text:
# Cosmology with tachyon field as dark energy

## I Motivation

Observations suggest that our universe has entered a phase of accelerated expansion in the recent past. Friedmann equations can be consistent with such an accelerated expansion only if the universe is populated by a medium with negative pressure. One of the possible sources which could provide such a negative pressure will be a scalar field with either of the following two types of Lagrangians:

$`L_{\mathrm{quin}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_a\varphi ^a\varphi V(\varphi );`$ (1)
$`L_{\mathrm{tach}}`$ $`=`$ $`V(\varphi )[1_a\varphi ^a\varphi ]^{1/2}`$ (2)
Both these Lagrangians involve one arbitrary function $`V(\varphi )`$. The first one $`L_{\mathrm{quin}}`$, which is a natural generalization of the Lagrangian for a nonrelativistic particle, $`L=(1/2)\dot{q}^2V(q)`$, is usually called quintessence (for a sample of models, see Ref. ). When it acts as a source in Friedmann universe, it is characterized by a time dependent $`w(t)(P/\rho )`$ with

$`\rho _q(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2+V;P_q(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};\dot{\varphi }^2V;`$ (3)
$`w_q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1(2V/\dot{\varphi }^2)}{1+(2V/\dot{\varphi }^2)}}.`$ (4)
Just as $`L_{\mathrm{quin}}`$ generalizes the Lagrangian for the nonrelativistic particle, $`L_{\mathrm{tach}}`$ generalizes the Lagrangian for the relativistic particle . A relativistic particle with a (one dimensional) position $`q(t)`$ and mass $`m`$ is described by the Lagrangian $`L=m\sqrt{1\dot{q}^2}`$. It has the energy $`E=m/\sqrt{1\dot{q}^2}`$ and momentum $`p=m\dot{q}/\sqrt{1\dot{q}^2}`$ which are related by $`E^2=p^2+m^2`$. As is well known, this allows the possibility of having massless particles with finite energy for which $`E^2=p^2`$. This is achieved by taking the limit of $`m0`$ and $`\dot{q}1`$, while keeping the ratio in $`E=m/\sqrt{1\dot{q}^2}`$ finite. The momentum acquires a life of its own, unconnected with the velocity $`\dot{q}`$, and the energy is expressed in terms of the momentum (rather than in terms of $`\dot{q}`$) in the Hamiltonian formulation. We can now construct a field theory by upgrading $`q(t)`$ to a field $`\varphi `$. Relativistic invariance now requires $`\varphi `$ to depend on both space and time \[$`\varphi =\varphi (t,𝐱)`$\] and $`\dot{q}^2`$ to be replaced by $`_i\varphi ^i\varphi `$. It is also possible now to treat the mass parameter $`m`$ as a function of $`\varphi `$, say, $`V(\varphi )`$ thereby obtaining a field theoretic Lagrangian $`L=V(\varphi )\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi }`$. The Hamiltonian structure of this theory is algebraically very similar to the special relativistic example we started with. In particular, the theory allows solutions in which $`V0`$, $`_i\varphi ^i\varphi 1`$ simultaneously, keeping the energy (density) finite. Such solutions will have finite momentum density (analogous to a massless particle with finite momentum $`p`$) and energy density. Since the solutions can now depend on both space and time (unlike the special relativistic example in which $`q`$ depended only on time), the momentum density can be an arbitrary function of the spatial coordinate. This form of scalar field arises in string theories  and — for technical reasons — is called a tachyonic scalar field. (The structure of this Lagrangian is similar to those analyzed in a wide class of models called K-essence; see for example, Ref. .) This provides a rich gamut of possibilities in the context of cosmology .

The stress tensor for the tachyonic scalar field can be written in a perfect fluid form

$$T_k^i=(\rho +p)u^iu_kp\delta _k^i$$
(5)
with

$`u_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_k\varphi }{\sqrt{^i\varphi _i\varphi }}};\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi }}};`$ (6)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`V(\varphi )\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi }`$ (7)
The remarkable feature of this stress tensor is that it could be considered as the sum of a pressure less dust component and a cosmological constant . To show this explicitly, we break up the density $`\rho `$ and the pressure $`p`$ and write them in a more suggestive form as

$$\rho =\rho _V+\rho _{\mathrm{DM}};p=p_V+p_{\mathrm{DM}},$$
(8)
where

$`\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )^i\varphi _i\varphi }{\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi }}};p_{\mathrm{DM}}=0;`$ (9)
$`\rho _V`$ $`=`$ $`V(\varphi )\sqrt{1^i\varphi _i\varphi };p_V=\rho _V`$ (10)
This means that the stress tensor can be thought of as made up of two components – one behaving like a pressure-less fluid, while the other having a negative pressure. In the cosmological context, when $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is small (compared to $`V`$ in the case of quintessence or compared to unity in the case of tachyonic field), both these sources have $`w1`$ and mimic a cosmological constant. When $`\dot{\varphi }V`$, the quintessence has $`w1`$ leading to $`\rho _q(1+z)^6`$; the tachyonic field, on the other hand, has $`w0`$ for $`\dot{\varphi }1`$ and behaves like non-relativistic matter.

An additional motivation for studying models based on $`L_{\mathrm{quin}}`$ is the following: The standard explanation of the current cosmological observations will require two components of dark matter: (a) The first one is a dust component with the equation of state $`p=0`$ contributing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.35`$. This component clusters gravitationally at small scales ($`l500`$ Mpc, say) and will be able to explain observations from galactic to super-cluster scales. (b) The second one is a negative pressure component with equation of state like $`p=w\rho `$ with $`1<w<0.5`$ contributing about $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V0.65`$. There is some leeway in the $`(p/\rho )`$ of the second component but it is certain that $`p`$ is negative and $`(p/\rho )`$ is of order unity. The cosmological constant will provide $`w=1`$ while several other candidates based on scalar fields with potentials  will provide different values for $`w`$ in the acceptable range. By and large, component (b) is noticed only in the large scale expansion and it does not cluster gravitationally to a significant extent. Neither of the components (a) and (b) has laboratory evidence for their existence directly or indirectly. In this sense, cosmology requires invoking the tooth fairy twice to explain the current observations. It was suggested recently  that one may be able to explain the observations at all scales using a single scalar field with a particular form of Lagrangian.

In this paper we explore the cosmological scenario in greater detail, concentrating on the background cosmology. Our approach in this paper will be based on the above view point and we shall treat the form of the Lagrangian for $`L_{\mathrm{tach}}`$ as our starting point without worrying about its origin. In particular, we shall not make any attempt to connect up the form of $`V(\varphi )`$ with string theoretic models but will explore different possibilities, guided essentially by their cosmological viability.

We construct cosmological models with homogeneous tachyon matter, assuming that tachyon matter co-exists with normal non-relativistic matter and radiation. Section II presents the equations for the evolution of scale factor and the tachyon field. In Section III we present solutions of these equations and discuss variations introduced by the available parameters in the model. Here we have analyzed two different models of the scalar field potential, one is the exponential potential and the other is the the inverse square potential which leads to power law cosmology . In Section IV we compare the model with observations and constrain the parameters. Section V discusses structure formation in tachyon models. The results are summarized in concluding Section VI.

