February 13, 2009, WG4/LHC2FC @ CERN CP Violation for the Heaven and the Earth — Sighting the 4th Generation ? February 13, 2009, WG4/LHC2FC @ CERN

Can all this be understood from my vantage ?

February 6, 2009, Wine & Cheese Seminar, Fermilab CP Violation for the Heaven and the Earth — Sighting the 4th Generation ? February 6, 2009, Wine & Cheese Seminar, Fermilab see: http://theory.fnal.gov/jetp/

Outline I. Intro II. D AK p & Nondecoupling: t’ in Z Penguin III. DmBs & B(B  Xsℓ+ℓ-): 2nd Prediction for sin2FBs [CKM Consistency & Implications IV. A 1013+ Enhancement of CPV for BAU ? [V. (In)Direct Sighting: Tevatron vs LHC] VI. Discussion/Conclusion: Know in 3-5 Years 1st Prediction for sin2FBs WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05; PRD’05; PRD’07; PRD’08 Belle, Nature, 452, 20 (2008) WSH, arXiv:0803.1234 [hep/ph]

I. Intro

Friday the 13th (before Valentines!!) Punishment ! 4th Generation Still? - Nn counting? 4th “neutral lepton” heavy Massive neutrinos call for new Physics - Disfavored by EW Precision (see e.g. J. Erler hep-ph/0604035; PDG06 Friday the 13th (before Valentines!!) Punishment !

- Disfavored by EW Precision (see e.g. J. Erler hep-ph/0604035; PDG06 4th Generation Still? - Nn counting? 4th “neutral lepton” heavy Massive neutrinos call for new Physics ~ Tao Han’s talk - Disfavored by EW Precision (see e.g. J. Erler hep-ph/0604035; PDG06 4th generation not in such great conflict with EWPrT Kribs, Plehn, Spannowsky, Tait, PRD’07 Emi Kou’s talk

In fact, well presented ! General: Emi Kou (plenary) [Heavy Lepton: Tao Han (plenary); could be related ATLAS: Saleh Sultansoy (also on Higgs in WG1) CMS: Kai-Feng Chen CPV: this talk

CPV & BAU (& U): The Sakharov View (1967) CPV & BAU (& U): The Sakharov View Baryon Number V iolation CP Violation Deviation from Equilibrium 10-9 Matter left ! 13Byr Bang Us Pair Annihilation (  Cosmic Microwave Background ) Equal Matter -Antimatter

Discovery of CP Violation Sakharov Stimulated by ... Discovery of CP Violation Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 138 (1964) 1980 Nobel

KM CPV Confirmed ~ 2001 the MOMA plot “Nontrivial”

CP Violation in SM B Factories The Nobel Prize in Physics 2008 "for the discovery of the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in subatomic physics" "for the discovery of the origin of the broken symmetry which predicts the existence of at least three families of quarks in nature" CP Violation in SM 7 October 2008 Photo: Universtity of Chicago Photo: KEK Photo: Kyoto University Yoichiro Nambu Makoto Kobayashi Toshihide Maskawa   1/2 of the prize   1/4 of the prize B Factories (BaBar & Belle) USA Japan Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago Chicago, IL, USA High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) Tsukuba, Japan Kyoto Sangyo University; Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics (YITP), Kyoto University Kyoto, Japan b. 1921 (in Tokyo, Japan) b. 1944 b. 1940

b  s: the Current Frontier b  d transitions consistent with SM b  s: the Current Frontier the MOMA plot “Nontrivial”

A Real Hint ! , ... or Not !?

II. D AK p & Nondecoupling: t’ in Z Penguin 1st Prediction for sin2FBs

Belle 2008 Nature: Simple Bean Count D A K p = AK +p 0 - AK +p - = + 0.164  0.037 4.4s + 0.07  0.03 vs - 0.094  0.020 b → s CPV Not Predicted ! Difference Is Large ! And Established Belle + BaBar (+ CDF)

ACP(B  K+p0 ) ACP(Kp0 ) = 0.04  0.05  0.02 Saga Towards Belle Nature Paper ... ACP(B  K+p0 ) Sakai 275M BB New Kp0 : 728 53 ACP(Kp0 ) = 0.04  0.05  0.02 hint that ACP(K+p- ) ¹ ACP(Kp0 ) ? (2.4s) [also seen by BaBar] d p0 Large EW penguin (Z0) ? New Physics ? _ d B- b s K- u u ICHEP 2004, Beijing

the experimentalist

The Crawlin’ of one Ant _ d p0 K- u B- s b Going Up a Hill ...

