Overview of selected Belle and Ba Bar results

Overview of (selected) Belle and Ba. Bar results B. Golob, Belle Collaboration University of Ljubljana Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana Introduction Experimental environment overview CKM Matrix Phase - f 1(b) - f 2(a) - direct CPV Magnitudes - |Vub| Hadron spectroscopy New charm states much more… Conclusions B. Golob, University of Ljubljana 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

Introduction Ba. Bar & Belle (Ba/lle) main task: CP violation in system of B mesons specifically: various measurements of complex elements of Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix qi W± Vij CKM matrix is unitary qj deviations could signal processes not included in SM (NP) h Vud Vus Vub Vcd Vcs Vcb Vtd Vts Vtb l Al 3(rih) 1 -l 2/2 Al 2 1 -l 2/2 = -l Al 3(1 -Al 2 r-ih) 1 Vud. Vub* Vcd. Vcb* f 2(a) f 3(g) (0, 0) B. Golob, University of Ljubljana Vtd. Vtb* Vcd. Vcb* f 1(b) (0, 1) r 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

Experimental environment Asymmetric B factories Mt. Tsukuba KEKB Belle ~1 km in diameter e+ Lpeak= =13. 9 x 1033 s-1 cm-2 253 fb-1 274 M BB √s=10. 58 Ge. V eΥ(4 s) Lpeak= =9. 2 x 1033 s-1 cm-2 221 fb-1 239 M BB B Υ(4 s) B Ba. Bar p(e-)=9 Ge. V p(e+)=3. 1 Ge. V bg=0. 56 Belle p(e-)=8 Ge. V p(e+)=3. 5 Ge. V bg=0. 42 B. Golob, University of Ljubljana Dz ~ cbgt. B ~ 200 mm 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

Experimental environment-detectors Ba. Bar: DIRC Cherenkov angle SC solenoid 1. 5 T Aerogel Cherenkov cnt. n=1. 015~1. 030 Cs. I(Tl) 16 X 0 3. 5 Ge. V e+ TOF conter Central Drift Chamber small cell +He/C 2 H 5 8 Ge. V e- Si vtx. det. 3 lyr. DSSD m / KL detection 14/15 lyr. RPC+Fe B. Golob, University of Ljubljana z-imp. param. resolution p Belle SVD: ~55 mm (SVD 1) ~40 mm (SVD 2) combined particle ID e(K±)~85% e(p±→K±)<~10% @ p<3. 5 Ge. V/c 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

h f 1 r Υ(4 s) B 0 or B 0 BCP Btag CKM Matrix – phases Measurement method J/y Ks m+ mpp+ Dt=Dz/bgc Fully reconstruct decay to CP eigenstate l. K- determined B 0(B 0) Determine time between decays Tag flavor of other B from charges of typical decay products CPV manifests as an asymmetry in time dependent decay rates SM: for b → ccs : S=sin 2 f 1, A=0 B. Golob, University of Ljubljana 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

CKM Matrix – sin 2 f 1 to isolate B→f. CP decays from bckg. B→J/y KL B→J/y Ks BABAR J/ψ KL signal J/ψ X background Non-J/ψ background Nsig=4150 Nsig=2788 274 M BB T. Higuchi ICHEP’ 04 B. Golob, University of Ljubljana determine Dt distribution 227 M BB M. Bruinsma ICHEP’ 04 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

CKM Matrix – sin 2 f 1 Expected Dt distribution convolved with detector resolution function Btag=B 0 Difference between B 0 and B 0 tagged decays Btag=B 0 a. CP Miss-tagging probability w reduces asymmetry by 1 -2 w S=sin 2 f 1= 0. 666 ± 0. 046 Dt [ps] -8 h f 1 8 Belle T. Higuchi, ICHEP’ 04 (A=0. 023 ± 0. 031) S=sin 2 f 1= 0. 722 ± 0. 040 ± 0. 023 Ba. Bar r B. Golob, University of Ljubljana M. Bruinsma, ICHEP’ 04 (A=0 fixed) 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