## II Tachyon-Matter cosmology

For a spatially flat universe, the Friedman equations are

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3}}\rho ,{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi G}{3}}(\rho +3p)`$ (11)
where $`\rho =\rho _{\mathrm{N}R}+\rho _\mathrm{R}+\rho _\varphi `$, with respective terms denoting non-relativistic, relativistic and tachyon matter densities. For the tachyon field $`\varphi `$ we have

$`\rho _\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{V(\varphi )}{\sqrt{1\dot{\varphi }^2}}},p_\varphi =V(\varphi )\sqrt{1\dot{\varphi }^2}`$ (13)
The equation of state for tachyon matter is $`p=w\rho `$ with $`w=\dot{\varphi }^21`$. The scalar field equation of motion is

$$\ddot{\varphi }=(1\dot{\varphi }^2)\left[3H\dot{\varphi }+\frac{1}{V(\varphi )}\frac{dV}{d\varphi }\right]$$
(15)
The structure of this equation suggests that the change in $`\dot{\varphi }`$ goes to zero as it approaches $`\pm 1`$. In this case, the equation of state for the tachyon field is dustlike. Thus at any stage if the tachyon field behaves like dust, it will continue to do so for a long time. This behavior persists for a duration that depends on the closeness of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ to $`\pm 1`$. Detailed behavior will depend on the form of the potential.

We shall discuss cosmological models with two different $`V(\varphi )`$ in this paper. The first one has the form

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{n}{4\pi G}\left(1\frac{2}{3n}\right)^{1/2}\varphi ^2.$$

It was shown in Ref.  that the above potential leads to the expansion $`a(t)=t^n`$ if $`\varphi `$ is the only source. (The form $`V(\varphi )1/(\varphi \varphi _0)^2`$ can be reduced to the form given above by a simple redefinition of the scalar field.) In this case, the term in the square bracket in equation (15) is $`\left[3H\dot{\varphi }2/\varphi \right]`$. This term vanishes in the asymptotic limit when tachyons dominate and $`\varphi t`$. This asymptotic solution is stable in the sense that all initial conditions eventually lead to this state. If normal matter or radiation dominates, $`\dot{\varphi }`$ stays close to the transition point $`2/(3H\varphi )`$, unless we start the field very close to $`\dot{\varphi }^2=1`$. Thus the presence of non-relativistic matter and radiation leads to a change in the equation of state for the tachyon field. The change in equation of state for the tachyon field implies that it is not a tracker field (for details see ). To get a viable model, i.e., matter domination at high redshifts and an accelerating phase at low redshifts, we need to start the tachyon field such that $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is very close to unity, and $`\varphi `$ is very large. We will describe the fine tuning required in greater detail when we discuss numerical solutions of these equations.

The second form of potential which we will consider is the exponential one with $`V(\varphi )e^{\varphi /\varphi _0}`$. Then the term in square bracket in the equation (15) can be written as $`\left[3H\dot{\varphi }1/\varphi _0\right]`$. In a universe dominated by radiation or normal matter, $`H(t)`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of time while $`\varphi _0`$ is a constant. From this equation, it is clear that $`\dot{\varphi }`$ will increase if $`\dot{\varphi }<1/(3H(t)\varphi _0)`$. As $`H(t)`$ keeps decreasing, $`\dot{\varphi }`$ will increase slowly and approach unity, asymptotically. However, in the meanwhile, tachyons may begin to dominate in terms of energy density and this changes the behavior. In a tachyon dominated scenario, we get rapid expansion of the universe and $`H(t)`$ varies much more slowly than in the matter or radiation dominated era. Thus $`\dot{\varphi }`$ changes at a slower rate but it still approaches unity and hence we — eventually — get a dust like equation of state for the tachyon field. Whether there is an accelerating phase or not depends on the initial values of $`\dot{\varphi }`$, $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$. Present values of density parameter for non-relativistic matter and tachyons fixes the epoch at which tachyons start to dominate the energy density. The parameter $`\varphi _0`$ sets the time when $`\dot{\varphi }`$ approaches unity and the asymptotic dust like phase for tachyons is reached. Initial value of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ fixes the duration of the accelerating phase. If this value is very close to unity then it departs very little from this value through the entire evolution. On the other hand, if it starts far away from this value, then the equation of state for the tachyon field can lead to a significantly long accelerating phase. It is possible to fine tune the evolution by choosing a sufficiently large value for the constant $`\varphi _0`$, so that $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is much smaller than unity even at the present epoch, and by requiring that the tachyon field is starting to dominate the energy density of the universe at the present epoch. In such a case, the accelerating phase is a transient between the matter dominated era and the tachyon dominated era with $`a(t)t^{2/3}`$ in both of these regimes. This model has been the focus of many studies  though most of these have chosen to ignore the role of matter or radiation.

Some of the models discussed below have an accelerating phase for the universe *followed by* a dust-like expansion with $`a(t)t^{2/3}`$ asymptotically. These models have the attractive feature that they do *not* behave as a de Sitter-like universe in the asymptotic future and thus do not possess a future horizon. String theoretic models have difficulty in incorporating cosmologies which approach de Sitter-like phase asymptotically; from this point of view, these models can be theoretically attractive.

## III Numerical Solutions to cosmological equations

This section presents a detailed study of the background tachyon cosmology. We solve the cosmological equations of motion numerically for the two potentials mentioned in the previous section.

### A Inverse square potential

We start with the discussion of the potential $`V(\varphi )\varphi ^2`$. Energy density of the universe is a mix of the tachyon field, radiation and non-relativistic matter. The asymptotic solutions for the universe with only the tachyon field as source are well understood: we get rapid expansion of the universe with the field $`\varphi `$ growing in proportion with time. We wish to see the effect of other species (matter and radiation) on the evolution of the tachyon field, and the stability of the asymptotic solution.

Since only two of the three equations in (11) and (15) are independent, we choose to drop the equation with second derivative of the scale factor. We choose some instant of time as $`t_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and rescale variables as follows, for numerical convenience:

$$x=tH_{in},y=a(t)/a(t_{in}),y^{}=dy/dx$$
(16)
and $`\psi =\varphi /\varphi _{in},\psi ^{}=d\psi /dx`$. (We will use the present epoch and Planck epoch for $`t_{\mathrm{in}}`$, in two different contexts described below.) Then the equations are

$`y^{}`$ $`=`$ $`y[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{M_{in}}}{y^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{R_{in}}}{y^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2n}{3}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3n}})^{1/2}`$ (18)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi _{in}^2H_{in}^2\psi ^2\sqrt{1\varphi _{in}^2H_{in}^2\psi ^2}}}]^{1/2}`$
$`\psi ^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\varphi _{in}^2H_{in}^2\psi ^2\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\varphi _{in}^2H_{in}^2\psi }}3{\displaystyle \frac{y^{}}{y}}\psi _{in}^{}\right)`$ (19)
The subscript in refers to the initial value, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R`$ refer to the density parameters for matter and radiation respectively. It is assumed that the sum of all density parameters is unity.

The initial conditions for $`y`$ and $`\psi `$ follow from their definition: $`y_{in}=1,\psi _{in}=1`$. The initial condition for $`\psi ^{}`$, can be related to the density parameter of tachyon matter at $`t=t_{\mathrm{in}}`$

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\varphi _{in}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2n}{3}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3n}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi _{in}^2H_{in}^2\psi _{in}^2\sqrt{1\varphi _{in}^2H_{in}^2\psi _{in}^2}}}`$ (20)
There are two branches of solutions, one with positive $`\psi ^{}`$ and another with negative values of $`\psi ^{}`$. For each set of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m_{in}}`$ and $`n`$, there is a minimum value of $`\varphi _{in}H_{in}`$ below which we cannot satisfy this equation. We can solve these equations if $`\psi ^2>0`$, or if

$$\varphi _{in}^2H_{in}^2\frac{2n}{3\mathrm{\Omega }_{\varphi _{in}}}\left(1\frac{2}{3n}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(21)
For a given value of $`\varphi _{in}^2H_{in}^2`$, we get initial values of all the variables from the above equations and using these we evolve these quantities. As shown in above equations, parameters $`n`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\varphi _{in}}`$, $`\varphi _{in}H_{in}`$ and $`|\dot{\varphi }_{in}|`$ are inter-related. For a fixed $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\varphi _{in}}`$, larger values of $`\varphi _{in}^2H_{in}^2`$ imply a larger value of initial $`|\dot{\varphi }|`$, and hence an equation of state that is closer to that of dust.

