1

Testing New Physicswith

Unitarity Triangle Fits

Achille Stocchi (LAL/Orsay)

SUSY 2005 (The Millenium Window to Particle Physics)

Durham 18-23 July 2005

2

Members : M. Bona, M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Parodi, M. Pierini, P. Roudeau, C. Schiavi, L. Silvestrini, A. Stocchi, V.Vagnoni

Collaboration

http://www.utfit.org

Results based on the work from

M. Bona et al. (UTfits Coll.) JHEP07(2005) 028 hep-ph/0501199

M. Bona et al. (UTfits Coll.) paper in preparation

3

B

+other charmonium

radiative decays Xs,Xd, Xsll

B DK

+from Penguins

theo. clean

The Unitarity Triangle:

Charm Physics(Dalitz)

?

4

-sin(2β)ACP(J/ψ ,KS)

ξ(1– )2 + 2md/ ms

fB BB(1– )2 + 2 md

BK [(1– ) + P]K

, λ1 ,F(1) ,… 2 + 2(bu)/(bc) ρ η

η ρ

ρ η

ρ η

Λ

2

UTFit within the SM

UTFit within the SM

5

ρ = 0.190 ± 0.044 η = 0.349 ± 0.024

UTFit within the SM

6

Coherent picture of CP Violation in SMsin 2 0.734 0.043 from sides-only

Crucial Test of the SM in the quarks sector

determination of CP violating parameters measuring CP-conserving observables

CP-violating observables was/is the strong

motivation for the B-Factories

B J/ K0sin2 0.726 ± 0.037

DONE!!

We are probably beyond the era of « alternatives» to the CKM picture.NP should appear as «corrections» to the CKM picture

UTFit within the SM

7

B-Factories has also shown that the other angles can be measured.

We are already well beyond We are already well beyond the first phase.the first phase.

UT with angles only

cos sin(

sin(

UTFit within the SM

8

All available information together

sin(2) 0.726 ± 0.028

sin(2) -0.29 ± 0.17

[] 58.1 ± 5.0

0.210 ± 0.035

0.339 ± 0.021

UTFit within the SM

9

± (0.21± 0.10)

± (0.36 ± 0.06)

If we use only Tree level processes -which can be assumed to be NP free-

It is very important to improve Vub/Vcb from s.l decays

from tree level proceses

Fit with NP independent variables

(similar plot in Botella et al. hep-ph/0502133)

10

Parametrizing NPphysics in F=2 processes

2 2

2

d

Pi

SMB

q

NBQ

C eQ

F=2

5 new free parameters Cs,s Bs mixing

Cd,d Bd mixing

CK K mixing

Cd,d

CK Cs,s

Vub/Vcb X

md X X

K X X

ACPJ X X

X X

D X

ms X

ACPJ ~X X

DsK) X X

Today : fit possible with 6 contraints and 5 free parameters (Cd,d ,CK)

Con

stra

ints

Fit in a NP model independent approach

0( / ) sin(2 2 )

| | | |

EXP SMd q d

CP d

EXP SMd

EXP SMK K

m C m

A J K

C

Not yet available

11

Fit in a NP model independent approach

SM-like

Cd cos2() sin2() sin(2) ASL

SM-LIKE 60o 1 0.68 -0.23 0.96 OK

NP1 60o 1 -0.68 0.96 -0.23 OK

NP2 120o 0.4 0.68 -0.23 -0.96 10-2

NP3 120o 0.4 -0.68 0.96 0.23 0K

Vub/Vcb

D

md ACPJ

K

Using

12

Vub/Vcb

D

md ACPJ

K

Using

cos2 ASL

SM-like solution 93%

NP solution 7%

Fit in a NP model independent approach

13

NP in B=2 and S=2 could be up to 50% wrt SM only if has the same phase of the SM

CBd = 1.25± 0.45 Bd = (0.1 ± 3.1)o C = 1.07 ± 0.25

Taking as maximal effect 2(Bd) ~6o for the new phase (Bd) NP can only contribute at 10%

Fit in a NP model independent approach

14

MFV New CP in bs

- - F=1 Penguins transitionsF=1 Penguins transitions

- The B- The Bss physics (LHCb) physics (LHCb)

- Improvements existing measurements- Improvements existing measurements

- Rare decays (not discussed in this talk)- Rare decays (not discussed in this talk)

What to do ?

TWO POSSIBLE SCENARIOS

MFV

15

MFV = no additional flavour mixing

Only mixing processes are sensitive to NP

For UUT we do not use K and md in the fit

Universal Unitarity Triangle : generalised SM analysis and MFV

Almost as good as the SM !!

η = 0.353 ± 0.028 from UUT fit

ρ = 0.191 ± 0.046 from UUT fit

MFV

Starting point for studies of rare decays see : Bobeth et al. hep-ph/0505110

16

0.29 0.44[-1.05,0.81]@95%

In models with one Higgs doublet or low/moderate tan (D’Ambrosio et al. hep-ph/0207036)NP enters as additional contribution in top box diagram

0 0 0

2

00 0

( ) ( ) ( )

( ) 4 2.4

t t t

t

S x S x S x

S x a TeV

0

0

6.0 @95% ( )

4.6 @95% ( )t

t

TeV for positive S x

TeV for negative S x

Already now, in some specific Model we start to explore interesting NP scale 0/ 3.0

0 is the equivalent SM scale

0

0

6.0 @95% ( )

4.6 @95% ( )t

t

TeV for positive S x

TeV for negative S x

MFV

17

2Higgs + large tan also bottom Yukawa coupling must be considered

0

0

3.6 @95% ( ) 0

4.6 @95% ( ) 0t

t

TeV S x

TeV S x

0

0

5.0 @95% ( ) 0

4.3 @95% ( ) 0t

t

TeV S x

TeV S x

MFV

18

All modes (except ’Ks) are less than 1.5 away from sin(2) from J/ Ks

b s transitions (F=1)

19

20

CKM Matrix in ≤2010-where we will beWe have supposed that - B Factories will collect 2ab-1

- two years data taking at LHCb (4fb-1)

< 1° from charmonium ~ 7 ° ~ 5° (half B-factories/half LHCb)

Vub ~ 5%Vcb ~ 1%

ms at 0.3ps-1

(Tevatron or/and LHCb)

fBBB ~ 5% ~ 3%BK ~ 5%

Inputs

sin(2) 0.694 ± 0.012

sin(2) -0.543 ± 0.093

51.7 ± 3.0

0.240 ± 0.017

0.307 ± 0.010

Outputs

sin2± 0.045

CKM2010

21

0.26

0.44

In MFVNow

2010

CKM2010

22

φBd = (-0.1 ± 1.3)o CBd = 0.98 ± 0.14 φBs = (0.0 ± 1.3)o CBs = 0.99 ± 0.12

in 2010 : same and impressive precision on b d and b s transitions

In the « sad » hypotesis the SM still work in 2010…. CKM2010

23

Conclusions

UTfits are in a mature age with recent precise measurement of UT sides and angles

Ready to precisely test SM and NP

Strong indication in favour of MFV

NP effects still possible in b s transitions (ms, ACP(J, F=1….)

Bd ~ 0

24

New inputs are coming for EPS05 and situation is slightly different….

Resul

ts of

yes

terda

y nig

ht…. S

tay t

uned !

LAST MINUTVub/Vcb

sin2

Still possible surprises improving the existing measurements

25

CBd = 1.10 ± 0.48 φBd = (-4.6 ± 2.6)o

Resul

ts of

yes

terda

y nig

ht…. S

tay t

uned !

Discrepancy 1.5