2006) , hep-ph/ , F. Botella, G. Branco, M. Nebot, M. Rebelo, Nucl.Phys. B725(2005) 155, hep-ph/ , A. Lenz, U. Nierste, et al., Phys.Rev. D86(20) , [5] G. Barenboim, F. Botella, Phys.Lett. B433(1998) 385, hep-ph/ , G. Barenboim, F. Botella, G. Branco, O. Vives, Phys.Lett. B422(1998) 277, hep-ph/ , G. Eyal, Y. Nir, JHEP 9909(1999) 013, hep-ph/ , P. H. Frampton, P. Hung, M. Sher, Phys.Rept. 330(2000) 263, hep-ph/ [6] F. Botella, G. Branco, M. Nebot, A. Sanchez,