My first B paper WSH, Willey, Soni dimensions < nondecoupling

Nondecoupling dynamical Decoupling Thm: Heavy Masses are decoupled in QED/QCD ∵ Appear in Propagator Nondecoupling: Yukawa Couplings lQ Appear in Numerator dynamical Subtlety of Spont. Broken Gauge Theory

p0 K- Going Up a Hill* ... The Crawlin’ of one Ant _ d u B- s b Embark Going Up a Hill* ... * I am aware of hadronic (color-suppressed C) complications

This is Still the Standard Model

p0 K- _ d u B- s b t ➯ t, t ’ GIM Respecting Nondecoupling of t ’ Arhrib and WSH, EPJC’03 , t ’ t ➯ t, t ’ _ d p0 K- u B- s b Nondecoupling of t ’ , t ’ CPV Phase GIM Respecting

EWP/Box Sensitivity to 4th Gen. g, g less sensitive (No New Operators) EW penguin QCD penguin nondecoupling

WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 D A = AK +p 0 - AK +p - ~ 15% and LO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen. WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 D A  12% vs 15% (data) _ d p0 K- u B- s b , t ’ , t ’

D A = AK +p 0 - AK +p - ~ 15% and D A  12% vs 15% (data) p0 t, t’ K- LO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen. WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 D A  12% vs 15% (data) _ d p0 K- u B- s b t, t’ Can Account for Belle/BaBar Direct CPV Difference NLO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen. DA  15% DS  -0.11 SM3 input consistent with data Joining C & PEW WSH, Li, Mishima, Nagashima, PRL’07 Both and in Right Direction ! DA DS

III. DmBs & B(B  Xsℓ+ℓ-): 2nd Prediction for sin2FBs b ↔ s CPV III. DmBs & B(B  Xsℓ+ℓ-): 2nd Prediction for sin2FBs

Mixing-dep. CPV in Bd and Bs in SM Measured by Belle/BaBar in Bd  J/y KS sin2FBs ≃ – 0.04 in SM3 Measure in Bs  J/y f

WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 Prediction: Large CPV in Bs Mixing b → d b → s t, t ’ t, t ’ sin2FBs ~ -0.5 to -0.7 No Hadronic Uncertainty ... -0.04 SM Strength and Size of Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 PRL’05

Bs Mixing vs B  Xsℓ+ℓ- Large CPV in Bs Mixing different nondecoupl. functions Large CPV in Bs Mixing

Change mt’ , Change parameter range Use nominal mt’ = 300 GeV Change mt’ , Change parameter range Effect the Same. (Similar) N.B. D AK p suggest parameter space

Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, hep-ph/0610385 (PRD’07) SM (high) rsb Fixed rsb ➯ Narrow fsb Range destructive with top For rsb ~ 0.02 – 0.03, [Vcb ~ 0.04 fsb Range ~ 60 ° - 70 ° CDF 2s range Finite CPV Phase Consistent w/ B(bsll) SM-like ! HFAG 1s range Large CPV Possible ! Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like

Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, hep-ph/0610385 (PRD’07) SM (high) rsb Fixed rsb ➯ Narrow fsb Range destructive with top For rsb ~ 0.02 – 0.03, [Vcb ~ 0.04 fsb Range ~ 60 ° - 70 ° CDF 2s range Finite CPV Phase Consistent w/ B(bsll) SM-like ! HFAG 1s range Large CPV Possible ! Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like

