Pos(Beauty2019)001
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
( Precision Beauty at High Sensitivity PoS(Beauty2019)001 Chris Quigg∗ Theoretical Physics Department, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory P.O. Box 500, Batavia, Illinois 60510 USA E-mail: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-2728-2445 Opening lecture at Beauty2019. FERMILAB–CONF–20-071–T Origins of contemporary B-physics. Mesons with beauty and charm. Stable tetraquarks? Flavor and the problem of identity. Top matters. Electroweak symmetry breaking and the Higgs sector. Future instruments. Slides available at zenodo.3468909. 18th International Conference on B-Physics at Frontier Machines - Beauty2019 - 29 September / 4 October, 2019 Ljubljana, Slovenia ∗Speaker. c Copyright owned by the author(s) under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). http://pos.sissa.it/ Beauty 2019 Opening Chris Quigg 1. Introduction As we open Beauty2019, I note with pleasure the large number of young scientists among the participants. Since many of you were not yet living when B physics was born, I want to begin with a short review of our Origin Story. I will next touch on two topics in hadron spectroscopy that have been particularly interesting to me recently: next steps in the investigation of the Bc spectrum and the likely existence of doubly heavy tetraquarks that are stable, or nearly stable, against strong decay. Then I will speak more generally to the future of our subject, posing questions about flavor physics, the top quark, and electroweak symmetry breaking and the Higgs sector. In anticipation PoS(Beauty2019)001 of the European Strategy Update for Particle Physics [1], I will close by inviting you to consider the relative merits of future accelerator projects. 2. Origin Story The first experimental evidence for the existence of the fifth quark came in the summer of 1977, with the discovery of a strong enhancement at 9:5 GeV in the mass spectrum of dimuons produced in collisions of 400-GeV protons with Cu or Pt targets [2] at Fermilab. Later that year, a threefold increase in statistics made it possible to resolve at least two peaks consistent in width with experimental resolution [3]. The excess of the data over a fit to the continuum fit is shown VOLUMEin Figure)9, NUMBER1. The20 resonancesPHYSICAL were designatedREVIEW¡ andLETTERS tentatively identified as14 boundNovEMBER states1977 of a new TABLE II. Sensitivity of resonance parameters to 04- continuum slope. Continuum subtraction of Eq. (1) but with b varied by + 2(T. Errors are statistical only. O b0= 0.977 GeV 5 = 0.92900 GeV 0 c 0.2 E288 M(¡ ) − M(¡) M(¡ ) − M(¡ ) Two-levelY M( (GeV) fit 650 ±9.3040 + MeV0.013 9.40 + 0.014 Bdo/dy(„-& (pb} 0.18+ 0.01 0.17+ 0.01 ~ o.o ~ ~ t bI blab Three-level~, (Gev) fit 610 ±10.4000 MeV0.04 100010.01± 1200.04 MeV + 0 B do/dy I -g (pb) 0.068 0.007 0.061 + 0.007 M(y ) − M~3((GeV)J=y) ≈ 59010.43 MeV+ 0.12 10.38 + 0.16 + + Bdo/dy / ~ -o (pb) 0.014 0.006 0.008 0.007 9 l0 per degree of 14.1/16 15.4/16 mass (GeV} freedom FIG. 2. Excess of the data over the continuum fit of Eq.Figure(1). Errors 1: Leftshown panel:are statistical The dimuononly. massThe distributionsolid in the reaction pN ! m+m− + X, showing at least two curve is the three-peak fit; the dashed curve is the two-peak¡ resonancefit. peaks (from Ref. [3]). The solid curve is the three-peak fit; the dashed curve is the two-peak fit. ty and. also the estimated uncertainty due to mod- Right panel: Fits suggested an unresolved third peak. el dependence of the acceptance calculation. ) cise form of the continuum. The first test is to (iii) There is evidence for a third peak Y "(10.4) varyheavythe slope quarkparameter, and antiquark,b, in Eq. by(1). analogyVaria- with thealthough charmoniumthis is by (nocc¯)meansfamily.established. It was noteworthy that tion each way by 20 yields the results given in Examination of the Pr and decay-angle distribu- Tablethe spacingII. A detailed betweenstudy thehas (apparent)been made groundof the statetions andof firstthese excitedpeaks fails stateto wasshow veryany similargross dif- to the mass errordifferencematrix representing between y0(correlated3686) anduncertain-J=y(3097). ference from adjoining continuum mass bins. ties in the multiparameter fit. The correlations An interesting quantity is the ratio of (Bda/ Experiment 288, as it was known, was proposed before the November 1974 Revolution [4]. It increase the uncertainties of Tables I and II by dy)l, , for Y(9.4) to the continuum cross section &15%.promised to search for structures in the dilepton(d'o/dmdy)I, spectrum, “publish, at M = 9. these40 GeV: andThis becomeis 1.11 famous.” The Further uncertainties in the results presented ~ 0.06 