h CKM Matrix – sin 2 f 2 B 0 → p + p -, p 0 r b B 0 W+ d d + p u u pd T ~ Vub*Vud ~ l 3 b B 0 W+ t d u pd P ~ Vtb*Vtd ~ l 3 S=sin 2 f 2 A=0 Constraint: SU(2) symmetry M+0 = 1/√ 2 M+- + M 00 M-0 = 1/√ 2 M+- + M 00 B. Golob, University of Ljubljana d + up b W+ B 0 d u 0 up d p 0 d Tc ~ Vub*Vud S = √(1 -A 2)sin 2 f 2 eff A ~ sind. P function of f 2 f 1 d. P |P/T| 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

CKM Matrix – sin 2 f 2 B 0 → p + p 152 M BB S+-= -1. 00 ± 0. 21 ± 0. 07 A+-= 0. 58 ± 0. 21 ± 0. 07 PRL 93, 021801(2004) B 0 → p+ p- 227 M BB Babar, M. Cristinziani, ICHEP’ 04 S+-= -0. 30 ± 0. 17 ± 0. 03 A+-= 0. 09 ± 0. 15 ± 0. 04 Nsig=467 Nsig=232 B 0 → p + p - a. CP -A+- good tag M. A. Giorgi, ICHEP’ 04 Dt [ps] S+B. Golob, University of Ljubljana 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

CKM Matrix – sin 2 f 2 B 0 → p 0 227 M BB Babar, M. Cristinziani, ICHEP’ 04 Br(B 0→p 0 p 0)= (1. 17 ± 0. 32 ± 0. 10)x 10 -6 ACP= 0. 12 ± 0. 56 ± 0. 06 Nsig=61 274 M BB Mbc[Ge. V] Belle, Y. Sakai, ICHEP’ 04 Nsig=82 Br(B 0→p 0 p 0)= (2. 32 ± 0. 45 ± 0. 20)x 10 -6 ACP= 0. 43 ± 0. 51 ± 0. 17 (f 2 eff closer Similar analysis as for B → p p also for B → r r to f 2) Ba/lle S+A+ACP Br(B 0→p 0 p 0) Br(B 0→p+p-) Br(B+→p+p 0) Ba. Bar Similar from B → r r Ba/lle Similar from B → r p B. Golob, University of Ljubljana f 2= 106 o ± 8 o 11 o M. A. Giorgi, ICHEP’ 04 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

CKM Matrix – direct CPV Belle B→p+p- first evidence A+-= 0. 58 ± 0. 21 ± 0. 07 not confirmed by Ba. Bar ≠ 0 direct CPV; |M(B→f)| ≠|M(B→f)| only when multiple proc. contribute to f (tree+penguin) Direct CPV also in time integrated decay rates: Nsig=1606 B 0→K-p+ B 0→K+p- 5. 20 5. 24 5. 28 Mbc ACP= -0. 133± 0. 030± 0. 009 Ba. Bar, 227 M BB, M. A. Giorgi, ICHEP’ 04 ACP= -0. 101± 0. 025± 0. 005 Nsig=2139 B. Golob, University of Ljubljana Belle, 274 M BB, Y. Sakai, ICHEP’ 04 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

CKM Matrix – |Vub| q 2 El n p p MX B p D ) Xu Full reconstruction Belle: B→D(*)- p+/r+/a 1+/Ds(*)+ e ~0. 25% Ba. Bar: B→D(*)- n 1 p n 2 K … e ~0. 4% B. Golob, University of Ljubljana r 4 s B 2 U( To reduce theoretical l uncertainty in Br(b→uln) ↔ |Vub| n use combination Mx - q 2 B 1 |Vub| Babar, 88 M BB high p lepton g K p p fully reconstructed (Mbc) l Variables separating b → uln from b → cln: lepton energy El; hadronic inv. mass Mx; leptonic inv. mass q 2; h Mbc[Ge. V] 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