DAKp, DS Large CPV in Bs Mixing Can Large CPV in Bs Mixing WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, hep-ph/0610385 SM (high) rsb DAKp, DS CDF 2s range Can Large CPV in Bs Mixing Be Measured @ Tevatron ? Sign Predicted ! Sure thing by LHCb ca. 2008 sin2FBs ~ 0.5 -  0.7 sin2FBs ~ -0.5 - -0.7 ? Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like

WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 Prediction: Large CPV in Bs Mixing WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 SM (high) rsb Fixed rsb ➯ Narrow fsb Range destructive with top For rsb ~ 0.02 – 0.03, [Vcb ~ 0.04 fsb Range ~ 60 ° - 70 ° Bs Mixing Measured @ Tevatron in 4/2006 CDF 2s range Finite CPV Phase sin2FBs ~ -0.5 - -0.7 ? -0.04 SM Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05

WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 Prediction: Large CPV in Bs Mixing WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 SM (high) rsb DAKp, DS CDF 2s range Can Large CPV in Bs Mixing Be Measured @ Tevatron ? Sign Predicted ! Sure thing by LHCb ca. 2010 (?) sin2FBs ~ -0.5 - -0.7 ? -0.04 SM Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05

Further ICHEP’08 Updates (CDF/DØ/fitters): Strengthen ! sin2FBs ~ -0.5 - -0.7 WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07 (already in 05) PRL’08 arXiv:0712.2397 [hep.ex] arXiv:0802.2255 [hep.ex] PRL’08 Further ICHEP’08 Updates (CDF/DØ/fitters): Strengthen ! sin2FBs = -0.64 + 0.16 - 0.14 3.7 s ~2.8 s ± ? arXiv:0803.0659 [hep.ph] UTfit Incredible !!!

(Conservative) outlook sin2FBs = -sinbs = sinfs (Conservative) outlook % of CDF ‘clones’ that would observe a 5σ-effect, as a function of βs Assumptions ΔΓs = 0.1 ps-1 Constant data-taking efficiency No analysis improvements. No external constraints (ASL, lifetimes) used. Observation w/ 2010 Data if Central Value Stays ! Probability of 5σ observation CDF future will probably be better than that. And DØ will contribute too. βs --- 8/fb (~2010) --- 6/fb (~2009) CKM2008 - September 11, 2008 D. Tonelli- Fermilab

WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’05 Extract Information from Constraints 4 x 4 Unitarity ➯ Z/K Constraints “Typical” CKM Matrix WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’05 Extract Information from Constraints s  b Z  bb _ d  s Nontrivial Satisfy b  d: ✓ Cannot tell triangle from quadrangle b  s x ~ 0.22 b  d

AFB(B  K*l+l-) and Other Predictions sent to Backup

W.-S. Hou, A. Hovhannisyan, and N. Mahajan, PRD 77, 014016 (2008) Instead flipped C7 ... W.-S. Hou, A. Hovhannisyan, and N. Mahajan, PRD 77, 014016 (2008) (=s/mB2=q2/mB2) complex wilson coefficients SM 4th generation (SM4) 2fb-1 MC study of LHCb (~7000 K*ll events) Belle 657M arXiv:0810.0335 Preliminary 386M Deviation from SM3 !? BABAR, arXiv:0804.4412 SM4 SM3 2008/07/31 ICHEP2008

IV. A 1013+ Enhancement of CPV for BAU ? If ... KM4

The Abyss: CPV in KM and B.A.U. The Lore WMAP Too Small in SM Jarlskog Invariant in SM3 (need 3 generation in KM) Normalize by T ~ 100 GeV EW Phase Transition Temperature Masses too Small ! ~ v.e.v. is common (unique) area of triangle in SM CPV Phase Small, but not Too small

~ 10+15 Gain Providence CPV Phase Enough CPV? WMAP Too Small in SM B.A.U. from CPV in KM ? Enough CPV? WMAP Too Small in SM If shift by One Generation in SM4 (need 3 generation in KM) Providence WSH, arXiv:0803.1234 [hep/ph] Order 1 ~ 30 ~ 10+15 Gain in SM CPV Phase Gain mostly in Large Yukawa Couplings ! Nature would likely use this !?

