1 Large electroweak penguin effects in B and K physics in B and K physics Makiko Nagashima (NTU) Theory seminar KEK, Sep. 6 (2005) HEP seminar at IOPAS, Oct. 28 (2005)

2 Contents Kπ DCPV puzzle within 4 th generation model W.S.Hou, M.N, A. Soddu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, (2005) 4 th generation model and indications from Kπ and K physics W.S.Hou, M.N, A. Soddu, hep-ph/ , to appear in PRD An enhanced

3 Introduction Standard Model and CKM mechanism 3 generation SU(2) doublet SU(2) singlet Quark sector 3 mixing angles 1 CP phase CKM matrix Unitarity Triangle Study of CPV / Test of SM / Search for NP

4 Three sides are comparable B physics has success in studying of CP violation In this talk, We will see and for Bs system

5 Observables of CP Violation Direct CP asymmetry We focus on DCPV in this talk see directly the difference of yield Time dependent CP asymmetry B Bf ( Direct CPV ) ( Mixing-induced CPV ) Only for neutral meson

6 Terminology: TREE and PENGUIN diagrams Tree diagram s u u dd b W b u u u u s W > 1/Nc b d W g u s d u Penguin diagram b d u s d u W Z,γ > sub-dominant

7 Part I Large EWP effects on B → Kπ Direct CP PDG2002

8 Result on DCPV in Kπ PUZZLE

9 The large discrepancy still persists Lepton-Photon Symposium ‘05

10 PQCD by Keum, Li and Sanda, PRD63(2001) Theoretical calculations in 2001 QCDF by M. Beneke et al., NPB606(2001)245 Two of DCPV behaves similar

11 Improved calculations Beneke and Neubert, NPB675(2003)333 Annihilation contributions H-n. Li, S. Mishima and A.I. Sanda, hep-ph/

12 Direct CP Violation (DCPV) Difference of Yields vs given by single term no relative phases DCPV goes away CP

13 QCDF (BBNS) SM kT PQCD (KLS) away sub-dominant If one neglects EWP and C, No phase differences (2003) (2001) contradiction up to leading order calculation In K pi amplitudes

14 How to explain deviation ? The SM can explain the different pattern of DCPVs in Kpi modes completely Of course, it is fine !! From this aspect, The different pattern of DCPVs remains a crucial hint of New Physics. New Physics exists, its contribution appear in other processes, and can be tested. This does not mean THERE IS NO NEW PHYSICS IN OUR NATURE THE SM and THE NP can not be distinguished in Kpi DCPVs What can we learn for New Physics from Experimental results ?

15 extra comparable contributions bringing phase differences toward We call for Large with an extra weak phase We employ kTPQCD approach must not be negligible Assemble 4 th generation scenariopenguinNew physics naturally explain large

16 kTPQCD approach Large strong phase comes from annihilation process a hard gluon kicks spectator At leading process is introduced to cure the endpoint singularities

17 A. Arhrib and W-S. Hou, EPJC27,555 T. Yanir, JHEP06, 044 Minimum Setup ( meaning to be clear in Part II ) 4 th generation scenario A sequential 4 th generation in addition to the SM particles well-known unknown same quantum number follows WS parameterization

18 Our assumption Neither Scalar OPE nor Tensor OPE. R.H. dynamics is suppressed by ms/mb The low energy operators are the same as the SM New physics enters though loop processes, and changes the short distance effects Buras, et al. Minimal flavor violation Barger, et al. Z’ model Baek, et al. Generic EWP

19 Effective Hamiltonian Tree QCD Penguin EW/EM Penguin t' effects well-satisfy b → sγrate and DCPV Large enhancement Wilson coefficient Dividing ΔCi by QCD penguin Natural ability of 4 th generation to large enhancement of EWP

20 Constraint PDG04 Belle(04) B(b→sll) gets greatly enhanced Δm is lower than EXP. bound 4 th generation effects are not excluded!!

21 Result kTPQCD in the SM 4 th generation + sizable splitting between Roughly, described as It naturally generates the phase diff. and sizable mag. of the extra term

22 Our result is at leading order in kTPQCD. A recent result finds a much larger color-suppressed tree (C) at next-to-leading order. is less negative (H-n. Li, S. Mishima and A.I. Sanda, hep-ph/ ) Remark Comparably large C would allow more parameter space for the 4 th generation

23 Some Curiosities

24 MICPV is rather little sensitive to strong phases Specially, MICPV due to b→s transition behaves like naïve factorization + 4 th gene.

25 No Rescattering Another framework: extra strong phase from Final State Interaction Naïve Factorization ⊗ Final State Rescattering Otherwise Double Counting George W.S. Hou, BCP JC, Oct. 14 (2002)

26 We followed Mod.Phys.Lett. A18,1763 by C-K. Chua, W-S. Hou and K-C. Yang It accounts for (strong phase) ICHEP04 (strong phase) problem

27 This FSI picture doesn’t help for resolving the puzzle There is no solution We performed analysis by incorporating t’ effects re-scattering happens between EW penguin would be brought into amplitude from

28 Part II Explore s → d and b → d implications Naively assumed did not care about One may have suspicion that b→s would spill over into s→d is not necessarily ~ 0

29 should be all intertwined … PLB (1987) by W.S. Hou et al.

30 Be moderate From K pi study, we learned Keep We have some constraint on from Impose be close to the Cabibbo angle

31 Allowed region from K processes standard (1) is less stringent (simulated dots) (shaded region) (elliptic rings) depends on hadronic parameter R6 and R8 Bijnens (2) We found (1) (2)

32 Outcome for Current Upper Bound It is very hard to measure but challenging… We find enhancing to or even higher !! It might be even larger than !! we take

33 Unfortunately, US government cancelled the KOPIO experiment We will have to wait longer to see whether such effects is really present … Let us hope this stimulates the program at JPARC !!

34 Furthermore ….. We also checked the impact on Bd and D system

35 Summary Starting point → Direct CP Violation in B→Kπ 4 th generation is possible to generate Large EWP Extend our study to Bd and K system ( to, phenomenologically, understand the possibilities of having still fourth generation ) ( )

36 BACKUP SLIDE

37 FROM PDG04 Our anxiety

38 We now know neutrinos have mass, will have CPV, and more to be revealed. # of neutrino =3 is just one piece of info. The rho parameter is less of a problem. The S parameter is the real problem (it ‘s so for most NP models.) What the situation changes if the Higgs is not seen and actually heavy ?

39 Extra generation vs. EW precision data V.A. Novikov et al., PLB529, 111 Ng Δm=sqrt(mU^2-mD^2) [GeV] mH>113 GeV, mD=130 GeV mN [GeV] Ng mD=200, mU=220, mE=100 [GeV]

40 2D plots in different way