CKM Matrix – |Vub| Extract signal in high q 2 low Mx region: Belle, 152 M BB T. Iijima, ICHEP’ 04 Babar-CONF-04/11, ICHEP’ 04 Mx<1. 7 Ge. V q 2>8 Ge. V 2 signal Nsig~115 b→cln Babar Nsig=174 |Vub|= (4. 98 ± 0. 40 ± 0. 39 ± 0. 47)x 10 -3 (stat. ) Belle (syst. ) (th. ) |Vub|= (5. 54 ± 0. 42 ± 0. 50 ± 0. 55)x 10 -3 B. Golob, University of Ljubljana 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

h f 1 CKM Matrix – back to sin 2 f 1 r b B 0 Not only from b → ccs (B→ J/y Ks) t d also from b → sss (B→ f Ks) W+ s sf s. K S d P ~ Vtb*Vts ~ Al 2 other proc. negligible S=sin 2 f 1 = 0. 06 ± 0. 33 ± 0. 09 a. CP B→f. Ks 2. 2 s away from ccs (0. 73± 0. 04) Nsig=139 sin 2 f 1 = 0. 50 ± 0. 25 ± 0. 06 Mbc Belle, 274 M BB, Y. Sakai, ICHEP’ 04 B. Golob, University of Ljubljana Dt Ba. Bar, 227 M BB, A. Hoecker, ICHEP’ 04 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

CKM Matrix – back to sin 2 f 1 other examples of b → sss (e. g. B → h’ Ks) f Ks h’Ks J/y Ks 0. 73± 0. 04 0. 34± 0. 21 0. 41± 0. 11 “sin 2 f 1” conservative upper bound: |Sy. Ks-Sh’KS|<0. 2 Grossman et al. B. Golob, University of Ljubljana Sh’KS or Sf. KS at present value would be sign of NP 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

Conclusions Aleph+Delphi direct CPV in B system Ba. Bar+Belle new charm states CPV in B system CPV in K system direct CPV in K system Ba/lle mature exp. , testing SM with high precision J/y 1964: CPV in K system, 2001: CPV in (c quark) B system 2004: sin 2 f 1(b) is a precision measurement (± 6%) 1999: direct CPV in K system, 2004: direct CPV in B system; CKM predictions confirmed f 2(a) measured many measurements stat. limited, in 2 years ~2 x more data B. Golob, University of Ljubljana 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

Conclusions Before (B-factories)…: h h r r …and today… B. Golob, University of Ljubljana 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

Hadron spectroscopy – X(3872) Belle observed a new state decaying into J/y p+p. B+→K+ X(3872) confirmed by J/y p+p. CDF, D 0, Ba. Bar l+ l- y’ X(3872) hc’’ cc 1’ hc 2 Y 3 h c’ Y’ hc cc 2 cc 1 cc 0 hc J/Y < 1 Me. V/c 2 2 MD X(3872) MD*+MD Decay to J/Y p+p. Isospin 0++ allowed Isospin 1 -- violating B. Golob, University of Ljubljana M(J/y p+p-)- M(J/y) [Ge. V] Belle: G(X→gcc 1)/G(X→ J/y p+p-)<0. 89 G(X→gcc 2)/G(X→ J/y p+p-)<1. 1 X(3872) not observed in any other decay mode Mass, width, Br’s & helicity un-compatible with expected cc states 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

Hadron spectroscopy – X(3872) Search for B+→K+ X(3872) Belle, 274 M BB F. Fang, ICHEP’ 04 J/y p+p-p 0 w mass region N=10. 0± 3. 6 S/N=5 M(w)+M(J/y)=3879 Me. V X(3872)→w J/y could occur via virtual w G(w J/y)/G(J/y p+p-)=0. 8± 0. 3± 0. 1 in accordance with DD* molecule model Swanson, PLB 588, 189(2004) B. Golob, University of Ljubljana 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