The Abyss between CPV in SM3 vs BAU bridged in SM4 by Heaviness of t ’ and b ’ Why wasn’t this clearly pointed out in past 20 years ?

Gain mostly in Large Yukawa Couplings ! b → s b → d quadrangle from comprehensive study WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD05 Only fac. 30 in CPV per se ~ 10+15 Gain 10+13 10+15 This part will shrink a bit.

V. Direct Sighting @ Tevatron vs LHC the Experimentalist

Tevatron/LHC Verification Unequivocal BSM Tevatron ... if true sin2FBs “Evidence” by 2009 ? “Observe” by 2010 ? t’ Search Ongoing: mt’ > 311 GeV @ 95% CL sin2FBs “Confirmation” — “Easy” for LHCb b’, t’ Discovery — Straightforward/full terrain LHC But when ? Glimpse of agenda at ATLAS/CMS previous 2 talks

VI. Discussion/Conclusion: Know in 3-5 Years

Jarlskog’87, n generations C PV for BAU: 2-3-4 Dominance Jarlskog’87, n generations Jarlskog’85, 3 generations “3 cycles” also Gronau, Kfir, Loewy ’87 4 generations: 3 indep. phases long and short d-s degenerate 2-3-4 generation only ! Effectively 3 generations (on v.e.v. scale) J (1,2,3) very small suppressed by ms, mc

Beyond Unitarity Limit 1st Order EW Phase Trans. for BAU ? 0803.1234 will appear in Chin. J. Phys. Ran out of time, and knowledge ... (perturbative) PRD’08 Fok & Kribs: Not possible in 4th generation Conjecture: Could Strong Yukawa’s do it ? Beyond Unitarity Limit Not quite conclusive (?)

SSB Could EWSB be due to b’ and t’ Thoughts on the other 1/2 Nobel Prize "for the discovery of the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in subatomic physics" "for the discovery of the origin of the broken symmetry which predicts the existence of at least three families of quarks in nature" SSB Could EWSB be due to b’ and t’ above unitarity bound ~ 500-600 GeV ? Bob Holdom: N–J-L [Bardeen, Hill, Lindner Gustavo Burdman: “Holographic” 4th gen. Photo: Universtity of Chicago Photo: KEK Photo: Kyoto University Yoichiro Nambu Makoto Kobayashi Toshihide Maskawa   1/2 of the prize   1/4 of the prize USA Japan Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago Chicago, IL, USA High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) Tsukuba, Japan Kyoto Sangyo University; Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics (YITP), Kyoto University Kyoto, Japan b. 1921 (in Tokyo, Japan) b. 1944 b. 1940

@ LHC Heaven on Earth ? ~ 10+15 Gain 10+13 Enough CPV for B.A.U. VI. Conclusion: Know in 3-5 Years Even if O (1) ~ 10+15 Gain 10+13 Enough CPV for B.A.U. 10+15 sin2FBs @ Tevatron by 2010(1) Maybe there is a 4th Generation ! Will Really Know in ~ 3–5 years ! @ LHC Heaven on Earth ?

Backup

A lot of (hadronic) finesse + 0.050  0.025 - 0.097  0.012 World = + 0.147  0.028 > 5s Experiment is Firm Why a Puzzle ? D A Kp ~ 0 expected ? Large C ? Large EWPenguin ? A lot of (hadronic) finesse Baek, London, PLB653, 249 (2007) Need NP CPV Phase PEW has practically no weak phase in SM _ d p0 K- u B- s b t, ?

