Upload
trannguyet
View
217
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Vincenzo CiriglianoLos Alamos National Laboratory
ACFI workshop on Fundamental Symmetry Tests with Rare IsotopesAmherst, October 23-25 2014
Weak Decays: theoretical overview
Outline
• Introduction: beta decays and new physics
• Theoretical framework: from TeV to nuclear scales
• (Quick) overview of probes and opportunities
• Connection with high-energy landscape
• Conclusions
Beta decays and new physics
β-decays and the making of the SMFermi, 1934
Lee and Yang, 1956
Feynman & Gell-Mann + Marshak & Sudarshan
1958 Glashow,
Salam, Weinberg
p
n
ν
e
Parity conserving: VV, AA, SS, TT ...
Parity violating: VA, SP, ...
Wu
d
ν
e
Current-current, parity conserving
p
n
ν
e
?
It’s (V-A)*(V-A) !!
Embed in non-abelian chiral gauge theory,
predict neutral currents
β-decays and the making of the SMFermi, 1934
Lee and Yang, 1956
Feynman & Gell-Mann + Marshak & Sudarshan
1958 Glashow,
Salam, Weinberg
p
n
ν
e
Parity conserving: VV, AA, SS, TT ...
Parity violating: VA, SP, ...
Wu
d
ν
e
Current-current, parity conserving
p
n
ν
e
?
It’s (V-A)*(V-A) !!
Embed in non-abelian chiral gauge theory,
predict neutral currents... of course with essential experimental input!
β-decays and BSM physics• In the SM, W exchange (V-A, universality)
• BSM: sensitive to tree-level and loop corrections from large class of models → “broad band” probe of new physics
• Name of the game: precision! To probe BSM physics at scale Λ, need expt. & th. at the level of (v /Λ)2: ≤10-3 is a well motivated target
β-decays and BSM physics• In the SM, W exchange (V-A, universality)
Theoretical framework
Theoretical Framework
• How do we connect neutron and nuclear beta-decay observables to short-distance physics (W exchange + BSM-induced interactions)?
• This is a multi-scale problem!
• Best tackled within Effective Field Theory
Λ (~TeV)
E
ΛH (~GeV)
Nuclear scale
Perturbative matching
BSM dynamics involvingnew particles with m > Λ
Theoretical Framework
• At scale E~MBSM > MW “integrate out” new heavy particles: generate operators of dim > 4 (this can be done for any model)
W,Z
Λ (~TeV)
E
ΛH (~GeV)
Nuclear scale
Perturbative matching
BSM dynamics involvingnew particles with m > Λ
Non-perturbative matching
H = π, n, p
Theoretical Framework
• At hadronic scale E ~ 1 GeV match to description in terms of pions, nucleons (+ e,γ) ⇔ take hadronic matrix elements
W,Z
Λ (~TeV)
E
ΛH (~GeV)
Nuclear scale
Perturbative matching
BSM dynamics involvingnew particles with m > Λ
Non-perturbative matching
H = π, n, p
Nuclear matrix elements ⇒
observables
Non-perturbative
(A,Z)
Theoretical Framework
e ν
W,Z
• Any new physics encoded in ten leading (dim6) quark-level couplings
Linear sensitivity to
εi (interference
with SM)
Quadratic sensitivity to εi (interference suppressed by
mν/E)
~
Quark-level interactions
function of new model-parameters
Matrix elements
• To disentangle short-distance physics, need hadronic and nuclear matrix elements of SM (at <10-3 level) and BSM operators
• Tools (for nucleons and nuclei):
• symmetries of QCD
• lattice QCD
• nuclear structure
Nucleon matrix elements• Need the matrix elements of quark bilinears between nucleons
• Given the small momentum transfer in the decays q/mn ~10-3, can organize matching according to power counting in q/mn
• At what order do we stop? Work to 1st order in
εL,R,S,P,T ~ 10-3 q/mn ~10-3 α/π ~10-3
• Include O(q/mn) and radiative corrections only for SM operator
S. Weinberg 1958, B. Holstein ‘70s, ... Gudkov et al 2000’s
• A closer look at V, A matrix elements (SM operators):Weinberg 1958
• A closer look at V, A matrix elements (SM operators):
• Vanish in the isospin limit, hence are O(q/mn) [calculable]. Since they multiply q/mn can neglect them
• Pseudo-scalar bilinear is O(q/mn): since it multiplies q/mn, can neglect it (but form factor is known, so this can be included)
• The weak magnetism form factor is related to the difference of proton and neutron magnetic moments, up to isospin-breaking corrections
Weinberg 1958
Nuclear matrix elements
• Correspondence with neutron decay:
→ Holstein 1974
lepton current
Nuclear matrix elements→ Holstein 1974
• Form factors a(q2), c(q2), ... can be expressed in terms of nucleon form factors gn(q2) and nuclear matrix elements of appropriate operators (see extra slides)
Overview of probes
a(gA, εα), A(gA, εα) , B(gA, εα), ... isolated via suitable experimental
asymmetries
How do we probe the ε’s?• Rich phenomenology, two classes of observables:
Lee-Yang, Jackson-Treiman-Wyld
1. Differential decay rates (probe non V-A via “b” and correlations)
2. Total decay rates (probe mostly V, A via extraction of Vud, Vus)
Channel-dependent effective CKM element
• Rich phenomenology, two classes of observables:
How do we probe the ε’s?