Hadron spectroscopy – Ds. J mesons Ba. Bar and Cleo discovered two narrow resonances Ds. J(2317)+ → Ds+p 0 Ds. J(2460)+ → Ds+g, Ds*+p 0 Ba. Bar, 125 fb-1, V. Halyo, ICHEP’ 04 Properties studied e. g. helicity in B→DDs. J(2317)+ → Ds+p 0 J=1 Ds. J(2460)+ → Ds+g M(Ds. J) [Ge. V] J=0 J=2 Belle, 280 M BB, M. Danilov, ICHEP’ 04 Apart from low masses properties in accordance with lowest level P states JP=0+, 1+ B. Golob, University of Ljubljana 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

Hadron spectroscopy – Ds. J mesons First observation of B 0→Ds. J(2317)+KEvents in Mbc, DE Measured branching fractions signal region Br(B 0 -> Ds K-)= B 0→Ds. J(2317)+K(2. 93± 0. 55± 0. 79)x 10 -5 B 0→Ds. J(2317)-p+ Br(B 0 -> Ds p+)= (1. 94± 0. 47± 0. 52)x 10 -5 M(Dsp 0)-M(Ds) [Ge. V] Belle, 152 M BB, A. Drutskoy, ICHEP’ 04 Br(B 0→Ds. J(2317)+K-)=(5. 3± 1. 4± 0. 5± 1. 4)x 10 -5 B. Golob, University of Ljubljana 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

Conclusions Aleph+Delphi direct CPV in B system Ba. Bar+Belle new charm states CPV in B system CPV in K system direct CPV in K system Ba/lle mature exp. , testing SM with high precision J/y 1964: CPV in K system, 2001: CPV in (c quark) B system 2004: sin 2 f 1(b) is a precision measurement (± 6%) 1999: direct CPV in K system, 2004: direct CPV in B system; CKM predictions confirmed f 2(a) measured many measurements stat. limited, in 2 years ~2 x more data B. Golob, University of Ljubljana 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

Continuum suppression Continuum Jet-like continuum backup slide qq e- e+ Y (4 S) BB Other B e+e- → qq “continuum” (~3 x BB) To suppress: use event shape variables e+ BB spherical Signal B e-

CKM Matrix – sin 2 f 1 Tree b Vq 3 b q 3 W V*q 2 q 1 QCD penguin W b q q 2 q 1 Vqb sin 2 f 1(b) backup slide V*qq 1 g q 2 CP asymmetry: SM: |q/p|-1~ 4 p(mc 2/mt 2)sinf 1~5 x 10 -4 CP in decay: |A/A| ≠ 1 CP in mixing: |q/p| ≠ 1 |l| ≠ 1 in B system |l| ≠ 1 signals direct CPV CP in interference between mixing and decay: |l| = 1, Im(l) ≠ 1

CKM Matrix – sin 2 f 1 b → ccs: backup slide tree + penguin contribution ~ Vcb. Vcs*=Al 2 penguin only contribution ~ Vub. Vus*=Al 4(r-ih) (q/p)B A/A (q/p)K level of hadronic uncertainty due to interference (direct CP)

CKM Matrix – sin 2 f 1 S Fitting function: Ba. Bar, decay modes used: CP sample J/ψ KS (KS→π+π-) J/ψ KS (KS→π0π0) ψ(2 S) KS (KS→π+π-) χc 1 KS (KS→π+π-) ηc KS (KS→π+π-) Total for ηCP=-1 J/ψ K*0(K*0→ KSπ0) J/ψ KL Total NTAG 2751 653 485 194 287 4370 572 2788 7730 purity 96% 88% 87% 85% 74% 92% 77% 56% 78% ηCP -1 -1 -1 +0. 51 +1 backup slide A Miss-tagging probability, resolution function: from self-tagged events B→D*ln, Dp, … Ba. Bar: Fit result with |l|=1 fixed sin 2β = 0. 722 0. 040 (stat) 0. 023 (sys) when left free: |λ|=0. 950 ± 0. 031 (stat. ) ± 0. 013