A lot of (hadronic) finesse + 0.050  0.025 - 0.097  0.012 World = + 0.147  0.028 > 5s Experiment is Firm Why a Puzzle ? D A Kp ~ 0 expected ? Large C ? Large EWPenguin ? A lot of (hadronic) finesse Baek, London, PLB653, 249 (2007) Need NP CPV Phase PEW has practically no weak phase in SM _ d p0 K- u B- s b t, ? t, t’ 4th Gen. in EWP Natural nondecoupling

On Boxes and Z Penguins GIM , charm,  K small  ’/ , K  pnn (still waiting) heavy top , sin2f1/b Z dominance for heavy top 1986  2002 Most Flavor/CPV learned from these diagrams/processes

On Boxes and Z Penguins Bs GIM , charm,  K Nondecoupling GIM , charm,  K ∵ Large Yukawa ! small  ’/ , K  pnn (still waiting) heavy top , sin2f1/b Bs Z dominance for heavy top AFB 1986  2002 All w/ 3-generations, Just wait if there’s a 4th D ! b’, t ’ @ LHC

4 x 4 Unitarity ➯ Constraints SM3 We need to deal with mixing matrix in detail to keep Unitarity b  s Kaon b  d Cross Check ! impose From b → s study

Constrain s  d from K Physics (shaded) (E. Pallante et al.) “Standard” (J. Bijnens et al.) No SM3 solution Therefore…. well-satisfy !

Hard to tell apart (non-trivial) with present precision well-satisfy vs Vub ~ 0.01 e-ig Disfavored Hard to tell apart (non-trivial) with present precision ∵ stringent s  d

AFB(B  K*l+l-) and Other Predictions sent to Backup

Ali, Mannel, Morozumi, PLB273, 505 (1991) Quoted by Tsybychev at FPCP08 Fourth Generation PRD 77, 014016 (2008) a: SM; b: 4 Gen. better data: LHCb MC (2 fb-1) (FL and) AFB (and AI) favor the “opposite-sign C7 model” Ali, Mannel, Morozumi, PLB273, 505 (1991) Eigen at FPCP08 386M 349 fb-1 229M

D Mixing (Short-distance Only) PDG06 310 270 From 4 x 4 Unitarity mb’ = 230 GeV x = Dm/G ~ 1 - 3 plausible w/ Sizable (but not huge) CPV in Mixing ~ -15% N.B. SM LD could generate y ~ 1%, x ≈ y [Falk, Grossman, Ligeti, (Nir,) Petrov]

Implication for ∵ Large CPV Phase Current E391A U.L. SM3 Very hard to measure Grossman-Nir SM3 Rate could be enhanced by up to almost two orders !! enhanced to or even higher !! In general larger than !! ∵ Large CPV Phase

b → d “Triangle” and b → s Quadrangle ~ SM3 b → d negligible b → s b → s Quadrangle Area ~ (-)30x b → d Triangle (almost Triangle) Strength and Size of

Consistency and b  sg Predictions PDG ’06 SM3 SM3 BR OK ACP ~ 0 far away beyond SuperB Heavy t’ effect decoupled for b  sg

If VusVub shrinks to a point 4 generations: 3 indep. phases b → s b → d measured 4 generations: 3 indep. phases emergent If VusVub shrinks to a point Difference in area for b → s Small b → s Quadrangle Area ~ (-)30x b → d Triangle (almost Triangle) 2nd argument that is predominant CPV

Find b’, t’, or Rule Out @ LHC Sighting Vision ~ Early ’06 4th generation? — The jury is out … In era of LHC, can Directly Search for b’, t ’ Once and For All ! Find b’, t’, or Rule Out @ LHC It’s a Duty. Strategy Considerations ( ) Well shielded training ground — All Tools ☞ Move on to Greener Pastures ~ in 2 years Publish early — Large Cross Section - If “Limits”, then easy to publish - If “Signal”, Lucked Out! Well shielded Publish early

b’ Signatures b’  cW dominance for sizable b’  tW* dominance For mb’ < mt+MW = 255 GeV b’  cW dominance b’  tW* dominance for sizable for suppressed Kinematic suppressed for mb’ ≲ 230 GeV Initial discovery should consider b’  cW ~ b’  bZ, bH ~ b’  tW* cc(bar)WW; cWbZ; cWbH; tc(bar)WW*; tt(bar)W*W*; tW*bZ; tW*bH; Bonus !! Rich Signature Heavy Q related To EWSB ? For mb’ > mt+MW = 255 GeV b’  tW dominance; FCNC searchable tt(bar)WW → bb(bar)W+W-W+W- 4 W’s + 2b’s

Limit to 480 GeV w/