1. Differential decay rates (probe non V-A via “b” and correlations)
Snapshot of the field
• This table summarizes a large number of measurements and th. input
• Already quite impressive. Effective scales in the range Λ= 1-10 TeV (ΛSM ≈ 0.2 TeV)
VC, S.Gardner, B.Holstein 1303.6953
Gonzalez-Alonso & Naviliat-Cuncic 1304.1759
Snapshot of the field
• This table summarizes a large number of measurements and th. input
• Already quite impressive. Effective scales in the range Λ= 1-10 TeV (ΛSM ≈ 0.2 TeV)
• Focus on probes that depend on the ε‘s linearly
VC, S.Gardner, B.Holstein 1303.6953
Gonzalez-Alonso & Naviliat-Cuncic 1304.1759
CKM unitarity: input
Vud
0+→0+ neutrongA = 1..2701(25)
T=1/2 mirror
Pion beta decay
CKM unitarity: input
Vud
0+→0+ neutrongA = 1..2701(25)
T=1/2 mirror
Pion beta decay
τn= 880 s
τn= 888 s
• Extraction dominated by 0+→0+ transitions. Critical theoretical input:
Vud = 0.97417(21)
Hardy-Towner 2014
BOTTLE
BEAM
Marciano-Sirlin ‘06
Nucleon-level non-log-enhanced
radiative correction
Isospin breaking in the nuclear matrix element:
CKM unitarity: input
Vud
0+→0+ neutrongA = 1..2701(25)
T=1/2 mirror
Pion beta decay
τn= 880 s
τn= 888 s
Czarnecki, Marciano, Sirlin 2004
• Neutron decay not yet competitive:
Vud = 0.97417(21)
Hardy-Towner 2014
BOTTLE
BEAM
• Extraction dominated by 0+→0+ transitions. Critical theoretical input:
Vus
τ→ Kν K→ μν K→ πν τ→ s
inclusive
CKM unitarity (from Vud)
• Improved LQCD calculations have led to smaller Vus from K→ πν
mπ → mπphys, a → 0, dynamical charm
FK/Fπ = 1.1960(25) [stable] Vus / Vud = 0.2308(6)
f+K→π(0)= 0.959(5) → 0.970(3) Vus = 0.2254(13) → 0.2232(9)
FLAG 2013 + MILC 2014
CKM unitarity: input
Vus from K→ μν
Vus from K→ πlν
• No longer perfect agreement with SM. This could signal:
• New physics in εR,P(s) (Kl2 vs Kl3) and in εL+εR , εL,R(s) (ΔCKM)
• Systematics in data** or theory: δC (A,Z), f+(0), FK/Fπ
ΔCKM = - (4 ± 5)∗10-4 0.9 σ
ΔCKM = - (12 ± 6)∗10-4 2.1 σ
Vus
Vud
K→ μν
K→ πlν
unitarity
CKM unitarity: test
• Given high stakes (0.05% EW test), compelling opportunities emerge:
• Impact on other phenomenology
δτn ~ 0.35 s δτn/τn ~ 0.04 %
δgA/gA ~ 0.025% (δa/a , δA/A ~ 0.1%)
• Robustness of δC and rad.corr: nucl. str. calculations + exp. validation
• Pursue Vud @ 0.02% through neutron decay
aCORN, Nab, UCNA+, ...BL2, BL3 (cold beam), UCNτ, ...