CKM Matrix – sin 2 f 1 yield B→J/y Ks signal region to isolate B→f. CP decays from bckg. 227 M BB M. Bruinsma ICHEP’ 04 Nsig=4370 B→J/y KL BABAR J/ψ KL signal J/ψ X background Non-J/ψ background Nsig=2788 274 M BB T. Higuchi ICHEP’ 04 Nsig=4150 B. Golob, University of Ljubljana Nsig=2722 4 Seas Conference 2004, Istanbul

CKM Matrix – sin 2 f 1 from b→sss penguin contribution ~ Vcb. Vcs*=Al 2 another penguin contribution ~ Vub. Vus*=Al 4(r-ih) S~sin 2 f 1, theor. clean “sin 2 f 1”= -0. 96 0. 51 152 M BB, PRL 91, 261602(2003) S = 0. 06 ± 0. 33 ± 0. 09 274 M BB, ICHEP’ 04 2. 2 s away from ccs backup slide

CKM Matrix – sin 2 f 1 backup slide S = 0. 50 ± 0. 25 ± 0. 06 227 M BB, ICHEP’ 04 f. Ks average: 0. 34± 0. 21 h’Ks average: 0. 41± 0. 11 conservative upper bound: |Sy. Ks-Sh’KS| <0. 2 Grossman et al. 2. 7 s away from ccs 2. 4 s away from ccs Sh’KS or Sf. KS at present value would be sign of NP

CKM Matrix – f 2 b B 0 W+ d d + p u u pd T ~ Vub*Vud ~ l 3 S=sin 2 f 2 A=0 b B 0 W+ u, c, t d + up u pd d P ~ Vtb*Vtd ~ M+-= M+0= M 00= backup slide b W+ B 0 d f 2 from B→pp Ba. Bar d p 0 d Tc ~ Vub*Vud l 3 -Te-if 2 + Peid. P 1/√ 2(Tceid. C + T)e-if 2 1/√ 2(Tceid. C e-if 2 + Peid. P) S = √(1 -A 2)sin 2 f 2 eff A ~ sind. P Ispospin relations for B→pp u 0 up

CKM Matrix – f 2 backup slide B→rr from Ba. Bar r+r- could be mixed CP state, but observed to be almost pure CP=+1 122 M BB, Moriond QCD’ 04 89 M BB, PRL 91(2003), 171802 Br(B+→r+r 0)=(22. 5± 5. 6± 5. 8)x 10 -6 227 M BB, M. A. Giorgi, ICHEP’ 04 Br(B 0→r 0 r 0) < 1. 1 x 10 -6 @90% CL Slong=-0. 19± 0. 33± 0. 11 Along= 0. 23± 0. 24± 0. 14 B→(rp)0 from Ba/lle r+p- not CP eigenstate, 4 amplitudes considered: f 2 from B→rr Ba. Bar

CKM Matrix – f 2 backup slide Decay time distribution: indirect CPV parameter (f 2) direct CPV parameter asymmetry between G(B 0→r+p-)+ G(B 0→r-p+) strong phase diff. between amplitudes G(B 0→r-p+)+ G(B 0→r+p-) direct CPV asymmteries Belle: selected bands Ba. Bar: assume 3 p dominated by r+, -, 0 and fit Dalitz plot

CKM Matrix – f 2 M. A. Giorgi, ICHEP’ 04 backup slide

CKM Matrix – direct CPV B→K±p 0 B-→K-p 0 backup slide B+→K+p 0 274 M BB, Y. Sakai, ICHEP’ 04 ACP= 0. 04 ± 0. 05 ± 0. 02 c. f. in B→K+p- d _ d B- b u p 0 K- u Large EW penguin? ACP= -0. 101± 0. 025± 0. 005 2. 4 s diff. ACP= 0. 06 ± 0. 01 Ba. Bar, M. Chrintinziani, ICHEP’ 04

CKM Matrix – direct CPV Contributions to B 0→K-p+ b B 0 d W- s K u u p+ d T ~ Vub*Vus ~ Al 4 b B 0 Wu, c, t d P ~ Vtb*Vts s K- u u p+ d ~ Al 2 backup slide