We study the evolution of such a model in three steps. First we evolve the system from present day to future and show that the asymptotic solution is stable, i.e., the entire allowed range of present values leads to the same asymptotic solution. In this context ’in’ refers to the present values of the parameters. We choose the present value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M_{in}}=0.3`$, and all the results shown here use $`n=6`$ (results do not change qualitatively for other values of $`n`$), i.e., the asymptotic solution gives $`a(t)t^6`$.

We plot the phase portrait for the scale factor in Fig. 1. This figure clearly shows the late time acceleration in tachyon dominated universe. (The figures exhibit past as well as future evolution; the past evolution is discussed later.) The positive branch is plotted in this figure and the following ones but the discussion holds true for the negative branch as well. Evolution of field $`\varphi `$ and its time derivative $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is shown in Figs. 2 and 3. These too demonstrate the approach to the asymptotic solution for the two initial conditions. In asymptotic future, we expect $`\dot{\varphi }`$ to approach a constant value of $`\sqrt{2/3n}`$. Indeed, both the negative and the positive branches (which respectively correspond to positive $`\psi ^{}`$ and negative $`\psi ^{}`$) exhibit this behavior. The fact that other initial conditions lead to similar behavior is shown in the phase diagram for field $`\varphi `$ in Fig. 4. We see that for the entire range of initial conditions for the field $`\varphi `$, it quickly approaches the asymptotic solution. It takes longer to reach the asymptotic solution for initial conditions where $`|\varphi _{in}H_{in}|`$ (the value at present) is much larger than its minimum allowed value as in this case $`|\dot{\varphi }|`$ is closer to unity and hence the present equation of state for the tachyon field is like that of a pressure-less fluid. In such a case accelerating phase of the universe starts at late times compared to models where $`|\varphi _{in}H_{in}|`$ is closer to its minimum allowed value. Thus we need to fine tune the value of this parameter in order to arrange for accelerating phase of the universe to start at low redshifts, as required by observations.

In future evolution, density parameter for matter decreases with the start of the accelerating phase. The density parameter for tachyons begins to increase in this phase and quickly approaches unity.

Next we study the behavior of these solutions in past, i.e., we use the present day conditions and evolve back to see the kind of initial conditions that are required for us to get a viable model today. Figures used to illustrate future evolution also show the past evolution of these quantities. As motivated in section II, we expect matter and radiation to drive $`\dot{\varphi }`$ away from unity towards smaller values in forward evolution. So, as we evolve the equations back, we expect all present day conditions to lead towards $`\dot{\varphi }=1`$. This is indeed what we find in numerical solutions. The equation of state for tachyon field approaches that of a pressure-less fluid, and the universe expands with $`a(t)t^{2/3}`$ at high redshifts. At even earlier times, radiation takes over and both matter and tachyons become subdominant components.

The time dependent matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(t)=8\pi G\rho _M(t)/3H^2(t)`$ is plotted as a function of redshift in Fig. 5. Here non-relativistic matter dominates in the sense that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M>\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ but evolution does not drive $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ towards zero or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ close to unity. Instead the two density parameters remain comparable during much of the “matter dominated” era (from $`z10^3`$ to $`z2`$). This is a unique feature not seen in other cosmological models. In the phase where the equation of state of tachyon field approaches $`w0`$, the ratio of density parameter for non-relativistic matter and tachyon field becomes a constant. For models of interest, i.e., where accelerating phase is starting at low redshifts, this ratio is of order unity for most choices of parameters and the relative importance of tachyons and matter does not change up to the time when accelerating phase begins. (This has a significant effect on gravitational instability and growth of perturbations; see section V.)

The tachyon field $`\varphi `$ approaches a nearly constant value in past and changes very little from its value in the early universe to the time when the accelerating phase begins. In the pre-acceleration phase, $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is close to unity. This means that the field $`\varphi `$ starts from large values in the models that satisfy basic observational constraints. This is the fine tuning required in constructing viable tachyon models. In Fig. 6 we show the evolution of $`\varphi (t)H(t)`$ as a function of redshift. As expected, this is a constant in the asymptotic regime where tachyons dominate. However this function evolves rapidly in the dust like regime. As $`\varphi `$ remains a constant in this regime, the change is mainly due to change in $`H(t)`$. The asymptotic value of this product is $`\varphi H(t)\sqrt{2n/3}`$, so we expect $`\varphi H(t)`$ to decrease from its initial value and make a transition to the constant asymptotic value. We need to choose the initial value of this product so that the transition from dust like to accelerating phase happens around now. As the asymptotic value is $`\varphi H(t)\sqrt{2n/3}`$, and this is of order unity for small $`n`$, the value of $`\varphi `$ in the early universe has to be large. The product $`\varphi (t_{Pl})H(t_{Pl})`$ is approximately $`\varphi (t_0)H(t_{Pl})`$ as $`\varphi `$ does not change by much during its evolution. Since the present day $`\varphi (t_0)H_0`$ is of order unity, $`\varphi (t_{Pl})H_{Pl}H_{Pl}/H_0`$. (Here $`t_0`$ is the present time and $`H_0`$ is the present value of the Hubble constant.) Thus the initial value of $`\varphi `$ sets the time scale when transition to asymptotic behavior takes place. This fine tuning is similar to that needed in models with the cosmological constant as the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has to be tuned to arrange for accelerating phase to start at low redshifts.

To illustrate this point further, we start the integration at Planck time for a range of initial conditions and show that indeed we obtain this behavior. The age of the universe at the time of transition from pressure-less behaviour for the tachyon field to an effective cosmological constant behavior is indeed proportional to the initial value of $`\varphi `$. To illustrate this, we first plot $`w`$ for the tachyon field as a function of scale factor in Fig. 7. This is plotted for many values of $`\varphi (t_{planck})H(t_{planck})`$. An order of magnitude increase in the initial value delays the onset of accelerating phase by roughly an order. Hence to achieve accelerating phase at late times, one requires the fine tuned value mentioned above. The same behavior is summarized in Fig. 8, where we plot the scale factor when $`w_\varphi =w_{\varphi _{asymptotic}}/2=(2/(3n)1)/2`$ as a function of $`\varphi (t_{planck})H(t_{planck})`$.

### B Exponential Potential

We now repeat the above analysis for the exponential potential. As before, we consider a mix of non-relativistic matter, radiation/relativistic matter and the tachyon field. We fix $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =0.7`$ at the present epoch. (In the literature, it has been suggested that the exponential potential does arise in some of the string theoretic models. However, in our approach, we think of $`V(\varphi )`$ as an arbitrary function just as in quintessence models.) For the purpose of numerical work, we have taken the value of $`\varphi /\varphi _0`$ to be $`10^2`$ at the present epoch. The choice of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ fixes the amplitude of the potential as we have already fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ and $`\varphi /\varphi _0`$. The remaining parameter is $`\varphi _0`$, and as we have already fixed $`\varphi _{in}/\varphi _0`$, fixing $`\varphi _0`$ is equivalent to fixing $`\varphi _{in}`$. We use the combination $`\varphi _{in}H_{in}`$ to construct a dimensionless parameter which indicates the value of $`\varphi _0`$. $`\varphi _{in}H_{in}`$ should be of order unity if $`\varphi _{in}`$ is comparable to the age of the Universe today. We shall study variation of quantities of interest with time for a range of values of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ and $`\varphi _{in}H_{in}`$.

In the case of exponential potential, the equation of state for the tachyon field approaches that of dust as $`t\mathrm{}`$. Thus any accelerating phase that we might get will be followed by a dust like phase. The accelerating phase occurs when the tachyon field dominates the energy density of the universe as it is only in this case that we can get $`\rho +3p<0`$. For an accelerating phase to exist at all, the tachyon field should begin to dominate before it enters the dust like phase. Thus the duration of the accelerating phase will depend on how different $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is from unity at the start of tachyon dominated phase.

