1. February 13, 2009, WG4/LHC2FC @ CERN
CP Violation for the Heaven and the Earth
— Sighting the 4th Generation ?
February 13, 2009, CERN

2. Can all this be understood
from my vantage ?

3. February 6, 2009, Wine & Cheese Seminar, Fermilab
CP Violation for the Heaven and the Earth
— Sighting the 4th Generation ?
February 6, 2009, Wine & Cheese Seminar, Fermilab
see:

4. Outline I. Intro II. D AK p & Nondecoupling: t’ in Z Penguin
III. DmBs & B(B  Xsℓ+ℓ-): 2nd Prediction for sin2FBs
[CKM Consistency & Implications
IV. A Enhancement of CPV for BAU ?
[V. (In)Direct Sighting: Tevatron vs LHC]
VI. Discussion/Conclusion: Know in 3-5 Years
1st Prediction for sin2FBs
WSH, Nagashima, Soddu,
PRL’05; PRD’05; PRD’07; PRD’08
Belle, Nature, 452, 20 (2008)
WSH, arXiv: [hep/ph]

5. I. Intro

6. Friday the 13th (before Valentines!!) Punishment !
4th Generation Still?
- Nn counting? 4th “neutral lepton” heavy
Massive neutrinos call for new Physics
- Disfavored by EW Precision (see e.g. J. Erler hep-ph/ ; PDG06
Friday the 13th (before Valentines!!) Punishment !

7. - Disfavored by EW Precision (see e.g. J. Erler hep-ph/0604035; PDG06
4th Generation Still?
- Nn counting? 4th “neutral lepton” heavy
Massive neutrinos call for new Physics
~ Tao Han’s talk
- Disfavored by EW Precision (see e.g. J. Erler hep-ph/ ; PDG06
4th generation not in such great conflict with EWPrT
Kribs, Plehn, Spannowsky, Tait, PRD’07
Emi Kou’s talk

8. In fact, well presented ! General: Emi Kou (plenary)
[Heavy Lepton: Tao Han (plenary); could be related
ATLAS: Saleh Sultansoy (also on Higgs in WG1)
CMS: Kai-Feng Chen
CPV: this talk

9. CPV & BAU (& U): The Sakharov View
(1967)
CPV & BAU (& U): The Sakharov View
Baryon Number V iolation
CP Violation
Deviation from Equilibrium
10-9 Matter left !
13Byr
Bang Us
Pair
Annihilation
(  Cosmic Microwave
Background )
Equal Matter
-Antimatter

10. Discovery of CP Violation
Sakharov Stimulated by ...
Discovery of CP Violation
Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 138 (1964)
1980 Nobel

11. KM CPV Confirmed ~ 2001
the MOMA plot
“Nontrivial”

12. CP Violation in SM B Factories The Nobel Prize in Physics 2008
"for the discovery of
the mechanism of
spontaneous broken
symmetry in
subatomic physics"
"for the discovery of the origin of the
broken symmetry which predicts the
existence of at least three families of
quarks in nature"
CP Violation
in SM
7 October 2008
Photo: Universtity of Chicago
Photo: KEK
Photo: Kyoto University
Yoichiro Nambu
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
  1/2 of the prize
  1/4 of the prize
B Factories
(BaBar & Belle)
USA
Japan
Enrico Fermi Institute,
University of Chicago Chicago, IL, USA
High Energy Accelerator
Research Organization
(KEK) Tsukuba, Japan
Kyoto Sangyo University;
Yukawa Institute for
Theoretical Physics (YITP),
Kyoto University Kyoto, Japan
b (in Tokyo, Japan)
b. 1944
b. 1940

13. b  s: the Current Frontier
b  d transitions consistent with SM
b  s: the Current Frontier
the MOMA plot
“Nontrivial”

14. A Real Hint !
, ... or Not !?

15. II. D AK p & Nondecoupling: t’ in Z Penguin
1st Prediction for sin2FBs

16. Belle 2008 Nature: Simple Bean Count
D A K p = AK +p 0 - AK +p - =  s
 vs  0.020
b → s CPV
Not Predicted !
Difference Is
Large !
And Established
Belle + BaBar (+ CDF)

17. ACP(B  K+p0 ) ACP(Kp0 ) = 0.04  0.05  0.02
Saga Towards Belle Nature Paper ...
ACP(B  K+p0 )
Sakai
275M BB
New
Kp0 : 728 53
ACP(Kp0 ) = 0.04  0.05  0.02
hint that ACP(K+p- ) ¹ ACP(Kp0 ) ? (2.4s)
[also seen by BaBar] d p0
Large EW penguin (Z0) ?
New Physics ? _ d B- b s K- u u
ICHEP 2004, Beijing