• Pursue Vud through mirror nuclear transitions
CKM unitarity: opportunities
Scalar and tensor couplingsCURRENT
• Current most sensitive probes**:
Bychkov et al, 2007
-2.0×10-4 < fT εT < 2.6 ×10-4
fT = 0.24(4)
π → e ν γ
-1.0×10-3 < gS εS < 3.2×10-3
0+ →0+ (bF)Towner-Hardyl, 2010
bF , π→eνγ
Quark model: 0.25 < gS < 1
** For global analysis see Wauters et al, 1306.2608
Scalar and tensor couplingsCURRENT
• Current most sensitive probes**:
Bychkov et al, 2007
-2.0×10-4 < fT εT < 2.6 ×10-4
fT = 0.24(4)
π → e ν γ
-1.0×10-3 < gS εS < 3.2×10-3
0+ →0+ (bF)Towner-Hardyl, 2010
bF , π→eνγ
Quark model: 0.25 < gS < 1
Lattice QCD: 0.91 < gS < 1.13
Impact of improved theoretical calculations
using lattice QCD
R. Gupta et al. 2014
Bhattacharya, et al 1110.6448
** For global analysis see Wauters et al, 1306.2608
Scalar and tensor couplings FUTURE
bF , π→eνγ
bn , Bn bGT
Quark model:
0.25 < gS < 1
0.6 < gT < 2.3
Nab, UCNB,
6He, ...
• Several precision measurements on the horizon (neutron & nuclei)
• For definiteness, study impact of bn, Bn @ 10-3; bGT (6He, ...) @10-3
Herczeg 2001Additional studies at
FRIB?
Scalar and tensor couplings FUTURE
bF , π→eνγ
bn , Bn bGT
• Can dramatically improve existing limits on εT, probing ΛT ~ 10 TeV
Lattice QCD 2014
0.91 < gS < 1.13
1.0 < gT < 1.1
R. Gupta et al. 2014
ΛS = 5 TeV
Nab, UCNB,
6He, ...
• Several precision measurements on the horizon (neutron & nuclei)
• For definiteness, study impact of bn, Bn @ 10-3; bGT (6He, ...) @10-3
Additional studies at
FRIB?
Connection with high-energy landscape
Connection with landscape• The new physics that contributes to εα affects other observables!
dj
ui
dj
ui
• Relative constraining power depends on specific model
• Model-independent statements possible in “heavy BSM” benchmark: MBSM > TeV → new physics looks point-like at the weak scale
Vertex corrections strongly constrained by Z-pole observables (ΔCKM is at the same level)
Four-fermion interactions “poorly” constrained: σhad at LEP would allow ΔCKM ~0.01 and non V-A
structures at εi ~ 5%. What about LHC?
VC, Gonzalez-Alonso, Jenkins 0908.1754
LHC constraintsT. Bhattacharya, VC, et al, 1110.6448
• Heavy BSM benchmark: all εα couplings contribute to the process p p → e ν + X
• No excess events at high mT ⇒ bounds on εα (at the 0.3% -1% level)
β decays vs LHC reach
0%
0.3%
0.6%
0.9%
1.2%
1.5%
β decays LHC
0%
3.0%
6.0%
9.0%
12.0%
15.0%
VC, Gonzalez-Alonso, Graesser, 1210.4553
LHC: √s = 7 TeV L = 5 fb-1
LHC reach already stronger than low-energy
Unmatched low-energy sensitivityand future reach
LHC limits close to low-energy.Interesting interplay in the future
x x _
All ε’s in MS @ μ = 2 GeV_
Bhattacharya, et al 1110.6448Updated with 2014 lattice input
• β-decays (b,B) @ 0.1% can be more constraining than LHC!
Quark model vs LQCD matrix elements
LHC: √s = 14 TeV
L = 10, 300 fb-1
FUTU
RE
Connection to models• Model → set overall size and pattern of effective couplings
• Beta decays can play very useful diagnosing role
WR
H+
u e
d νLQ
“DNA matrix”
...YOUR FAVORITE MODEL
...
• Qualitative picture:
Can be made quantitative
• MSSM: Distinctive correlation between Cabibbo universality (CKM) and lepton universality, controlled by sfermion spectrum
• Post-LHC effects are at the few*10-4 level
After LHC constraints
Bauman, Erler, Ramsey-Musolf, arXiv:1204.0035
Light selectrons, heavy squarks &
smuons
Light squarks, heavy sleptons
Light smuons, heavy squarks &
selectrons Future 1-sigma
Present 1-sigma
• MSSM: Light but compressed SUSY spectrum?