The phase plot for the scale factor is shown in Fig. 9. We have kept $`\varphi _{in}H_{in}`$ fixed at present day and varied $`\dot{\varphi }`$ for a range of values. The unique feature of this model is that we regain the dust like phase in the future. It is clear from this plot that the duration of accelerating phase varies considerably across models shown here. The supernova observations require the universe to be in an accelerating phase at $`z<0.25`$, so models that do not have an accelerating phase at all or too small an accelerating phase can be ruled out easily.

The fact that these cosmological models have two decelerating phases, with an accelerating phase sandwiched in between, is noteworthy. In such models, one can accommodate the current acceleration of the universe without the model “getting stuck” in the accelerating phase for eternity. Since the universe has $`a(t)t^{2/3}`$ asymptotically, it follows that there will be no future horizon (for some other attempts to eliminate the future horizon, see ). String theoretic models have difficulty in accommodating an asymptotically de Sitter-like universe and our model could help in this context.

The plot in Fig. 10 shows $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ as functions of redshift and shows that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ increases monotonically with time.

A plot of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ in Fig. 11 shows that all initial conditions lead to $`\dot{\varphi }=1`$. The function $`\varphi H`$ increases with $`1+z`$. It is clear that all initial conditions lead to a narrow range of asymptotic values for this product.

If we keep the value of $`\dot{\varphi }`$ fixed and increase $`\varphi _{in}H_{in}`$, the duration of the accelerating phase increases. This is illustrated in Fig. 12. A plot of the density parameters is shown in Fig. 13.

## IV Comparison with Supernova Ia observations

We now compare the results with supernova Ia observations by Perlmutter et al. . The data from the redshift and luminosity distance observations of these supernovae, collected by the Supernova Cosmology Project, concludes that the universe is currently going through an accelerating phase of expansion. This is a powerful constraint on cosmological models, e.g. it rules out the Einstein-deSitter model at a high confidence level. The obvious contender is a positive cosmological constant, though more exotic matter driving the accelerated expansion is also a possibility. Since currently the energy density of the universe is dominated by a form of matter with negative pressure, the presence of a tachyon source is thus expected to be consistent with these observations.

The results of theoretical model and observations are compared for luminosity measured in logarithmic units, i.e., magnitudes defined by

$$m_B(z)=+5log_{10}(D_L)$$
(22)
where$`=M5log_{10}(H_0)`$ and $`D_L=H_0d_L`$, the factor $`M`$ being the absolute magnitude of the object and $`d_L`$ is the luminosity distance

$$d_L=(1+z)a(t_0)r(z);r(z)=c\frac{dt}{a(t)}$$
(23)
where $`z`$ is the redshift.

We perform the $`\chi ^2`$ test of goodness-of-fit on the model with $`V(\varphi )\varphi ^2`$. For our analysis, we have used all the 60 supernovae quoted in . Of these 42 are high red shift supernovae reported by the supernova cosmology project  and 18 low red shift supernovae of Callan-Tollolo survey . We have three parameters: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(in)`$, $`n`$ and $`\varphi _{in}H_{in}`$ (with ‘in’ referring to present epoch). An additional freedom is the choice of sign of $`\dot{\varphi }(x=t_{in}H_{in})`$. We freeze $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(in)`$ at $`0.3`$ and we find that that for any choice of $`n`$, we can get a reasonably low value for reduced $`\chi ^2`$ by choosing $`\varphi _0H_0`$ judiciously. In addition, the value of $`\chi ^2`$ does not vary much over the range of parameter values that we have studied. Minimum value of $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom that we encountered is around $`1.93`$. This test does not isolate any particular region in the parameter space so we shall refrain from quoting any particular values of parameters as our best fit. Suffice to say that a large range of each of these parameters is allowed by the supernova observations. This discussion holds for both the potentials discussed above.

We have plotted distance modulus $`dm(z)=mM`$ as a function of redshift for one of the models in Fig. 14. The data points for the $`60`$ supernovae are over plotted as well. The contours of reduced $`\chi ^2`$ and the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ at redshift $`z=10`$ are illustrated in Fig. 15. This is of interest while studying structure formation in these models.

We also did a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis of models with a range of parameters for the exponential potential. Here again the theoretical models satisfy the supernova constraints and we cannot rule out a specific model by this analysis. We plot the contours of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ at $`z=10`$ and $`\chi ^2`$ in Fig. 16. We obtain results similar to those for $`1/\varphi ^2`$ potential.

## V Structure formation in tachyonic models

Cosmological models with tachyons and non-relativistic matter have a significantly different behavior as compared to quintessence or the cosmological constant models. The most important difference here is that the source of acceleration in the Universe makes an insignificant contribution to the energy density of the universe beyond $`z>1`$ in quintessence or cosmological constant models, whereas in tachyon models the density parameter for the scalar field does not become insignificant in comparison with the density parameter for matter in most models. This has important implications for structure formation in these models as the density parameter of the matter that clusters is always smaller than unity, and the rate at which perturbations grow will be smaller than in standard models. The exception to this rule is a small subset of models where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ approaches values much smaller than unity beyond $`z1`$. As can be seen in the contour plots in the previous section, these is a small subset of the models that satisfy the constraints set by supernova observations.

Given that the density parameter for matter is almost a constant at high redshifts ($`3<z<10^3`$), we can solve for the rate of growth for density contrast in the linear limit. The equation for the density contrast is given by

$$\ddot{\delta }+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\delta }=4\pi G\rho \delta $$
(24)
where $`\delta =(\rho \overline{\rho })/\overline{\rho }`$, the factor $`\overline{\rho }`$ being the average density. Rescaling in the same manner as the cosmological equations we have

$$\delta ^{\prime \prime }+2\frac{H}{H_0}\delta ^{}=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{M_0}\frac{a_0^3}{a^3}\delta $$
(25)
Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M_0}`$ is the density parameter for non-relativistic matter at the epoch when the scale factor is $`a_0`$ and the Hubble parameter is $`H_0`$. Since, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ is nearly constant at high redshift, we get $`\delta t^m`$, and $`m=(1/6)(\sqrt{1+24\mathrm{\Omega }_M}1)`$ for the growing mode. The unique feature here is that at high redshift, matter density parameter does not saturate at unity for all the models. This is true for both exponential and $`1/\varphi ^2`$ potentials. For models where the matter density parameter does not reach unity, the growth of perturbations is slow, as can be seen from the above equation. The models in which density parameter is unity at high redshifts, the growth of perturbations is closer to that in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. The slower growth of perturbation implies that rms fluctuations in mass distribution were larger at the time of recombination as compared to conventional models. This will have an impact on the temperature anisotropies in the microwave background in these models. Since the latter is tightly constrained from CMBR measurements, models with slow growth of perturbations can be ruled out.

We use the solution outlined above to set the initial conditions for equation (25) and evolve forward through the regime where tachyons begin to dominate and matter becomes irrelevant. As the universe begins to accelerate, at late times we anticipate that the growing mode would slow down and eventually saturate. This is indeed true. The rate of growth for $`\delta `$ slows down once the universe begins to accelerate. It comes to a halt around the epoch where the accelerating phase begins. This late time behavior is similar to what happens in most models where the universe begins to accelerate at late times. The evolution is illustrated in Fig. 17. Here we have plotted two different models, one in which density parameter saturates at a small value and the other in which it approaches unity.

