1. New Physics CP Violation in b → s Transitions
— From Hints to Proof —
March , XLIII Moriond La Thuile

2. 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

3. 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

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

5. II. Hints in b → s vs

6. A lot of (hadronic) finesse
 0.025
 0.012
 > 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, ?

7. 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

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

9. 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’

10. 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 0.2x
(data)
WSH, Li, Mishima, Nagashima, PRL’07
Joining C & PEW
Both and in Right Direction ! DA DS

11. 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 ~
Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like
WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05 ?

12. 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 Tevatron ?
Sign Predicted !
Sure thing by
LHCb ca. 2009
sin2FBs ~ ?
Despite DmBs, B(bsll) SM-like
WSH, Nagashima, Soddu, PRL’05

13. 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

14. 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: [hep-ph]

15. F Bs Prospect (short term)
sin2FBs ~
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 : fb-1 (2008 ?)
s(sin 2F Bs) ≃ 0.04
ATLAS : fb-1 (2008 ?)
s(sin 2F Bs) ≃ 0.16
CMS ?
€ LHCb the winner if ~ SM
sin 2F Bs ~ in SM
$ Tevatron could get lucky
if sin 2F Bs large New Physics !
Could Tevatron run beyond 2008 ?
But 2009 looks interesting !
fLHC 3/07

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

17. ~ 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 SM (need 3 generation in KM)
Only fac. 30 in CPV per se
~ Gain
Gain mostly in Large Yukawa Couplings !

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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 ?

21. 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 !

22. 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 !

23. Backup

24. 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, (2006)

25. 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

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

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