New Physics CP Violation in b → s Transitions — From Hints to Proof — March 9 2008, XLIII Moriond QCD @ La Thuile

New Physics b → s CPV I. Intro: BAU ➯ Need New Physics CPV II. Hints in b → s * * vs III. New Large Yukawa Couplings: CPV in and * kaon constraint * refinement 4th Generation and Large

New Physics b → s CPV I. Intro: BAU ➯ Need New Physics CPV II. Hints in b → s * * vs III. New Large Yukawa Couplings: CPV in and * kaon constraint * refinement IV. Proof: (near) Future * @ Tevatron & LHC(b) * BAU from Electroweak Baryogenesis V. Discussion and Conclusion 4th Generation and Large and (distant) Past

I. Intro: BAU ➯ Need New Physics CPV WMAP Too Small in SM

II. Hints in b → s vs

A lot of (hadronic) finesse + 0.050  0.025 - 0.097  0.012 + 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) _ d p0 K- u B- s b Need NP CPV Phase PEW has practically no weak phase in SM t, ?

Must Measure CPV Phase in Bs: sin2FBs ! vs Low-ish ? Situation Stone talk Haas & Kronfeld talks Must Measure CPV Phase in Bs: sin2FBs ! Likely larger (?) Likely Higher Observation: weak phase Desirable NP Phase easy to accommodate

III. New Large Yukawa Couplings: CPV in and 4th Generation Predict Large and < 0 〈* kaon constraint〉 * refinement

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

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’ NLO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen. DA  15% DS  -0.11 SM3 input vs -0.340.2x (data) WSH, Li, Mishima, Nagashima, PRL’07 Joining C & PEW Both and in Right Direction ! DA DS

WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 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 Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 ?

WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 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. 2009 sin2FBs ~ -0.5 - -0.7 ? Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05

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

IV. Proof: (near) Future and (distant) Past * @ Tevatron & LHC(b) * BAU from Electroweak Baryogenesis Talks by Weber & Hicheur (tomorrow) “Evidence” (?) last week: UTfit on Bs arXiv:0803.0659 [hep-ph]

F Bs Prospect (short term) sin2FBs ~ -0.5 - -0.7 Bs  J/  analogous to Bd  J/ KS V V Angular & Vertex Resolved Analysis to disentangle CP +/- components ~ 6 CDF/DØ : 8 fb-1 projected s(sin 2F Bs) ≃ 0.2 (?)/exp similar LHCb : 0.5 fb-1 (2008 ?) s(sin 2F Bs) ≃ 0.04 ATLAS : 2.5 fb-1 (2008 ?) s(sin 2F Bs) ≃ 0.16 CMS ? € LHCb the winner if ~ SM sin 2F Bs ~ - 0.04 in SM $ Tevatron could get lucky if sin 2F Bs large New Physics ! Could Tevatron run beyond 2008 ? But 2009 looks interesting ! Nakada @ fLHC 3/07

B.A.U. from Electroweak Baryogenesis ? CPV WMAP Too Small in SM Why? Jarlskog Invariant in SM3 (need 3 generation in KM) Normalize by T ~ 100 GeV masses too small ! is common (unique) area of triangle in SM

~ 10+15 Gain CPV WMAP Too Small in SM B.A.U. from Electroweak Baryogenesis ? CPV WMAP Too Small in SM If shift by One Generation in SM4 (need 3 generation in KM) Only fac. 30 in CPV per se ~ 10+15 Gain Gain mostly in Large Yukawa Couplings !

Couple Strongly to Higgs Can “Boil” Higgs Soup B.A.U. from Electroweak Baryogenesis ? Order of Phase Transition Too much equlibration in SM washes away B.A. at high T Cubic term too small Extra Heavy Bosons (usual approach) Carena, Megevand, Quirós, Wagner, NPB’05 Fermion Couple Strongly to Higgs Can “Boil” Higgs Soup mF/T Not small Cannot use above m/T expansion Not too large Does not decouple too early Upshot: relativistic d.o.f. g* become g*(f), effective reheating by F decoupling around Tc Stronger Transition

Couple Strongly to Higgs Can “Boil” Higgs Soup B.A.U. from Electroweak Baryogenesis ? Order of Phase Transition Observation: ∃ 4th Generation, then t < b’ < t’ ~ 300 GeV may be sufficient for ?! If numerics of CMQW can be used Used Higgsino/Wino Model w/ 12 d.o.f. l > 2.1 Comment that top (also 12 d.o.f.) w/ l ≅ 1 is too small Carena, Megevand, Quirós, Wagner, NPB’05 Fermion Couple Strongly to Higgs Can “Boil” Higgs Soup mF/T Not small Cannot use above m/T expansion Not too large Does not decouple too early Upshot: relativistic d.o.f. g* become g*(f), effective reheating by F decoupling around Tc Stronger Transition

Order of Phase Transition B.A.U. from Electroweak Baryogenesis ? CPV Order of Phase Transition Can 4th Generation Restore Electroweak Baryogenesis ? Can we use this to Demand to see NP b → s CPV ?

V. Discussion and Conclusion 4th generation not in such great conflict with EWPrT Kribs, Plehn, Spannowsky, Tait, PRD’07 Issue of “UV completion” for EWBG picture (vacuum stability) Heavy 4th generation above 600 GeV (unitarity limit) could lead to EWSB No Higgs ? Holdom, JHEP’06 t’ & b’ can be discovered at LHC !

Conclusion on New Physics b → s CPV I. Intro: BAU ➯ Need New Physics CPV II. Hints in b → s * * vs III. New Large Yukawa Couplings: CPV in and * kaon constraint * refinement IV. Proof: (near) Future * @ Tevatron & LHC(b) * BAU from Electroweak Baryogenesis Experiment is Firm 4th Generation and Large and (distant) Past Soon !

Backup

Probably Need Super B Factory to Resolve ! DS = Ssqq - Sccs < 0 “ Problem” Smaller than bgccs in almost all modes Theory Expect sin 2f1 > sin 2f1 s-penguin cc(bar)s Probably Need Super B Factory to Resolve ! Naïve average of all b g s modes sin2beff = 0.56 ± 0.05 2.1 s deviation (was 2.6) btwn b g sqq and b g ccs New Physics !? Even deviation of ~ few deg indicate NP Need More Data ! Sinha, Misra, WSH, PRL 97, 131802 (2006)

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

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

Short-distance Only PDG06 From 4 x 4 Unitarity mb’ = 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]