It is clear from the figure that one can indeed construct models in which the growth of perturbation is very similar to that in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models. Such models are clearly viable. It is also obvious that these models are confined to a narrow range of parameters, as described in the figure captions; if one moves out of this range, then the perturbations grow more slowly and should have higher amplitude in the past in order to maintain a given amplitude today. These are ruled out by CMBR observations. The following caveat, however, needs to be kept in mind in ruling out such models. It was suggested in  that one can construct models with tachyonic scalar field in which the equation of state is different at small scales and large scales. In such models, our conclusions will apply only at large scales and growth of structure at small scales will still be possible, i.e., inhomogeneities in the tachyon filed will play and role and may offset the conclusions about growth of perturbations at small scales whereas our results for the expansion of the universe will remain valid at sufficiently large scales.

## VI Conclusions

We have shown that it is possible to construct viable models with tachyons contributing significantly to the energy density of the universe. In these models, matter, radiation and tachyons co-exist. We show that a subset of these models satisfy the constraints on the accelerating expansion of the universe. For the accelerating phase to occur at the present epoch, it is necessary to fine tune the initial conditions.

We have further demonstrated that the density parameter for tachyons does not becomes negligible at high redshifts, hence the growth of perturbations in non-relativistic matter is slower for most models than, e.g., the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. This problem does not effect a small subset of models. However, given that the density parameter of tachyons cannot be ignored in the “matter dominated era”, it is essential to study the fate of fluctuations in the tachyon field.

## Acknowledgement

HKJ thanks Ranjeev Misra for useful discussions. JSB is grateful to Rajaram Nityananda for insightful comments. All the authors thank K.Subramanian for useful comments.


format: text

text:
# Results of Dark Matter Searches with the MACRO experiment

## 1 Introduction

MACRO was a large multipurpose underground detector located in the Hall B of the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso. The detector, which took data until December 2000, was arranged in a modular structure of six “supermodules” with global dimensions of $`76.5\times 12\times 9.3`$m3 and a total acceptance of $`10,000`$ m2sr to an isotropic flux of particles. It was made by several layers of liquid scintillation counters, limited streamer tubes and nuclear track detectors (CR39 and Lexan) which provided excellent timing ($`\sigma _t500ps`$), tracking ($`\sigma _\theta 0.5^{}`$), and energy loss measurements. For a complete technical description of the detector see \[\].

## 2 GUT Monopole searches

In the framework of Grand Unified Theories (GUT), magnetic monopoles would have been produced in the very early Universe as supermassive ($`M10^{17}`$GeV/c2) topological defects \[\]. One of the primary aims of the MACRO experiment was the search for such particles with a sensitivity well below the Parker bound (i.e. $`10^{15}`$ cm-2 s-1 sr-1 \[\]) in a very wide velocity range $`410^5<\beta <1`$ ($`\beta =v/c`$).

Different hardware systems were designed and operated to give optimum sensitivity in different $`\beta `$ ranges. Moreover several analysis strategies were adopted depending on the used subdetector(s). This approach ensured redundancy of information, efficient background rejection and independent signatures for possible monopole candidates.

The analyses were based on the various subdetectors in a stand-alone and/or in a combined way. Final results are reported in \[\] where all the details are given. Since no candidates were detected, the results are given in as $`90\%`$ C.L. upper limits to the monopole flux (see Fig.1). In order to compare the MACRO results to those of other experiments or to theoretical models, we present upper limits for an isotropic flux of bare MMs with magnetic charge equal to one Dirac charge $`g=g_D=e/2\alpha `$, (where $`e`$ is the electron charge and $`\alpha `$ the fine structure constant) and nucleon decay catalysis cross section smaller than 1 mb \[\]. A dedicate analysis for the search for magnetic monopoles accompanied by one or more nucleon decays along their path was also performed, resulting in very strong upper limits \[\].

## 3 Atmospheric neutrino oscillations

The study of the atmospheric neutrino oscillation was a primary goal of the MACRO experiment. The streamer tubes and the scintillator counters allowed to distinguish neutrino events on the basis of time-of-flight ($`ToF`$) measurement and/or topological criteria. In particular four different types of neutrino events have been detected in MACRO. (see Fig. 2), corresponding to different topologies. In the last two, i.e. (3) and (4), the muons cross just one scintillator plane and then a $`ToF`$ measurement can not be done. Since it is impossible to distinguish between them, they are studied together as the sample (3)+(4).

The parent neutrino energy spectra are of course different for different event types. In particular the sample (1) is due to neutrinos with an average energy of $`50`$GeV, while other subsamples have lower energies ($`<E_\mu >4`$GeV). Moreover the spectrum and the median energy of (2) and (3)+(4) are almost the same.

Information on neutrino masses and oscillations have been obtained from the study of the angular distribution of the events of sample (1) and independent cross checks have been obtained from the other samples and from the measured event rates \[\].

For the events in sample (1), both the shape of the angular distribution and the absolute rate have been independently tested with the hypothesis of neutrino oscillation. The largest probability is obtained in the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation scenario with maximal mixing and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^22.510^3`$ eV2, while the $`\nu _\mu \nu _{sterile}`$ \[\] and the no-oscillation hypothesis are strongly disfavoured. These conclusions are also confirmed by the analysis of the angular distribution and absolute event rates of the low energy samples (i.e. (2) and (3)+(4) ) \[\].

Moreover the different energy spectra of variuos event categories and the setting up of a method for the muon energy estimate \[\] provided another independent tool for the study of atmospheric neutrino oscillations. In particular the behaviour of the oscillation probability as a function of $`L/E`$ (i.e. the ratio of the neutrino pathlength to its energy) has been obtained and shown to be compatible with the oscillation scenario suggested by the analyses of the angular distributions and absolute event rates \[\].

The results of all these analyses are shown in Fig.3 where the allowed regions in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2sin^2(2\theta )`$ plane are shown for $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation. A global analysis to combine all this information is in progress.

## 4 Indirect search for WIMPs

An indirect search for WIMPs has been performed by looking at neutrino-induced upward-going muons resulting from their annihilation in the Sun and/or the Earth \[\].

Muon flux limits have been obtained by comparing the measured values with the estimates given by detailed simulations taking into account the variuos background sources (i.e. the atmospheric neutrino flux, the backscattered soft pions produced by downward-going cosmic ray muons , etc.) and neutrino oscillation effects. This has been done for several search cones around the source (see Fig.4). A given search cone is ultimately related to the WIMP mass through a specific theoretical model.

The obtained limits can constrain the neutralino particle parameters suggested by SUSY models \[\].

## 5 Conclusions

The MACRO results for dark matter searches have been reported.

Several searches for supermassive GUT monopoles have been performed by fully exploiting the redundancy and complementarity offered by the detector together with the very large acceptance and the long time exposure. No candidates have been found thus putting an upper limit wich is well below both the Parker and closure bounds in a very wide velocity range. This excludes these particles as a main component of dark matter, by means of a direct experimental search.

The atmospheric neutrino flux was measured by means of neutrino induced muons crossing the detector. Different event topologies were analyzed corresponding to different energy ranges. The results coherently favor a $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation scenario with respect to the case of $`\nu _\mu \nu _{sterile}`$ or to the no-oscillation hypothesis. Data are consistent with maximal mixing and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^22.510^3`$ eV2.

An indirect search for WIMP’s has also been performed by looking at neutrino-induced upward-going muons resulting from their annihilation in the Sun and/or the Earth. Since no significant excess has been detected above the background, experimental upper limits have been set that can constrain the neutralino particle parameters suggested by SUSY models.


text:
# B Physics at Hadron Colliders

## 1 Introduction

Almost forty years have past since the first observation of CP violation in the kaon system. Recently, CP violation has been clearly established in the B system with the measurement of sin 2$`\beta `$ at the $`e^+e^{}`$ B-factories. The average value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.734\pm 0.054`$ measured by the Belle and BaBar experiments $`^\mathrm{?}`$ is in excellent agreement with the expectation of the standard model fits$`^\mathrm{?}`$ which are based on the Cabibbo, Kobayashi and Maskawa (CKM) ansatz $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In fact, already in 1998 several groups predicted a value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.72\pm 0.02`$ which was remarkably close to the current world average$`^\mathrm{?}`$.

