1. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Alexey A. Petrov Wayne State University Table of Contents: Introduction Mixing: theoretical expectations Standard Model New Physics Mixing: current/future experimental constraints Conclusions and outlook Physics of charm: mixing and CP-violation 27

2. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Charm transitions serve as excellent probes of New Physics 1.Processes forbidden in the Standard Model to all orders Examples: 2.Processes forbidden in the Standard Model at tree level Examples: 3.Processes allowed in the Standard Model Examples: relations, valid in the SM, but not necessarily in general 1. Introduction: charm and New Physics 26 CKM triangle relations

3. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) D-mixing is our last chance to see New Physics in meson oscillations!!! 25 With the recent measurement of D m s in B s -mixing…

4. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Introduction: mixing  Q=2: only at one loop in the Standard Model: possible new physics particles in the loop  Q=2 interaction couples dynamics of D 0 and D 0  Time-dependence: coupled Schrödinger equations  Diagonalize: mass eigenstates flavor eigenstates Mass and lifetime differences of mass eigenstates: 24

5. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Introduction: mixing  Q=2: only at one loop in the Standard Model: possible new physics particles in the loop  Q=2 interaction couples dynamics of D 0 and D 0  Time-dependence: coupled Schrödinger equations  Diagonalize: mass eigenstates flavor eigenstates Mass and lifetime differences of mass eigenstates: 24

6. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Introduction: why do we care? mixing intermediate down-type quarks SM: b-quark contribution is negligible due to V cd V ub * (zero in the SU(3) limit) intermediate up-type quarks SM: t-quark contribution is dominant (expected to be large) 1. Sensitive to long distance QCD 2. Small in the SM: New Physics! (must know SM x and y) 1. Computable in QCD (*) 2. Large in the SM: CKM! (*) up to matrix elements of 4-quark operators Falk, Grossman, Ligeti, and A.A.P. Phys.Rev. D65, 054034, 2002 2 nd order effect!!! 23

7. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) 2. Mixing: theoretical estimates  Theoretical predictions are all over the board… so:  Can x,y ~ 0.5% be a SM signal?  What is the relationship between x and y (x ~ y, x > y, x < y?) in the Standard Model? x from new physics y from Standard Model Δ x from Standard Model (papers from SPIRES ) Updated predictions A.A.P. hep-ph/0311371 22 Is m c large???

8. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Theoretical estimates I A. Short distance gives a tiny contribution … as can be seen form a “straightforward computation”… with m c IS large !!! 21 Notice, however, that at NLO in QCD (x NLO,y NLO ) >> (x LO, y LO ) : Similar for x (trust me!)Example of NLO contribution E. Golowich and A.A.P. Phys. Lett. B625 (2005) 53 … x LO >> y LO !!! x NLO ~ y NLO !

9. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Theoretical estimates I A. Short distance + “subleading corrections” (in {m s, 1/m c } expansion): …subleading effects? 2 unknown matrix elements 15 unknown matrix elements Twenty-something unknown matrix elements Guestimate: x ~ y ~ 10 -3 ? Leading contribution!!! H. Georgi, … I. Bigi, N. Uraltsev 20

10. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Resume: model-independent computation with model-dependent result 19

11. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Theoretical estimates II B. Long distance physics dominates the dynamics… If every Br is known up to O(1%) the result is expected to be O(1%)! m c is NOT large !!! … with n being all states to which D 0 and D 0 can decay. Consider  K, KK intermediate states as an example… cancellation expected! The result here is a series of large numbers with alternating signs, SU(3) forces 0 x = ? Extremely hard… J. Donoghue et. al. P. Colangelo et. al. Need to “repackage” the analysis: look at the complete multiplet contribution 18

12. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Results No (symmetry-enforced) cancellations Disp relation: compute x (model-dependence) naturally implies that x,y ~ 1% is not excluded in the Standard Model 17 E.Golowich and A.A.P. Phys.Lett. B427, 172, 1998 A.F., Y.G., Z.L., Y.N. and A.A.P. Phys.Rev. D69, 114021, 2004 Lifetime difference for a multiplet Fraction for a multiplet

13. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Resume: model-dependent computation with model-dependent result 16

14. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) How would New Physics affect x and y?  Local D C=2 piece of the mass matrix affects x: 15  Double insertion of D C=1 affects x and y: Example: Suppose Zero in the SU(3) limit Falk, Grossman, Ligeti, and A.A.P. Phys.Rev. D65, 054034, 2002 2 nd order effect!!! Can be significant!!! Amplitude phase space

15. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) 14 New Physics in mixing  Multitude of various models of New Physics can affect x

16. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Global Analysis of New Physics in x 13  Let’s write the most general D C=2 Hamiltonian … with the following set of 9 independent operators… RG-running relate C i ( m ) at NP scale to the scale of m ~ 1 GeV, where ME are computed (on the lattice) E.Golowich, J. Hewett, S. Pakvasa and A.A.P. Each model of New Physics provides unique matching condition for C i ( L NP )

17. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) New Physics in x and y: lots of extras  Extra gauge bosons 12  Extra scalars  Extra fermions  Extra dimensions  Extra global symmetries Left-right models, horizontal symmetries, etc. Two-Higgs doublet models, leptoquarks, technicolor, etc. 4 th generation, vector-like quarks, little Higgs, etc. Universal extra dimensions, split fermions, warped ED, etc. SUSY: MSSM, alignment models, split SUSY, etc. Example: two-Higgs doublet model: E.Golowich, J. Hewett, S. Pakvasa and A.A.P.

18. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Summary of theoretical estimates x from new physics y from Standard Model Δ x from Standard Model (papers from SPIRES ) Updated predictions A.A.P. hep-ph/0311371 11

19. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) 3. Experimental constraints on mixing 1.Time-dependent or time-integrated semileptonic analysis 2.Time-dependent analysis (lifetime difference) 3.Time-dependent analysis Quadratic in x,y: not so sensitive Sensitive to DCS/CF strong phase  Idea: look for a wrong-sign final state 10

20. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) What if time-dependent studies are not possible I? f3f3 f1f1 f2f2  -charm factory (BES/CLEO-c) f4f4 Time-integrated analysis: DCSD contribution cancels out for double-tagged decays! CFDCS Quadratic in x,y: not so sensitive wanted: linear in x or y H. Yamamoto; I. Bigi, A. Sanda 9

21. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) What if time-dependent studies are not possible II?  If CP violation is neglected: mass eigenstates = CP eigenstates  CP eigenstates do NOT evolve with time, so can be used for “tagging” KSKS 00 CP Eigenstate (-) f1f1 f2f2  t -charm factories have good CP-tagging capabilities CP anti-correlated  (3770): CP(tag) (-1) L = [CP(K S ) CP(  0 )] (-1) = +1 CP correlated  (4140) (-)  -charm factory (BES/CLEO-c) Can still measure y: D. Atwood, A.A.P., hep-ph/0207165 D. Asner, W. Sun, hep-ph/0507238 8

22. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) CP violation in charm 7

23. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) 4. How would CP violation manifest itself in charm?  Possible sources of NP in CP violation in charm transitions :  CPV in decay amplitudes (“direct” CPV)  CPV in mixing matrix  CPV in the interference of decays with and without mixing 6 With b-quark contribution neglected: only 2 generations contribute real 2x2 Cabibbo matrix At this point CP-violating signal is a “smoking gun” signature of New Physics

24. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) CP violation: experimental constraints 1. Standard analysis: rate asymmetries ModeE791, %FOCUS, %CLEO, % D 0 → K + K - -1.0±4.9±1.2-0.1±2.2±1.50.0±2.2±0.8 D0 → +-D0 → +- -4.9±7.8±3.04.8±3.9±2.51.9±3.2±0.8 D 0 → K S  0 0.1±1.3 D0 → 0+K-D0 → 0+K- -3.1±8.6 … which is of the first order in CPV parameters, but requires tagging 2. Recall that CP of the states in are anti-correlated at  (3770):  a simple signal of CP violation: … which is of the second order in CPV parameters, i.e. tiny 5

25. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) CP violation: new experimental possibilities Look for CPV signals that are 1. first order in CPV 2. do not require flavor tagging Consider the final states that can be reached by both D 0 and D 0, but are not CP eigenstates ( , KK *, K , K , …) where A.A.P., PRD69, 111901(R), 2004 hep-ph/0403030 4

26. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) CP violation: untagged asymmetries Expect time-dependent asymmetry… … whose coefficients are computed to be This is true for any final state f … and time-integrated asymmetry 3

27. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) CP violation: untagged asymmetries (K +   ) For a particular final state K , the time-integrated asymmetry is simple This asymmetry is 1. non-zero due to large SU(3) breaking 2. contains no model-dependent hadronic parameters (R and  are experimental observables) 3. could be as large as 0.04% for NP Note: larger by O(100) for SCS decays ( , …) where R ~ 1 A.A.P., PRD69, 111901(R), 2004 hep-ph/0403030 2

28. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Conclusions  Charm provides great opportunities for New Physics studies –large available statistics –mixing: x, y = 0 in the SU(3) limit (as V * cb V ub is very small) –mixing is a second order effect in SU(3) breaking –it is conceivable that y ~ x ~ 1% in the Standard Model –it is possible for y to be dominated by New Physics  Quantum coherence will allow CLEO-c/BES to perform new measurements of strong phases in charm mixing studies –important inputs to time-dependent studies of mixing and f 1 / g  Quantum coherence will allow BES/CLEO-c to perform new studies of mixing –no DCSD contamination in double-tag K  studies –new mixing measurements unique to tau-charm factories  Observation of CP-violation or FCNC transitions in the current round of experiments provide “smoking gun” signals for New Physics - untagged asymmetries are more sensitive to CPV 1

29. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Additional slides 0

30. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Questions: 1. Can any model-independent statements be made for x or y ? 2. Can one claim that y ~ 1% is natural? What is the order of SU(3) breaking? i.e. if what is n?

31. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Theoretical expectations At which order in SU(3) F breaking does the effect occur? Group theory? is a singlet with that belongs to 3 of SU(3) F (one light quark) Introduce SU(3) breaking via the quark mass operator All nonzero matrix elements built of must be SU(3) singlets The  C=1 part of H W is -2

32. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Theoretical expectations note that D i D j is symmetric belongs to 6 of SU(3) F D mixing is prohibited by SU(3) symmetry Explicitly, 1. No in the decomposition of no SU(3) singlet can be formed 2. Consider a single insertion of transforms as still no SU(3) singlet can be formed NO D mixing at first order in SU(3) breaking 3. Consider double insertion of D mixing occurs only at the second order in SU(3) breaking A.F., Y.G., Z.L., and A.A.P. Phys.Rev. D65, 054034, 2002 -3

33. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Quantum coherence: supporting measurements Time-dependent analysis A. Falk, Y. Nir and A.A.P., JHEP 12 (1999) 019 Strong phase can be measured at CLEO-c! where and Strong phase  is zero in the SU(3) limit and strongly model-dependent With 3 fb -1 of data cos  can be determined to |  cos  | < 0.05! Silva, Soffer; Gronau, Grossman, Rosner -4

34. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Theoretical expectations Most probably don’t exists… If SU(3) breaking enters perturbatively, it is a second order effect… Known counter-example: 1. Very narrow light quark resonance with m R ~m D What happens if part of the multiplet is kinematically forbidden? see E.Golowich and A.A.P. Phys.Lett. B427, 172, 1998 Example: both are from the same multiplet, but the latter is kinematically forbidden see A.F., Y.G., Z.L., and A.A.P. Phys.Rev. D65, 054034, 2002 A. Falk, Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti, and A.A.P. Phys.Rev. D65, 054034, 2002 -5

35. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) CP violation: new experimental possibilities 1 1.Time dependent (lifetime difference analysis): separate datasets for D 0 and D 0 This analysis requires 1. time-dependent studies 2. initial flavor tagging (“the D * trick”) Cuts statistics/sensitivity -6

36. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) SU(3) and phase space “Repackage” the analysis: look at the complete multiplet contribution Does it help? If only phase space is taken into account: no (mild) model dependence Each is 0 in SU(3) y for each SU(3) multiplet if CP is conserved Can consistently compute -7

37. ITEP Meeting, July 24-25, Moscow Alexey Petrov (WSU) Example: PP intermediate states n=PP transforms as, take 8 as an example: This gives a calculable effect! Numerator: 1.Repeat for other states 2.Multiply by Br Fr to get y Denominator: phase space function -8