1 Testing New Physics with Unitarity Triangle Fits Achille Stocchi (LAL/Orsay) SUSY 2005 (The Millenium Window to Particle Physics) Durham 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 Results based on the work from M. Bona et al. (UTfits Coll.) JHEP07(2005) 028 hep-ph/ M. Bona et al. (UTfits Coll.) paper in preparation

3 B   +other charmonium radiative decays X s ,X d , X s ll B  DK +from Penguins theo. clean The Unitarity Triangle: Charm Physics (Dalitz) ?

4 -sin(2β)A CP (J/ψ,K S ) ξ(1– )  m d /  m s f B B B (1– ) mdmd BKBK [(1– ) + P] KK, λ 1,F(1),… (b  u)/(b  c) ρη η ρ ρ η ρη Λ 2 UTFit within the SM

5 ρ = ± η = ± UTFit within the SM

6 Coherent picture of CP Violation in SM 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/  K 0 sin2  ± 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 the first phase. the first phase. UT with angles only a g cos 2b sin( 2b) sin( 2b+g) UTFit within the SM

8 All available information together sin(2  ) ± sin(2  ) ± 0.17 [][] 58.1 ± 5.0  ±  ± 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 V ub /V cb from s.l decays  from tree level proceses Fit with NP independent variables (similar plot in Botella et al. hep-ph/ )

10 Parametrizing NP physics in  F=2 processes  F=2 5 new free parameters C s,  s B s mixing C d,  d B d mixing C  K K mixing  Cd,dCd,d CKCK C s,  s V ub /V cb XX mdmd XX KK XX ACP  J  XX  XX  D  X msms X ACP  J  ~XX  D s K) XX Today : fit possible with 6 contraints and 5 free parameters (   C d,  d,C  K ) Constraints Fit in a NP model independent approach Not yet available

11 Fit in a NP model independent approach SM-like  CdCd cos2(  )sin2(  )sin(2  ) A SL SM-LIKE60 o OK NP160 o OK NP2120 o NP3120 o K V ub /V cb  D  mdmd ACP  J  KK Using    

12 V ub /V cb  D  mdmd ACP  J  KK Using  cos2  A SL 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 C Bd = 1.25± 0.45  Bd = (0.1 ± 3.1) o C  = 1.07 ± 0.25 Taking as maximal effect 2  (  Bd ) ~6 o for the new phase (  Bd )  NP can only contribute at 10% Fit in a NP model independent approach

14 MFV New CP in b  s -  F=1 Penguins transitions - The B s physics (LHCb) - Improvements existing measurements - 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  m d in the fit U niversal U nitarity T riangle : generalised SM analysis and MFV Almost as good as the SM !! η = ± from UUT fit ρ = ± from UUT fit MFV Starting point for studies of rare decays see : Bobeth et al. hep-ph/

 0.44 In models with one Higgs doublet or low/moderate tan  (D’Ambrosio et al. hep-ph/ ) NP enters as additional contribution in top box diagram Already now, in some specific Model we start to explore interesting NP scale  0 is the equivalent SM scale MFV

17 2Higgs + large tan   also bottom Yukawa coupling must be considered MFV

18 All modes (except  ’K s ) are less than 1.5  away from sin(2  ) from J/  K s b  s transitions (  F=1)

19

20 CKM Matrix in ≤2010-where we will be We 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) V ub ~ 5% V cb ~ 1%  m s at 0.3ps -1 (Tevatron or/and LHCb) f B  B B ~ 5%  ~ 3% B K ~ 5% Inputs sin(2  ) ± sin(2  ) ±  51.7 ± 3.0  ±  ± Outputs sin2  ± CKM2010

21  0.26  0.44 In MFV Now 2010 CKM2010

22 φ Bd = (-0.1 ± 1.3) o C Bd = 0.98 ± 0.14φ Bs = (0.0 ± 1.3) o C Bs = 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 (  m s, ACP(J ,  F=1….)  Bd ~ 0

24 New inputs are coming for EPS05 and situation is slightly different…. Results of yesterday night…. Stay tuned ! LAST MINUT V ub /V cb sin2  Still possible surprises improving the existing measurements

25 C Bd = 1.10 ± 0.48 φ Bd = (-4.6 ± 2.6) o Results of yesterday night…. Stay tuned ! Discrepancy 1.5 