Despite the great success of the CKM description of CP violation it is clear that we have not yet answered the fundamental questions about the origin of the hierarchical pattern of the CKM matrix elements that we are now confirming experimentally. A major goal of present and future experiments is to fully tests the CKM ansatz. Measurements at hadron colliders have the potential to facilitate this task by providing a unique laboratory to study CP violation in the $`B_d`$ and $`B_s`$ system, mixing of the $`B_s`$ meson, and rare $`B`$ decays. Many studies on the impact of hadronic machines in $`B`$ physics have recently taken place and were a source for this talk.$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$

### 1.1 CP Violation in the Standard Model and the CKM Matrix

The CKM matrix, $`V_{CKM}`$, is a unitary matrix $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that transforms the mass eigenstates to the weak eigenstates. The matrix can be expressed in terms of four independent phases which are not predicted in the standard model but have to be determined experimentally. In the Wolfenstein parameterization $`^\mathrm{?}`$ the matrix can be written in terms of $`\lambda `$, $`A`$, $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ as:

$`V_{CKM}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V_{ud}& V_{us}& V_{ub}\\ V_{cd}& V_{cs}& V_{cb}\\ V_{td}& V_{ts}& V_{tb}\end{array}\right)`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}& \lambda & A\lambda ^3(\rho i\eta (1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}))\\ \lambda & 1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}i\eta A^2\lambda ^4& A\lambda ^2(1+i\eta \lambda ^2)\\ A\lambda ^3(1\rho i\eta )& A\lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)`$
The expression is accurate to order $`\lambda ^3`$ in the real part and $`\lambda ^5`$ in the imaginary part. The sine of the Cabibbo angle, $`\lambda `$, is measured in semileptonic kaon decays, $`\lambda =|V_{us}|=0.2196\pm 0.0026`$, and plays the role of an expansion parameter. $`A`$ can be determined in $`bc`$ decays since $`AV_{cb}/\lambda ^2`$ and $`V_{cb}=(41.2\pm 2.0)\times 10^3`$. Only $`\lambda `$ and $`A`$ are measured precisely. The measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, $`ϵ`$ in Kaon decays and $`B`$ mixing constraint $`\eta `$ and $`\rho `$ with some accuracy and the PDG 2002 fit$`^\mathrm{?}`$ yields $`\overline{\rho }`$=$`\rho (1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2})`$= $`0.22\pm 0.10`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$= $`\eta (1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2})`$=$`0.35\pm 0.05`$. The parameter $`\eta `$ represents the CP-violating phase and must be different from zero to accommodate CP violation in the standard model.

The unitarity of the CKM matrix implies that there are six orthogonality $`^\mathrm{?}`$ conditions between any pair of columns or any pair of rows of the matrix:

$`\begin{array}{cccc}V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{}& =& 0& \hfill (db)\\ V_{us}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cs}V_{cb}^{}+V_{ts}V_{tb}^{}& =& 0& \hfill (sb)\\ V_{ud}V_{us}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cs}^{}+V_{td}V_{ts}^{}& =& 0& \hfill (ds)\\ V_{ud}V_{td}^{}+V_{us}V_{ts}^{}+V_{ub}V_{tb}^{}& =& 0& \hfill (ut)\\ V_{cd}V_{td}^{}+V_{cs}V_{ts}^{}+V_{cb}V_{tb}^{}& =& 0& \hfill (ct)\\ V_{ud}V_{cd}^{}+V_{us}V_{cs}^{}+V_{ub}V_{cb}^{}& =& 0& \hfill (uc)\end{array}`$
where the quark pair in parenthesis indicates the row or column under consideration. Each of the orthogonality conditions requires the sum of three complex numbers to vanish and can be represented as a so called ”unitarity triangle” in complex space. Only triangles $`(db)`$ and $`(ut)`$ have three large angles. The two triangles are drawn in Fig. 1.

The apex of the triangles have coordinates ($`\rho `$, $`\eta `$) or ($`\overline{\rho },\overline{\eta }`$) as shown in figure 1. The three angles of the unitarity unitarity triangle $`(db)`$ are :

$$\alpha =\mathrm{arg}\left[\frac{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}{V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}}\right]\beta =\mathrm{arg}\left[\frac{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}{V_{td}V_{tb}^{}}\right]\gamma =\mathrm{arg}\left[\frac{V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}}{V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}}\right]$$

while the three angles of the triangle $`(ut)`$ are:

$$\alpha ^{}=\mathrm{arg}\left[\frac{V_{td}V_{ud}^{}}{V_{tb}V_{ub}^{}}\right]\beta ^{}=\mathrm{arg}\left[\frac{V_{ts}V_{us}^{}}{V_{td}V_{ud}^{}}\right]\gamma ^{}=\mathrm{arg}\left[\frac{V_{tb}V_{ub}^{}}{V_{ts}V_{us}^{}}\right]$$

Measurements of weak decays of $`B`$ hadrons determine the magnitudes of the sides of the triangles:

$$R_b=\left(1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}\right)\frac{1}{\lambda }\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|R_t=\frac{1}{\lambda }\left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{cb}}\right|$$

while CP asymmetries and rates of $`B`$ meson decays determine the three angles.

The angles of the two unitarity triangles are also related by the following equations:

$$\alpha ^{}=\alpha \beta ^{}=\beta +\mathrm{arg}[V_{ts}]\gamma ^{}=\gamma \mathrm{arg}[V_{ts}]$$

Therefore if we define $`\delta \gamma =\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ then $`\delta \gamma =\eta \lambda ^2`$. Therefore the two triangles are identical at leading order in the Wolfenstein expansion. However we expect that future high statistics dedicated experiments will be sensitive to these differences and further probe the CKM matrix.

At hadron colliders the $`B_s`$ mesons is copiously produced and therefore there is an opportunity to measure the $`B_s`$ asymmetries. The unitarity triangle $`(s,b)`$ is squashed since the first side is much shorter than the other two and the opposing angle:

$$\beta _s=\mathrm{arg}\left[\frac{V_{ts}V_{tb}^{}}{V_{cs}V_{cb}^{}}\right]=\lambda ^2\eta +𝒪(\lambda ^4)$$

is of the order of one degree. Therefore in the standard model we expect the $`B_s`$ CP asymmetries to be smaller than in the $`B`$ system. On the other hand these asymmetries are sensitive to new physics and therefore the measurement of $`\beta _s`$ is especially important.

The goal of B physics in the next decade is to overdetermine the CKM matrix to test the consistency of the standard model and hopefully discover new physics. Signs of physics beyond the standard model could appear as:

* The standard model predictions for the branching fractions and the CP asymmetries will disagree with the experimental measurements and $`\alpha +\beta +\gamma \pi `$
* The values of $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ determined from $`B`$ decays disagree with the values obtained from $`K`$ decays
* Decays forbidden or rare in the standard model occur at larger rates than expected.
* CP asymmetries larger than expected in the standard model.

$`B_s`$ mesons are expected to have a special role in this effort since it has been suggested that $`\beta _s`$ can be measured in $`B_sJ/\psi \eta (^{})`$.

## 2 $`B`$ production at hadron colliders

Electron positron B-factories running at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) which is at the threshold for open beauty production have been very effective in the study of $`B`$ mesons. Recently with the advent of precise silicon detectors crucial measurements have also been performed at LEP and at hadron colliders.