• “invisible” at the LHC
• Can lead to ΔCKM > 10-4
CMS: SUS-11-016-pas
• !CKM > 10-4
Bauman, Pitschmann, Erler, Ramsey-Musolf,
preliminary
• Leptoquarks: ΔCKM constraint vs direct searches at HERA and LHC
Pair production at LHC
λ
λ
Single production at
HERA(depends on λ)
95% CL limits
S0 (3,1,1/3)
• Leptoquarks: ΔCKM constraint vs direct searches at HERA and LHC
95% CL limits
ΔCKM constraint is stronger (for all four LQ that contribute to ΔCKM)
λ
λ
S0 (3,1,1/3)
Conclusions • Precise (<0.1%) beta decays: “broad band” probe of new physics.
Discovery potential depends on the underlying model
• Both in the “heavy BSM” benchmark and within specific models, a discovery window exists well into the LHC era!
• Currently, nuclear decays provide strongest constraints on non-standard couplings (εL+εR, εS, εT)
• General guideline for selection of future probes @ FRIB:
• experimental feasibility
• “theoretical feasibility”: need reliable calculations of recoil order effects and structure-dependent radiative corrections
Future prospects for ΔCKM
• Lowering error on ΔCKM to 10-4 requires factor of 3-4 improvement in Vud and Vus
• Need to overcome following issues:
• Vud : radiative corrections and IB in matrix element
• Vus : K matrix elements from lattice QCD need to improve by factor of ~3 (may be doable in next 5 years). However, experimental input from K decays currently implies δ(ΔCKM) ~ 2∗10-4
Seems more realistic goal
Extra slides
Coulomb distortion of wave-functions
Nucleus-dependent rad. corr.
(Z, Emax ,nuclear structure)
Nucleus-independent short distance rad. corr.
Sirlin-Zucchini ‘86Jaus-Rasche ‘87
Towner-HardyOrmand-Brown
Marciano-Sirlin ‘06
Vud from 0+→ 0+ nuclear β decays
Scalar and tensor couplings FUTURE
• Fit to decay parameters must include gA (correlations!), and must account for theory uncertainties at recoil order
• Lattice QCD (n) and nuclear calculations can reduce recoil-order uncertainty to negligible level
S. Gardner, B. Plaster 2013
Fit to Monte Carlo pseudo-data of “a” and “A” with εT at its current limit
gA
More on matrix elements
Nucleon matrix elements
• Need the matrix elements of quark bilinears between nucleons
• Given the small momentum transfer in the decays q/mn ~10-3, can organize matching according to power counting in q/mn
• At what order do we stop? Work to 1st order in
εL,R,S,P,T ~ 10-3 q/mn ~10-3 α/π ~10-3
• Include O(q/mn) and radiative corrections only for SM operator
B. Holstein ‘70s, ... Gudkov et al 2000’s
• General matching
Weinberg 1958
• General matching
Weinberg 1958
• Need all other form-factors at q2 = 0
• A closer look at V, A matrix elements (SM operators):
• Vanish in the isospin limit, hence are O(q/mn). Since they multiply q/mn can neglect them
• Pseudo-scalar bilinear is O(q/mn): since it multiplies q/mn, can neglect it
• The weak magnetism form factor is related to the difference of proton and neutron magnetic moments, up to isospin-breaking corrections
Weinberg 1958
What do we know about gV,A,S,T ?
• gV = 1 (CVC) up to 2nd order corrections in (mu - md)
• (1-2εR)*gA can be extracted from neutron decay measurement. LQCD calculation of gA are at the ~10-15% level
Ademollo-Gatto Berhends-Sirlin
• No phenomenological handle on gS; some (quite uncertain yet) info on gT, from polarized structure function of nucleon: need LQCD!
Connection to Lee-Yang
• Ignoring recoil order corrections, one recovers Lee-Yang effective Lagrangian
• The couplings are expressed in terms of gi and εi
Nuclear matrix elements
• Correspondence with neutron decay:
→ Holstein 1974
• Nuclear form factors can be expressed in terms of nucleon form factors gn(q2) and nuclear matrix elements of appropriate operators
Holstein 1974
• Nuclear form factors can be expressed in terms of nucleon form factors gn(q2) and nuclear matrix elements of appropriate operators
Holstein 1974
• Nuclear matrix elements: