4 Extraction of the Unitarity triangle parameters Search for New Physics

… g a sin(2b) How measurements constraint UT parameters the angles.. sin(b+g) the angles.. sin(2b) Dms Dmd Vub/Vcb the sides... CP asymmetries in charmless BK*(r)g Btn … Rare decays... sensitive to NP

An example on how to fit the UT parameters and fit new physics BDK : 3/ B// : 2/ K : CPV in K decays Bd and Bs mixing bcℓ and buℓ Bccs : 1 /b

In ~2000 the first fundamental test of agreement between From Childhood In ~2000 the first fundamental test of agreement between direct and indirect sin2b To precision era WE HAVE TO GO ON…

Crucial Test of the SM in the quarks sector (historical..) DONE!! determination of CP violating parameters measuring CP-conserving observables CP-violating observables was/is the strong motivation of the B-Factories sin2b = 0.726 ± 0.037 B  J/y K0 Coherent picture of CP Violation in SM from sides-only We are probably beyond the era of « alternatives» to the CKM picture. NP should appear as «corrections» to the CKM picture

TODAY SITUATION Total Fit Dmd,Dms,Vub,Vcb,ek + cos2b + b + a + g + 2b+g r = 0.164± 0.029 h = 0.340 ± 0.017

Comparison measurements “with angles” wrt “with sides”

SM Fit Are there evidence of disagreement in the actual fit ? agreement between the predicted values and the measurements at better than : 6s 5s 3s 4s 1s 2s No disagreement for g et Dms

From direct measurement from indirect determination Some discrepencies observed between Vub and sin2b sin2b=0.675±0.026 From direct measurement We should keep an eyes on these kinds of disagreements. Could be NP sin2b =0.764± 0.039 from indirect determination (all included by sin2b)

The problem of particle physics today is : where is the NP scale L ~ 0.5, 1…1016 TeV The quantum stabilization of the Electroweak Scale suggest that L ~ 1 TeV LHC will search on this range What happens if the NP scale is at 2-3..10 TeV …naturalness is not at loss yet… Flavour Physics explore also this range We want to perform flavour measurements such that : - if NP particles are discovered at LHC we able study the flavour structure of the NP - we can explore NP scale beyond the LHC reach If there is NP at scale L, it will generate new operator of dimension D with coefficents proportional to L4-D You could demonstrate that only operator of D=6 contribute So that in fact you have a dependence on 1/ L2

To help with a more specific example : (MFV), no new sources of flavour and CP violation NP contributions governed by SM Yukawa couplings. To help with a more specific example : Example for B oscillations (FCNC-DB=2) : dbd pr upper limit of the relative contribution of NP dbd NP physics coupling Leff NP scale (masses of new particles) If couplings ~ 1 Minimal Flavour Violation all possible intermediate possibilities dbq ~ 1 Leff ~ 10/pr TeV (couplings small as CKM elements) dbs ~1 Leff ~ 2/pr TeV dbq ~ 0.1 Leff ~ 1/pr TeV Leff ~ 0.08/pr TeV dbs ~0.1 Leff ~ 0.2/pr TeV

WHAT IS REALLY STRANGE IS THAT WE DID NOT SEE ANYTHING…. NP physics could be always arround the corner WHAT IS REALLY STRANGE IS THAT WE DID NOT SEE ANYTHING…. With masses of New Particles at few hundred GeV effects on measurable quantities should be important Problem known as the FLAVOUR PROBLEM Leff <~ 1TeV + flavour-mixing protected by additional symmetries (as MFV) Couplings can be still large if Leff > 1..10..TeV

DF=2 Fit in a NP model independent approach Constraints Parametrizing NP physics in DF=2 processes r , h Cd jd Cs js CeK g (DK) X Vub/Vcb Dmd ACP (J/Y K) ASL a (rr,rp,pp) ACH DGs/Gs Dms eK In future : ACP (J/Y f) ~X ASL(Bs) g (DsK) Tree processes 5 new free parameters Cs,js Bs mixing Cd,jd Bd mixing CeK K mixing 13 family Constraints 23 family Today : fit possible with 10 contraints and 7 free parameters (r, h, Cd,jd ,Cs,js, CeK) 12 familiy

ANP/ASM vs fNP ANP/ASM ~1 only if fNP~0 ANP/ASM ~0-40% @95% prob. CBd = 1.24 ± 0.43 φBd = (-3.0 ± 2.0)o ANP/ASM vs fNP With present data ANP/ASM=0 @ 2s ANP/ASM ~1 only if fNP~0 ANP/ASM ~0-40% @95% prob.

obtained at a superB ~100 times present B-factory Complementarity LHC/precise measurments today r = 20%  Leff ~ 180 GeV tomorrow Leff ~ 0.08/r TeV r = 10%  Leff ~ 250 GeV after tomorrow electroweak scale r = 1%  Leff ~ 800 GeV You need to improve 20 times your precision if you want to span the region from the EW scale to the TeV scale. As could be obtained at a superB ~100 times present B-factory luminosity NP scale ~200GeV with MFV couplings NP~800 GeV This is really the most costly way of reaching high NP scale….

Adjusting the central values so that they are all compatible Keeping the central values as measured today with errors at the SuperB

tanb Higgs-mediated NP in MFV at large tanb Similar formula in MSSM. Excl. 2s Bln MH (TeV) tanb 2ab-1 MH~0.4-0.8 TeV for tanb~30-60 SuperB MH~1.2-2.5 TeV for tanb~30-60

Constraints on b -> s transitions: d s b W- B0d t f K0 ~ g ~ ~ b b s s New Physics contribution (2-3 families)

With the today precision we do not have 3s exclusion Example on how precise measurements could allow o explore NP scale beyond the TeV scale ~ g MSSM ~ ~ New Physics contribution (2-3 families) b b s s 1 10-1 10-2 In the red regions the d are measured with a significance >3s away from zero 1 10 ACP(bsg) With the today precision we do not have 3s exclusion for any set of parameters

APPENDIX Part IV 1) More details on MFV

MFV = CKM is the only source of CP violation eK and Dmd are sensitive to NP MFV = CKM is the only source of CP violation The previous fits  MFV ? j(Bd) ~0 Fit without eK and Dmd valid in SM and MFV Almost as good as the SM !! Buras et al. hep-ph/0007085 Universal UTfit Very tiny space for see effects beyond the SM Starting point for studies of rare decays see for instance : Bobeth et al. hep-ph/0505110

Very interesting the AFB asymmetry of BK*ll RARE DECAYS in the framework of MFV Upper limits : Branching fractions MFV(95%) SM (95%) exp Br(K+p+nn) 1011 <11.9 [6.1-10.9] 14.7+13.0-8.9 Br(KLp0nn) 1011 <4.59 [2.03-4.26] <5.9  104 Br(KLmm)  109 <1.36 [0.63-1.15] Br(BXsnn)  105 <5.17 [3.25-4.09] <64 Br(BXdnn)  106 <2.17 [1.12-1.91] Br(Bsmm)  109 <7.42 [1.91-5.91] <2.7  102 Br(Bdmm)  1010 <2.20 [0.47-1.81] <1.5  103 K physics B physics Very interesting the AFB asymmetry of BK*ll

MFV In models with one Higgs doublet or low/moderate tanb (D’Ambrosio et al. hep-ph/0207036) NP enters as additional contribution in top box diagram L0 is the equivalent SM scale dS0 = -0.03 ± 0.54 [-0.90, 1.79] @95% Prob. To be compared with tested scale using for instance b->sg (9-12Tev) D’Ambrosio et al. hep-ph/0207036

MFV 2Higgs + large tanb  also bottom Yukawa coupling must be considered dS0B ≠ dS0K dS0B dS0K Could give infomation on the tanb regime …not yet at the present L > 2.6 TeV @ 95% for dS0(xt) > 0 L > 4.9 TeV @ 95% for dS0(xt) < 0 L > 3.2 TeV @ 95% for dS0(xt) > 0 L > 4.9 TeV @ 95% for dS0(xt) < 0 Correlation coefficient =0.52

Two crucial questions : Can NP be flavour blind ? No : NP couples to SM which violates flavour Can we define a “worst case” scenario Yes : the class of model with Minimal Flavour Violation (MFV), namely : no new sources of flavour and CP violation and so : NP contributions governed by SM Yukawa couplings. Today L(MFV) > 2.3L0 @95C.L. NP masses >200GeV SuperB L(MFV) >~6L0 @95C.L. NP masses >600GeV

In Bs sector we are not yet at the same level of precision as in Bd sector