B meson production at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) is dominated by $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ and $`B^+B^{}`$ final states. The cross section for $`b\overline{b}`$ production $`\sigma _{b\overline{b}}`$ is 1.15 nb and the signal to background defined as the ratio $`S/B=\sigma _{b\overline{b}}/\sigma _{total}`$ is 0.25. The B-factories operate in an asymmetric beam configuration that allows for the production of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) boosted along the beam axis. The separation between the two $`B`$’s along the beam axis is 200 and 260 $`\mu m`$ at Belle and BaBar respectively. These machines are ideally suited to study CP violation in $`J/\psi K_s^0`$, for the precision determination of $`V_{cb}`$ and $`V_{ub}`$ in semileptonic decays and rare decays of B mesons into final states which include neutral pions and photons such $`BK^{}\gamma `$.

Electron positron colliders running at the $`Z^0`$ such as LEP and SLD have the advantage of a larger boost that allows a better separation of the decay vertices of charm and beauty hadrons. The B meson mean decay length at the $`Z^0`$ is 2.7 mm. The cross section is $`\sigma _{b\overline{b}}`$ of 7 nb and the S/B is similar to the one obtained by the B-factories. At LEP and SLD, because of the higher energy available, all B hadron species are produced including $`B_s`$, $`B_c`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$. These colliders have contributed significantly to our current knowledge of $`B`$ hadrons lifetimes and mixing.

The cross section for $`b\overline{b}`$ production at the Tevatron, a hadronic machine running at a center of mass energy of 2.0 TeV, is about 100 $`\mu b`$. Unfortunately the background is also large and the S/B is only about $`0.2`$%. At a center of mass energy of 14 TeV, at which the Large Hadron Collider will operate, the $`b\overline{b}`$ cross section and the S/B will increase to 400 $`\mu `$b and $`0.4`$%. Specialized triggers are necessary in order to write the events of interest to tape. The average decay length of produced $`b`$ hadrons is a few mm because of the momentum boost. Similarly to LEP, a full spectrum of $`b`$ mesons and baryons are produced at hadronic machines.

Two kinds of $`b`$ experimental configuration are considered for hadron colliders as shown in Fig. 2. The first is a central all-purpose detector such as CDF and D0. This configuration is also implemented in CMS and ATLAS which will take data at the LHC. The bulk of the $`b\overline{b}`$ production is concentrated in the central rapidity region. Nonetheless forward going $`B`$ mesons have much higher momentum and therefore longer decay length than $`B`$ mesons produced in the central region. Dedicated forward $`b`$-experiments such as B-TeV and LHC-b are in the planning stage or under construction for operation at the Tevatron and the LHC respectively. Forward experiments exploit the correlation between the direction of the produced $`b\overline{b}`$ and the boost direction. Moreover dedicated experiments can provide better particle identification and neutral pion identification.

## 3 Experimental issues

### 3.1 Trigger

The primary experimental issue of $`B`$ physics at hadron collider is the triggering. The $`b\overline{b}`$ production rate at $`B`$ factory operating at a luminosity $`L=10^{34}cm^2s^1`$ is about 10 Hz while it is about 20 KHz at the Tevatron and 100 KHz at the LHC at $`L=10^{33}cm^2s^1`$. During Run I of the Tevatron the CDF and D0 triggers relied on the presence of single and dilepton triggers such as $`BJ/\psi X`$ and then $`J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. Although the branching fraction for $`BJ/\psi X`$ is only 1.15 % hadronic experiments have an advantage with respect to the B-factories because of the large production cross section available at hadronic machines.

In Run II of the Tevatron, that started in spring 2001, CDF has also implemented a new high precision trigger that allows for the selection of events with detached vertices. These triggers based on precise vertex information from silicon detectors will also be adopted by CMS, ATLAS, LHCb and BTeV. They allow a factor of about 100 enrichment in $`b`$ content at the trigger level. Moreover this displaced vertex trigger method is crucial for selecting hadronic decays such as $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sD_s^{}\pi ^+`$.

### 3.2 Flavor Tagging

The measurement of CP violation and mixing requires the identification of the flavor of the B meson at the time of production. Tagging algorithms are evaluated in terms of efficiency $`ϵ`$ for determining the flavor tag ($`b`$ or $`\overline{b}`$) and the probability that the tag is correct. The quality of the tag is evaluated by defining the tagging dilution as $`D=(N_RN_W)/(N_R+N_W)`$ where $`N_R(N_W)`$ is the number of right (wrong) tags. The observed asymmetry is reduced with respect to the true asymmetry by the dilution $`D`$ and $`A_{CP}^{obs}=DA_{CP}.`$ Therefore the maximum sensitivity can be achieved when the dilution is large and a perfect tagging algorithm will have a dilution $`D=1`$. The statistical uncertainty on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is inversely proportional to $`\sqrt{ϵD^2}`$. The statistical uncertainty is also proportional to $`\sqrt{S^2/(S+B)}`$ where $`S`$ is the number of signal events and $`B`$ is the number of backgrounds events. Therefore the data sample should be chosen to maximize the signal and minimize the background.

Several tagging methods are used to improve $`ϵD^2`$. The opposite side tagging algorithms identify the flavor of the opposite B in the event at the time of production. If one knows that the other $`b`$ hadron contains a $`b`$ quark then the signal $`B`$ meson must contain at $`\overline{b}`$ quark. Several methods of opposite side tagging can be employed: soft lepton tag (SLT), soft kaon tagging and jet-charge tag (JETQ).

The soft lepton tag associates the charge of the lepton ($`e`$ or $`\mu `$) from semileptonic decays with the flavor of the parent B meson as $`bX\mathrm{}^{}`$ compared to $`\overline{b}X\mathrm{}^+`$. Since we are tagging the opposite $`B`$ meson, its flavor is anti-correlated with the flavor of the $`B`$-meson that decays to the mode under study. Hence a $`\mathrm{}^{}`$($`\mathrm{}^+`$) tags a $`\overline{b}`$($`b`$) like $`B^0`$($`\overline{B^0}`$). The branching fraction for semileptonic decays is about 10% into each $`e`$ and $`\mu `$ channels. There is also dilution because of sequential decays where a $`b`$ hadron decays into a $`c`$ hadron which then decays semileptonically. However the leptons from direct and sequential decays have different kinematic properties and a good separation can be achieved. Further dilution is caused by mixing since 17.4% of the $`B^0`$ will oscillate to a $`\overline{B}^0`$ before decaying. Moreover the $`B_s`$ is fully mixed and will not provide any tagging power.

”Jet charge” or JETQ, tags the $`b`$ flavor by measuring the average charge of the opposite side jet which is calculated as:

$$Q_{jet}=\frac{_iq_i(\stackrel{}{p_i}\widehat{a})}{_i\stackrel{}{p_i}\widehat{a}}$$

where $`q_i`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p_i}`$ are the charge and momentum of track $`i`$ in the jet and $`\widehat{a}`$ is the unit vector along the jet axis. On average the sign of the jet charge gives the flavor of the $`b`$ quark that produced the jet.

Kaon tagging exploits charge of the kaon in the away side because of the decay chain $`bcXK^{}`$ compared to $`\overline{b}\overline{c}XK^+`$. Since the product of branching fractions is large this tagger has a larger efficiency than the SLT but lower dilution. Excellent particle identification is necessary.

The same side tagging method or SST relies on the correlation between the $`B`$ flavor and the charge of the nearest pion in the fragmentation chain. Such a correlation can arise from the fragmentation processes which form a B meson from a $`\overline{b}`$ quark and from the decay of an excited B meson state ($`B^{}`$). In the fragmentation a $`\overline{b}`$ quark forming a $`B^0`$ can combine with a $`d`$ in the hadronization leaving a $`\overline{d}`$ which can form a $`\pi ^+`$ with a $`u`$ quark from the sea. The excited B state will decay $`B^+B^{()0}\pi ^+`$. Therefore in both cases a $`B^0`$ ($`\overline{B}^0`$) meson is associated with a positive (negative) particle respectively.