GeV. abovesubsequentarise from discoveriesthe fact that ofthe thecontinnum charmoniumfit resonancesTable III [5,presents6] and themasst leptonsplittings [7]and precipitatedcross a wave is ofdominated dileptonby experimentsthe data below at9 Fermilab,GeV. Nature which thesections CERN(includingCouriersystematiccharacterizederrors) as dileptomaniaunder the [8]. could provide reasonable departures from Eq. (1) two- and three-peak hypotheses and compares aboveAlthoughthis mass. MakotoThese Kobayashiissues must andwait Toshihidefor a Maskawa’sthem with theoretical insight [9]predictions that threeto generationsbe discussed of quarks largecouldincrease enablein CPthe numberviolationof events, throughespecial- the complexbelow. phase in the 3 × 3 quark-mixing matrix had been ly above -11 GeV. However, the primary conclu- There is a literature which published, the inevitability of a third generation had not yetgrowing taken hold in the community.relates the sions are independent of these uncertainties and Y to the bound state of a new quark (q) and its an may be summarized as follows: (i) The structure antiquark (q).' " Eichten and Gottfried' have cal- contains at least two narrow peaks: Y(9.4) and culated the energy spacing to be expected from Y'(10.0). (ii) The cross section for Y(9.4), (Bda/ the1potential model used in their accounting for dy) i, „is' 0.18+ 0.07 pb/nucleon. (The error in- the energy levels in charmonium. Their potential cludes our + 25/o absolute normalization uncertain- V(r) = —~4m, (m, )/r +r/a' (2) predicts line spacings and leptonic widths. The TABLE I. Resonance fit parameters. Continuum level spacings t Table III(a)] suggest that the shape subtraction is given by Eq. (1). Errors are statistical of the potential may be oversimplified; we note only. that M(Y') -M(Y) is remarkably close to M (g') 2 peak 3 peak -M(4)" Table III(b) summarizes estimates of Bda/dyl, -, Y m, (GeV) 9.41 + 0.013 9.40 + 0.013 for qq states and ratios of then=2, 3 states to Bda/dye o (pb) 0.18+ 0.01 0.18+ 0.01 the ground state. Cascade models (Y produced Y m, (GeV) 10.06 + 0.03 10.01+ 0.04 as the radiative decay of a heavier P state formed Bdo. 069 + 006 /dye~ 0 (pb) 0. 0. 0.065+ 0.007 by gluon amalgamation) and direct production M3 (GeV) 10.40 + 0.12 = — processes seem to prefer Q & to =-', . We Bdo/dyj, , (pb) 0.011+0.007 Q y2 per degree of 19.9/18 14.2/16 note finally that the ratios in Table III may re- freedom quire modification due to the discrepancy between the observed spacing and the universally used 1241 Beauty 2019 Opening Chris Quigg The evidence for three narrow peaks was in accord with what Eichten & Gottfried [10] had an- ticipated within a Coulomb + linear potential model, in their preparations for the Cornell Electron Storage Ring Proposal in November 1976. They calculated quarkonium spectra over a range of quark masses mQ & mc. At the 5-GeV nominal beam energy of CESR, they foresaw three narrow levels, as observed, but predicted a level spacing E(2S) − E(1S) ≈ 420 MeV. It soon came to light 3 that for a very general class of potentials, the number of narrow S1 QQ¯ levels that lie below the p threshold for Zweig-allowed decay grows as N = a mQ=mc [11]. Since N = 2 for charmonium, it is a general result that three or perhaps 4 narrow ¡ levels should be seen, depending on the ratio of quark masses. Combining information from the J=y and ¡ families, we would come to learn much PoS(Beauty2019)001 more about the interquark potential than we could from either family alone. Why choose mQ = 5 GeV? Fermilab experiment E1A had reported an excess of events at high + values of the inelasticity parameter y = (En − Em )=En in the reaction n¯m N ! m + anything [12]. The excess was dubbed the high-y anomaly; for a left-handed charged current interaction, we would 2 expect the behavior ds(n¯ q)=dy ∝ (1VOLUME− y44,) NUMBERto characterize17 PHYSICAL antineutrinoREVIEW LETTERS scattering on a target28 APRiL made1980 (mostly) of quarks, in contrast to theall signalsds(werenq)digitized=dy ∝and 1recorded behavioron tape. expectedcies for detecting for neutrinoscontinuum and Y onevents quarks.are, This trigger gave an event rate of 0.3 Hz for a respectively, 28% and 37/o. These values are ob- ' '. The excess events could be explainedluminosity by a right-handedof 1 pb s A typicalufill!of bCESRtransitiontained by withuse of thembcross≈ sections4 – 5measured GeV [at13]. lasts 3 to 5 hours yielding an integrated lumi- DORIS'' (g„„,=3.8 nb at 9.4 GeV, o ~»&=18.5 nosity of up to -15 nb '. The integrated luminos- nb after correcting for the difference in beam en- That was not to be. In an interestingity for dramaticeach run was measured twist,by Leondetecting and Lederman’sergy spread announcementat CESR and DORIS).