18. the experimentalist

19. The Crawlin’ of one Ant _ d p0 K- u B- s b
Going Up a Hill ...

20. My first B paper
WSH, Willey, Soni
dimensions
<
nondecoupling

21. Nondecoupling dynamical
Decoupling Thm: Heavy Masses are decoupled in QED/QCD
∵ Appear in Propagator
Nondecoupling: Yukawa Couplings lQ Appear in Numerator
dynamical
Subtlety of Spont. Broken Gauge Theory

22. p0 K- Going Up a Hill* ... The Crawlin’ of one Ant _ d u B- s b
Embark
Going Up a Hill* ...
* I am aware of hadronic (color-suppressed C) complications

23. This is Still the Standard Model

24. p0 K- _ d u B- s b t ➯ t, t ’ GIM Respecting Nondecoupling of t ’
Arhrib and WSH, EPJC’03
, t ’
t ➯ t, t ’ _ d p0 K- u B- s b
Nondecoupling of t ’
, t ’
CPV Phase
GIM Respecting

25. EWP/Box Sensitivity to 4th Gen.
g, g less sensitive
(No New Operators)
EW penguin
QCD penguin
nondecoupling

26. 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 ’

28. D A = AK +p 0 - AK +p - ~ 15% and D A  12% vs 15% (data) p0 t, t’ K-
LO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen.
WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05
D A  12% vs 15% (data) _ d p0 K- u B- s b
t, t’
Can Account for Belle/BaBar Direct CPV Difference
NLO PQCD ⊕ 4th Gen.
DA  15%
DS  -0.11
SM3 input
consistent
with data
Joining C & PEW
WSH, Li, Mishima, Nagashima, PRL’07
Both and in Right Direction ! DA DS

29. III. DmBs & B(B  Xsℓ+ℓ-): 2nd Prediction for sin2FBs
b ↔ s CPV
III. DmBs & B(B  Xsℓ+ℓ-): 2nd Prediction for sin2FBs

30. Mixing-dep. CPV in Bd and Bs in SM
Measured by Belle/BaBar
in Bd  J/y KS
sin2FBs ≃ – in SM3
Measure in Bs  J/y f

31. WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07
Prediction: Large CPV in Bs Mixing
b → d
b → s
t, t ’
t, t ’
sin2FBs ~ -0.5 to -0.7
No Hadronic Uncertainty ... SM
Strength and Size of
Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like
WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07
PRL’05

32. Bs Mixing vs B  Xsℓ+ℓ- Large CPV in Bs Mixing
different nondecoupl. functions
Large CPV in Bs Mixing

33. Change mt’ , Change parameter range
Use nominal mt’ = 300 GeV
Change mt’ , Change parameter range
Effect the Same.
(Similar)
N.B. D AK p suggest parameter space

34. Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like
WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, hep-ph/
(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 °
CDF 2s range
Finite CPV Phase
Consistent w/ B(bsll)
SM-like !
HFAG 1s range
Large CPV Possible !
Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like

35. Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like
WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, hep-ph/
(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 °
CDF 2s range
Finite CPV Phase
Consistent w/ B(bsll)
SM-like !
HFAG 1s range
Large CPV Possible !
Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like

36. DAKp, DS Large CPV in Bs Mixing Can Large CPV in Bs Mixing
WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, hep-ph/ SM
(high)
rsb
DAKp, DS
CDF 2s range
Can Large CPV in Bs Mixing
Be Tevatron ?
Sign Predicted !
Sure thing by
LHCb ca. 2008
sin2FBs ~ 0.5 -  0.7
sin2FBs ~ ?
Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like

37. WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05
Prediction: 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 ~ ? SM
Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like
WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05

38. WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05
Prediction: 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 Tevatron ?
Sign Predicted !
Sure thing by
LHCb ca (?)
sin2FBs ~ ? SM
Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like
WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05

39. Further ICHEP’08 Updates (CDF/DØ/fitters): Strengthen !
sin2FBs ~
WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD’07
(already in 05)
PRL’08
arXiv: [hep.ex]
arXiv: [hep.ex]
PRL’08
Further ICHEP’08 Updates (CDF/DØ/fitters): Strengthen !
sin2FBs = -0.64
+ 0.16
- 0.14
3.7 s
~2.8 s
± ?
arXiv: [hep.ph]
UTfit
Incredible !!!

41. (Conservative) outlook
sin2FBs = -sinbs = sinfs
(Conservative) outlook
% of CDF ‘clones’ that would observe a 5σ-effect, as a function of βs
Assumptions
ΔΓs = 0.1 ps-1
Constant data-taking efficiency
No analysis improvements.
No external constraints (ASL, lifetimes) used.
Observation w/ 2010 Data if Central Value Stays !
Probability of 5σ observation
CDF future will probably be better than that.
And DØ will contribute too. βs
--- 8/fb (~2010)
--- 6/fb (~2009)
CKM September 11, 2008
D. Tonelli- Fermilab

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

43. AFB(B  K*l+l-) and Other Predictions
sent to Backup

44. W.-S. Hou, A. Hovhannisyan, and N. Mahajan, PRD 77, 014016 (2008)
Instead flipped C7 ...
W.-S. Hou, A. Hovhannisyan, and N. Mahajan, PRD 77, (2008)
(=s/mB2=q2/mB2)
complex wilson coefficients SM
4th generation (SM4)
2fb-1 MC study of LHCb
(~7000 K*ll events)
Belle
657M
arXiv:
Preliminary
386M
Deviation from SM3 !?
BABAR, arXiv:
SM4
SM3
2008/07/31 ICHEP2008

45. IV. A 1013+ Enhancement of CPV for BAU ?
If ...
KM4

46. The Abyss: CPV in KM and B.A.U.
The Lore
WMAP
Too Small in SM
Jarlskog Invariant in SM3 (need 3 generation in KM)
Normalize by T ~ 100 GeV
EW Phase Transition Temperature
Masses too Small !
~ v.e.v.
is common (unique) area of triangle
in SM
CPV Phase
Small, but not Too small

47. ~ 10+15 Gain Providence CPV Phase Enough CPV? WMAP Too Small in SM
B.A.U. from CPV in KM ?
Enough CPV?
WMAP
Too Small in SM
If shift by One Generation in SM (need 3 generation in KM)
Providence
WSH, arXiv: [hep/ph]
Order 1 ~ 30
~ Gain
in SM
CPV Phase
Gain mostly in Large Yukawa Couplings !
Nature would
likely use this !?

48. The Abyss between CPV in SM3 vs BAU
bridged in SM4 by Heaviness of t ’ and b ’
Why wasn’t this clearly
pointed out in past 20 years ?

49. Gain mostly in Large Yukawa Couplings !
b → s
b → d
quadrangle from
comprehensive study
WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRD05
Only fac. 30 in CPV per se
~ Gain
10+13
10+15
This part will shrink a bit.

50. V. Direct Sighting @ Tevatron vs LHC
the Experimentalist

51. Tevatron/LHC Verification
Unequivocal BSM
Tevatron
... if true
sin2FBs “Evidence” by 2009 ?
“Observe” by 2010 ?
t’ Search Ongoing:
mt’ > 311 GeV @ 95% CL
sin2FBs “Confirmation” — “Easy” for LHCb
b’, t’ Discovery — Straightforward/full terrain
LHC
But when ?
Glimpse of agenda at ATLAS/CMS
previous 2 talks

52. VI. Discussion/Conclusion: Know in 3-5 Years

53. Jarlskog’87, n generations
C PV for BAU: Dominance
Jarlskog’87, n generations
Jarlskog’85, generations
“3 cycles”
also Gronau, Kfir, Loewy ’87
4 generations: 3 indep. phases
long and short
d-s degenerate
2-3-4 generation only !
Effectively 3 generations
(on v.e.v. scale)
J (1,2,3) very small
suppressed by ms, mc

54. Beyond Unitarity Limit
1st Order EW Phase Trans. for BAU ?
will appear in Chin. J. Phys.
Ran out of time, and knowledge ...
(perturbative)
PRD’08
Fok & Kribs: Not possible in 4th generation
Conjecture: Could Strong Yukawa’s do it ?
Beyond Unitarity Limit
Not quite conclusive (?)

55. SSB Could EWSB be due to b’ and t’
Thoughts on the other 1/2 Nobel Prize
"for the discovery of
the mechanism of
spontaneous broken
symmetry in
subatomic physics"
"for the discovery of the origin of the
broken symmetry which predicts the
existence of at least three families of
quarks in nature"
SSB
Could EWSB be
due to b’ and t’
above unitarity bound ~ GeV ?
Bob Holdom: N–J-L
[Bardeen, Hill, Lindner
Gustavo Burdman: “Holographic” 4th gen.
Photo: Universtity of Chicago
Photo: KEK
Photo: Kyoto University
Yoichiro Nambu
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
  1/2 of the prize
  1/4 of the prize
USA
Japan
Enrico Fermi Institute,
University of Chicago Chicago, IL, USA
High Energy Accelerator
Research Organization
(KEK) Tsukuba, Japan
Kyoto Sangyo University;
Yukawa Institute for
Theoretical Physics (YITP),
Kyoto University Kyoto, Japan
b (in Tokyo, Japan)
b. 1944
b. 1940

