1. C.D. LuCKM1  /  3 from Charmless B s Decays Cai-Dian Lü (IHEP, Beijing) Thanks A.Ali, G.Kramer and Li, Wang... Testing Uncertainty of

2. C.D. LuCKM2 Outline Test of SU(3) breaking by charmless B 0 and B s decays by pQCD approach BRs and Direct CP asymmetry Uncertainty of  /  3 in Charmless B s Decays Summary

3. C.D. LuCKM3 Do not need form factor inputs All diagrams using the same wave functions (same order in  s expansion) All channels use the same wave functions Number of parameters reduced pQCD approach based on k T factorization

4. C.D. LuCKM4 CP Violation in B    (K) (real prediction before exp.) CP(%)FABBNSPQCDExp  + K – +9±3+5±9–17±5–11.5±1.8  + K 0 1.7 ± 0.11 ±1– 1.0 ±0.5– 2 ±4  0 K + +8 ± 27 ±9– 13 ±4 +4 ± 4  +  – –5±3–6±12+30±10+37±10 (2001)

5. C.D. LuCKM5 pQCD approach in B decays pQCD approach successfully describe the B 0 and B + decays Most of the branching ratios agree well with experiments The right direct CP asymmetry sign with the experiment Using the constrained parameters determined here to predict B s decays

6. C.D. LuCKM6 B s distribution amplitude  b =0.45  b =0.50  b =0.55  b =0.4 GeV for B meson = momentum fraction

7. C.D. LuCKM7 Form factors derived from light cone wave functions Larger f Bs, but smaller inverse moment of B s meson distribution amplitude QCDF:

8. C.D. LuCKM8 BR (x 10 –6 ) preliminary

9. C.D. LuCKM9 Three measurements of BRs in B s SCET QCDF PQCD EXP CDF B s  K – pi + 4.9±1.8 10±6 11 ±6 5.0±1.3 B s  K – K + 18±7 23±27 13 ±9 24 ± 5 B s  phi phi 33 ±13 14 ± 8 |Vub| (10 –3 ) = 3.69  4.31 34

10. C.D. LuCKM10 First measurement of CP in B s B s  K – pi + SCET QCDF PQCD EXP 20 ± 26 –6.7 ± 16 24 ± 6 39 ± 15 ± 8 pQCD agree with EXP in CP

11. C.D. LuCKM11 vs A 

12. C.D. LuCKM12 vs S 

13. C.D. LuCKM13 U-spin symmetry (Gronau,Rosner,Lipkin) Results from pQCD Experimental data = –1 = 0

14. C.D. LuCKM14 Topology diagrams   W exchange penguin Penguin annihilation tree

15. C.D. LuCKM15 U-spin, SU(3) T = tree PA = penguin annihilation P = QCD penguin P EW = electroweak penguin E = W exchange color suppressed

16. C.D. LuCKM16 SU(3) breaking and relative size of different contributions CKM matrix elements already factored out SU(3) breaking is not negligible

17. C.D. LuCKM17 Bs   0 K S Color suppressed tree is comparable with QCD penguin contribution Direct CP large QCDF PQCD 25 ± 60 % 97 ± 30 % Not good for gamma measurement

18. C.D. LuCKM18 B s   0  (Fleischer 1994) I = 0  I = 1  I = 1 Both tree and electroweak penguin can give  I = 1 (QCD penguin  I =0) Like B +  pi + pi 0, only  I =3/2 There should be only one strong phase, then no relative strong phase between amplitudes

19. C.D. LuCKM19 Bs   0 Bs   0  Color suppressed tree is comparable with electroweak penguin contribution Direct CP small QCDF PQCD 27 ± 40 % 9 ± 2 % good for  /  3 measurement QCDF PQCD BR(10 – 7 ) 1.2 2.0

20. C.D. LuCKM20 Polarizations

21. C.D. LuCKM21 Summary PQCD can give the right sign for CP asymmetry  the strong phase from PQCD should be the dominant one. The SU(3) breaking effects are not very small as expected Still much effort needed for the CKM angle hunting

22. C.D. LuCKM22 Thank you!

23. C.D. LuCKM23

24. C.D. LuCKM24