CKM Matrix – f 3 backup slide Basic idea: use B-→K-D 0 and B-→K-D 0 with D 0, D 0→f interference ↔ f 3 b B- u W- s K u c D 0 d T ~ Vcb*Vus ~ Al 3 u b W- Bu D 0 c s Ku Tc ~ Vub*Vcs ~ Al 3 (r+ih) ~ eif 3 Gronau, London, Wyler, 1991: B- → K-D 0 CP Atwood, Dunietz, Soni, 2001: B- → K-D 0(*)[K+p-] Belle; Giri, Zupan et al. , 2003: B- → K-D 0(*)[Ksp+p-] Dalitz plot Sensitivity depends on or any other common 3 -body decay; Dalitz density depends on f 3

CKM Matrix – f 3 Belle: Use continuum D 0 from D*– D 0π–, D 0 Ksπ+π– decay to model Dalitz plot density. B± D 0 K± D 0 Ksπ+π– B± D 0 p± miss-id B+ D 0 K+ M 2(Ksp+) DE M 2(Ksp-) Belle, 152 M BB A. Bozek, ICHEP’ 04 backup slide Mbc B- D 0 K- Visible asymmetry Fit with f 3, d, r. B free M 2(Ksp+) 26 o < f 3 < 126 o @ 95% C. L. r. B = 0. 26 ± 0. 11 0. 15 ± 0. 03 ± 0. 04

CKM Matrix – f 3 r. B 97% 74% 20% backup slide Ba. Bar, 211 M BB G. Cavoto, ICHEP’ 04 r. B 90% Belle, 152 M BB A. Bozek, ICHEP’ 04 f 3 68% f 3

backup slide CKM Matrix – |Vub| used in measurement q 2 (q 2 cut, MXcut) DVub 8 Ge. V 2, 1. 7 Ge. V 6%-9% only q 2 cut DVub 11. 6 Ge. V 2 12%-15% C. W. Bauer et al. , hep-ph/0111387 Mx 2 large non-perturbative corr. (large th. uncertainty) MX only Babar-CONF-04/11, ICHEP’ 04 |Vub|= (4. 77 ± 0. 28 ± 0. 69 -3 )x 10 0. 39 Mx-q 2 |Vub|= (4. 92 ± 0. 39 ± 0. 36 ± 0. 46)x 10 -3

backup slide CKM Matrix – |Vub| Mx-q 2 |Vub|= (4. 92 ± 0. 39 ± 0. 36 ± 0. 46)x 10 -3 Ba. Bar (stat. ) (syst. ) (th. ) |Vub|= (5. 54 ± 0. 42 ± 0. 50 ± 0. 55)x 10 -3 Belle Ba. Bar syst. : largest from detector (tracking, ID) and b→cln modeling Belle syst. : MC statistics

35± 7 events M=3872. 0± 0. 8 Me. V G<2. 3 Me. V (90%) X(3872) M(J/Y p+p-) Ba. Bar backup slide

hc ” M too low and G too small hc ’ angular dist’n rules out 1+- cc 1’ G(g. J/y) way too small y 2 G(gcc 1) too small; (PRL 93, 2003) hc 2 y 3 pp hc should dominate pp. J/y X(3872) backup slide G( gcc 2 & DD) too small - Isospin violating decays to J/Y p+p- C(J/y)=-1, C(w)=-1 → C(X)=+1 Since p is not C eigenstate, decay X→J/y pp is probably X→J/y r (as indicated by m(pp)) I(r)=1, I(w)=0, I(J/y)=0 → X decays break isospin symmetry ccuu=1/√ 2 cc [1/√ 2 (uu+dd)+1/√ 2 (uu-dd)]=1/√ 2(|I=0>+|I=1>)

Ds. J backup slide Belle, 87 fb-1, PRL 92, 012002(2004) M(Dsp 0)-M(Ds) M(Ds*p 0)-M(Ds*) helicity angle: Feynman diagrams for B 0→Ds. J+K-