56. @ LHC Heaven on Earth ? ~ 10+15 Gain 10+13 Enough CPV for B.A.U.
VI. Conclusion: Know in 3-5 Years
Even if O (1)
~ Gain
10+13
Enough CPV
for B.A.U.
10+15
sin2FBs
@ Tevatron
by 2010(1)
Maybe there is a 4th Generation !
Will Really Know in ~ 3–5 years !
@ LHC
Heaven on Earth ?

57. Backup

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

59. A lot of (hadronic) finesse
 0.025
 0.012
World
=  > 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)
Need NP CPV Phase
PEW has practically
no weak phase in SM _ d p0 K- u B- s b
t, ?
t, t’
4th Gen. in EWP Natural
nondecoupling

60. On Boxes and Z Penguins GIM , charm,  K
small  ’/ , K  pnn (still waiting)
heavy top , sin2f1/b
Z dominance for heavy top
1986  2002
Most Flavor/CPV learned from these diagrams/processes

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

62. 4 x 4 Unitarity ➯ Constraints
SM3
We need to deal with mixing matrix in detail to keep Unitarity
b  s
Kaon
b  d
Cross Check !
impose
From b → s study

63. Constrain s  d from K Physics
(shaded)
(E. Pallante et al.)
“Standard”
(J. Bijnens et al.)
No SM3 solution
Therefore….
well-satisfy !

64. Hard to tell apart (non-trivial) with present precision
well-satisfy
vs Vub ~ 0.01 e-ig
Disfavored
Hard to tell apart (non-trivial) with present precision
∵ stringent s  d

65. AFB(B  K*l+l-) and Other Predictions
sent to Backup

66. Ali, Mannel, Morozumi, PLB273, 505 (1991)
Quoted by Tsybychev at FPCP08
Fourth Generation
PRD 77, (2008)
a: SM; b: 4 Gen.
better
data: LHCb MC (2 fb-1)
(FL and) AFB (and AI) favor the “opposite-sign C7 model”
Ali, Mannel, Morozumi, PLB273, 505 (1991)
Eigen at FPCP08
386M
349 fb-1
229M

67. D Mixing (Short-distance Only)
PDG06
310
270
From 4 x 4 Unitarity
mb’ =
230 GeV
x = Dm/G ~ 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]

68. Implication for ∵ Large CPV Phase Current E391A U.L. SM3
Very hard to measure
Grossman-Nir
SM3
Rate could be enhanced by up to almost two orders !!
enhanced to or even higher !!
In general larger than !!
∵ Large CPV Phase

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

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

71. If VusVub shrinks to a point
4 generations: 3 indep. phases
b → s
b → d
measured
4 generations: 3 indep. phases
emergent
If VusVub shrinks to a point
Difference in area
for b → s Small
b → s Quadrangle
Area ~ (-)30x b → d Triangle
(almost Triangle)
2nd argument that is predominant CPV

72. Find b’, t’, or Rule Out @ LHC
Sighting
Vision ~ Early ’06
4th generation? — The jury is out …
In era of LHC, can Directly Search for b’, t ’
Once and For All !
Find b’, t’, or Rule LHC
It’s a Duty.
Strategy Considerations ( )
Well shielded training ground — All Tools
☞ Move on to Greener Pastures ~ in 2 years
Publish early — Large Cross Section
- If “Limits”, then easy to publish
- If “Signal”, Lucked Out!
Well shielded
Publish early

73. b’ Signatures b’  cW dominance for sizable b’  tW* dominance
For mb’ < mt+MW = 255 GeV
b’  cW dominance
b’  tW* dominance
for sizable
for suppressed
Kinematic suppressed for mb’ ≲ 230 GeV
Initial discovery should consider
b’  cW ~ b’  bZ, bH ~ b’  tW*
cc(bar)WW; cWbZ; cWbH;
tc(bar)WW*;
tt(bar)W*W*; tW*bZ; tW*bH;
Bonus !!
Rich
Signature
Heavy Q related
To EWSB ?
For mb’ > mt+MW = 255 GeV
b’  tW dominance; FCNC searchable
tt(bar)WW → bb(bar)W+W-W+W-
4 W’s + 2b’s

75. Limit to 480 GeV w/