1. 1 Heavy Quark Phenomenology August 17, 2003 ICHEP2004, Beijing B →   K S CP Polarization B →   K S CP /   K * Polarization/Collider Implications

2. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 2 Outline Comment on BNV in  Decay Intro: HQ & NP b  s Phenomena is Current Frontier for NP   K S CPV Light and   K S CPV : PRL Highlights  Model Upshot / PV,PP Numerics / K S     CPV / B S Polarization   K * Polarization : Heuristic/Drastic Model SM; NP — CPV, TV Collider Search for Light : Tevatron! Conclusion Based on WSH, M. Nagashima, A. Soddu, hep-ph/0404002 C.K. Chua, WSH, M. Nagashima, PRL92, 201803 (2004) WSH and M. Nagashima, hep-ph/0408007 K. Cheung and WSH, hep-ph/0404041 (to appear PRD)

3. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 3 Comment on B#V in  Decay ARGUS 1992 CLEO 1999 ? 2004? Marciano, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. ’95 Contrary to our hep-ph Likewise for  +   +

4. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 4 I. Introduction: HQ & NP b  s Phenomena is Current Frontier for NP CP Phase sin2  B d  0.73 Agree with CKM Fit but B  K  /  Modes ? Is sin2  B d   K s Opposite Sign to sin2  B d !? Polarization ? Other b  s Penguins ?   K * Polarization ? EWP: Could NP emerge in b  s ℓ + ℓ − ?  m B s “Just Around the Corner ” but if sin2  B s ≠ 0  NP b  s  L ? Wrong Helicity Component? Test via B 0  K S    Mixing-dep CPV ( K S tagging) ≠ 0  NP or B s     [or  Polarization]

5. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 5   K S CPV II. Light and   K S CPV PRL Highlights  60 ° - 70 ° NP CPV phase  ~ 60 ° - 70 ° ~ 200 GeV ~ 500 GeV Collider Direct Search (IV) Flavor Factory but need to disentangle hadronic effect Two Particle System Clean Modes Model Upshot

6. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 6 If S  K s < 0 Large Large Effective s-b Mixing New New CPV Phase Right-handed Right-handed Interaction Large,NewPhysics, Large, New Physics, b → s CPV Effect [ to get sin 2  1eff (K S  0 ) ~ sin 2  1 ] [Belle/BaBar Update...] Model: a Light Strange-beauty Squark Large Large Eff. s-b Mixing New 1 New CPV Phase Independently Motivated

7. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 7 R.H. Flavor Mass/Mixing Hierarchy & R.H. Flavor Sector Motivation: Abelian Flavor Symmetry Nir-Seiberg, PLB’93; Leurer-Nir-Seiberg, NPB’94 Commuting Charges mass V CKM no r.h. force Ansatz

8. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 8 R.H. Flavor Mass/Mixing Hierarchy & R.H. Flavor Sector Motivation: Abelian Flavor Symmetry Nir-Seiberg, PLB’93; Leurer-Nir-Seiberg, NPB’94 Chua-WSH, PRL’01: Because of FCNC, Need 4 Texture Zeros (decouple s flavor) Arhrib-Chua-WSH ’01: Decouple d flavor Commuting Charges Ansatz Alternative Picture: Chang, Masiero, Murayama GUT s-b Focus: s-b no r.h. force Prominent r.-h. elements

9. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 9 Focus on 200 GeV Level Splitting by Large Mixing  Drive One State Light 1 CP Phase    strange-beauty squark

10. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 10 A Little Note on Formalism … Besides O 1,2 Tree O 3-6 Strong Penguin O 7-10 EM/EW Penguin also O 11,12  /g Dipole Matrix Elements evaluated via Naïve Factorization

11. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 11 Arhrib-Chua-WSH, PRD’01 B   K s Rate b  s  (and B   K s ) Rate Constraint Survive b  s  Constraint !!  K s Rate “Sees Red” Combine b  s  and B   K s Combine b  s  and B   K s →  ~  /2, 3  /2 ? →  ~  /2, 3  /2 ? 1, 0.5 TeV 2, 0.5 1, 0.8 TeV 2, 0.8 [ More Conservative ]  : LR Chiral Enhancement

12. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 12 m ES S  ’K s Simpler (vs S  ’K s ) S  K s < 0, S K s   ~ S  K s Possible S  K s S  K s < 0 prefers lower  -plane S K s   S  ’K s  S K s  , S  ’K s ~ sin2  B d as well! Lower gluino mass S  K s Lower gluino mass lowers S  K s Prefer to keep gluino mass above 500 GeV (L.E. Constraints) >> Hadronic Parameters << CP phase enters B →  K s via Lower q 2, and/or larger S  K s  Larger | S  K s | Could  ~  /2 be it? S  ’K s Anticorrel. noticed first by Khalil & Kou ’03 for S  ’K s [Murayama et al. ’03] 0.5 TeV Preferred : Anticorrelated

13. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 13 Amplitudes V ∓ A S  K s vs S K s   S  ’K s Reason why Opposite Trend in S  K s vs S K s  , S  ’K s hadronicuncertainty Right-handed interactions

14. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 14 In SM, b  s  L b  s  L Strength of Mixing-dep. CPV  R Test  R component ( A twood, G ronau, S oni, 1997 ) ( A twood, G ronau, S oni, 1997 ) S K * 0 ( K s    )   nowPromising S K * 0 ( K s    )   now Promising B s   In contrast B s     B s probably rely on   B s  R Can also test  R comp. via  Polarization in  b     (Mannel, Recksiegel, 1997) (Mannel, Recksiegel, 1997) Wrong Helicity Photon in b  s  R Implication : Wrong Helicity Photon in b  s  R Free of hadronic uncertainty Crisp

15. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 15 Lighter gluino ~ 500 GeV Needed  m B s > 70 ps -1 -  m B s > 70 ps -1 Tough ! sin2  B s ~ 0 - 1 - sin2  B s ~ 0 - 1 Tough ? Would’ve preferred [Arhib, Chua, WSH 01] S  K s < 0 heavier gluino but for … S  K s < 0 LHCb can still measure!  B s CPV in untagged  B s also 100 GeV100 GeV ? ~ 200 GeV case Direct Detection ! Except, Easier Direct Detection !  m B s, sin2  B s Clean Measure:  m B s, sin2  B s Take  ~  /2 as example Tough (!?) 1, 0.5 TeV 2, 0.5 1, 0.8 TeV 2, 0.8 Details: WSH and M. Nagashima, hep-ph/0404001 to appear in PRD

16. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 16 Polarization Puzzle III.   K * Polarization Puzzle PRL Large,NewPhysics, Large, New Physics, CPC b → s Effect Needed ?

17. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 17 Heuristic/Drastic Model On-shell b  s g: g is Transverse b  s  ~ 3 x 10 − 4 b  s g ~ few x 10 − 3 B  K*  ~ 4 x 10 − 5 B  K T *  T  ~ 5 x 10 − 6 10% 0.1% ? Complicated Color Structure min. is “gg” b x x  Simple String Fragmentation  Resonances

18. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 18 Ansatz ad hoc term

19. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 19 SM and NP “Solutions”: Prediction for  K* SM NP (  ) absence for  K*

20. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 20 CP and T Violation in Polarization States

21. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 21 w/ Kingman Cheung, hep-ph/0404041 to appear PRD ~ 200 GeV ~ 500 GeV LSP ? Tevatron Study IV. Collider Search for Light

22. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 22 Standard b squark limit diluted by dual s-b flavor of

23. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 23 Cross Sections at Tevatron ~ 0.1-1 pb ≲ 0.01 pb A few hundred events at few fb − 1 Dominant

24. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 24 Detection Basically, just a light “b”-squark in Production so, Discovery not a problem. Question is Decay: bino LSP or gravitino Can be Stable? (LSP) In principle  Heavy MIPs Anyway, need Good b-tagging ! [s-tagging?] sin 2  is b fraction

25. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 25 standard sbeauty reference 1 Discovery (> 10 evts) up to 300 GeV w/ 2 fb − 1 & sin 2  m >0.5 Single vs double b-tag contain info on sin  m b-tag cross section: check consistency vs mass

26. August 17, ICHEP2004George W.S. Hou (NTU) 26 Conclusion S  K s S K s   S  ’K s May S  K s, S K s  , S  ’K s Data May Call for s-bR.-h. - Large s-b Mixing, w/ New CPV Phase & R.-h. Interaction Polarization Puzzle   K * Polarization Puzzle may call for Drastic Remedy Flavor-mixed A Light Flavor-mixed Squark? Independtly Well Motivated (Flavor & SUSY) Survive b  s  (!) S  K s ≲ 0 S K s  , S  ’K s ~ S  K s Can Account for S  K s ≲ 0, but S K s  , S  ’K s ~ S  K s  m B s sin2  B s  m B s, sin2  B s May Become Difficult S K s    nowPromising, and Clean S K s    now Promising, and Clean Search at Tevatron (and beyond) Profitable [offerred]