The dilution parameters for all tagging algorithms can be measured on calibration samples. At hadronic machines the strong interaction creates $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs at sufficiently high energy that the B mesons are largely uncorrelated. For example, the $`b`$ quark could hadronize as a $`\overline{B}^0`$ while the $`\overline{b}`$ could hadronize as a $`B^+`$, $`B^0`$, or $`B_s^0`$ meson. Therefore we can use a samples of $`B^\pm J/\psi K^\pm `$ decays to measure the tagging dilutions for the opposite side algorithms. The performance of the same side tagging methods is usually evaluated by tagging $`B\nu \mathrm{}D^{()}`$ decays and by measuring the time dependence of $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ oscillations in this high statistics sample and in a lower statistics sample of $`BJ/\psi K^0`$. The tagging methods have different characteristics. The lepton tagging has relatively low efficiency but good dilution. The same side tagging and the jet charge tagging are more efficient but have lower dilution. Kaon tagging performance will depend crucially on the particle identification capabilities of the specific detectors. The different tagging information can be combined to obtain a more powerful performance. Such combination must account for correlations. In general flavor tagging at hadron collider experiment achieves an effective efficiency $`ϵ_{eff}=ϵD^210`$ % while at a b-factory it is about 30%. These expectations are confirmed by the CDF tagging performance in run I where CDF used most of these methods but the kaon tagging for the measurement of $`B_d`$ mixing and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$.

### 3.3 Measurement Error on Proper Decay Time

The $`b`$ hadron proper decay time is evaluated by measuring the decay length which is the distance between the primary vertex and the secondary vertex where the $`b`$ hadron decayed. The proper decay time is $`t=Lm/pc=L/\beta \gamma c`$ where $`L`$ is the decay length, $`p`$ and $`m`$ is the reconstructed momentum and mass of the $`b`$ hadron, $`c`$ is the speed of light, and $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are the $`b`$ hadron Lorentz parameters. The uncertainty in the primary vertex position, the secondary vertex position, and the $`b`$ hadron momentum all contribute to the measurement error on the decay length. Since the secondary vertex position uncertainty is larger than the primary vertex and much larger than the momentum uncertainty then:

$$\sigma _t\sigma _L^{secondary}/(\beta \gamma c)$$

The proper time resolution, $`\sigma _t`$, of the forward detectors in hadronic machines such as BTeV and LHCb is 40 $`f\mathrm{s}`$ while it is about 900 $`f\mathrm{s}`$ for the B-factories.

### 3.4 Performance of the displaced vertex trigger at CDF

The CDF silicon vertex trigger (SVT) has opened a new era of B-physics opportunities at a hadron collider machine. It consists of a real-time tracker capable of reconstructing 2D silicon tracks with the offline quality resolution that is an essential tool to discriminate $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`c\overline{c}`$ from hadronic background. The results obtained up to now are benchmarking the capability of the trigger but they are not yet fully representative of the physics that this triggers will make possible.

The CDF trigger has a three level architecture. At Level 1 the decision taken within 5.5 $`\mu `$s is based on objects such as electrons, muons, jets and tracks. The tracks are reconstructed by the extremely Fast Tracker (XFT), an asynchronous, parallel and pipelined track processor that reconstructs the tracks on the plane transverse to the beam by using the information of the open cell drift chamber (COT). At Level 2 the SVT takes the list of tracks found by the XFT and adds to this the information from four layers of the silicon detector. The results of the association of the silicon hits to each XFT tracks yield the track parameters ($`d_0`$, $`\varphi `$, $`p_t`$) with almost offline resolution. The impact parameter $`d_0`$ of the track with respect to the beam spot is then used to select events with displaced vertices. During the beginning of run II CDF has used the level-1 and level-2 track processors to select events that have two tracks with impact parameter larger than 100 $`\mu `$m and decay length in the transverse plane greater than 200 $`\mu `$m. The trigger has been performing well. Currently the Run II luminosity has been about $`10^{31}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup> s<sup>-1</sup> and the Level-1 rate is $`3`$ KHz and the level 2 rate is 50 Hz. When the luminosity will increase further cuts will have to be introduced to keep the rate at an acceptable level.

The cross section for charm is large and CDF can monitor the SVT performance by reconstructing $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ online. The trigger has also allowed CDF to collect $`Bh^+h^{}`$ where $`h`$ is a kaon or pion candidate and $`BD^0\pi `$ events. The online $`D^0`$ mass peak and the invariant mass distribution of $`BD^0\pi `$ candidates are shown in fig. 3.

## 4 Crucial measurements

In order to evaluate the reach of hadronic machines a series of specific measurements such as $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, measurement of $`B_s`$ mixing and the determination of $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ will be discussed.

### 4.1 $`B_s`$ mixing

The $`B_s`$ is unique to hadron colliders and therefore one of the physics goals of the Tevatron is to measure in detail the $`B_s`$ mixing amplitudes including $`x_s`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ and the $`B_s`$ mixing phase $`\varphi _s=2\beta _s`$.

These measurements are crucial not only in terms of checking the CKM unitary triangle but also because they are expected to be sensitive to physics beyond the standard model.

The measurement of the ratio of the $`B_s`$ and $`B_d`$ mixing frequencies $`x_s`$ and $`x_d`$ would benefit enormously the determination of the right side of the $`bd`$ unitarity triangle $`R_t`$ since:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_d}=\frac{m_{B_s}}{m_{B_d}}\frac{|V_{ts}|^2}{|V_{td}|^2}\frac{F_{B_s}^2B_{B_s}}{F_{B_d}^2B_{B_d}}$$

In fact the measurement of $`x_s`$ will constraint the right side of the unitary triangle to better than 6% since the uncertainties on the hadronic matrix elements partially cancel in the ratio $`\xi =F_{B_s}\sqrt{B_{B_s}}/F_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}}`$. The world average which is dominated by the LEP and SLD constrains $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ to be $`>19`$ at 95 % confidence level (CL). Analyses of the unitary triangle$`^\mathrm{?}`$ predict $`22<x_s<30.8`$. To measure such a rapid oscillation frequency, excellent decay time resolution is crucial.

Semileptonic decays such as $`B_sD_s\mathrm{}\nu `$ suffer from a large smearing of the decay time resolution due to the the missing neutrino momentum and can only probe up to $`x_s=30`$ with 2 fb<sup>-1</sup>. Better performance can be obtained by studying hadronic decays such as $`B^0D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ that can be triggered upon using secondary vertex triggers. The current CDF II silicon detector is expected to achieve at least a proper time resolution of 60 fs. The $`ct`$ resolution could improve to 45 fs if the low mass silicon layer closer to the beam pipe (L00) can be effectively integrated. Currently this layer is not used in the tracking. The flavor tagging effective efficiency in $`B_s`$ decays is expected to be about $`11.3`$ % at CDF in Run II.

For $`x_s`$ the expected reach depends strongly on the number of $`B_s`$ events that can be reconstructed in the $`B_sD_s^{}\pi ^+(\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ samples, the $`S/B`$, the $`ct`$ resolution, the effective $`b`$ tagging and the SVT efficiency. In the most optimistic scenarios with $`N(B_s)=75,000`$, $`ϵD^2`$=11.3 % and S/B=2 CDF expects to probe up to $`x_s`$ of about 74 with 2 $`fb^1`$ of data. This expectation decreases to $`x_s`$ of about 50 in a more pessimistic scenario. The CDF reach with L00 is shown in figure 4.

The statistical error on $`x_s`$ is related to the statistical error on the observed mixing amplitude, therefore once a measurement of $`x_s`$ is obtained at the 5 $`\sigma `$ level the $`\sigma (x_s)=\frac{1}{5\sqrt{2}}`$ and $`\sigma (x_s)/x_s<1`$%.

BTeV and LHCb will obtain a similar sensitivity to $`x_s`$. For example BTeV expects to observe any value of $`x_s`$ less than 75 in one year of running which is equivalent to 2 fb<sup>-1</sup>. Therefore we expect that once $`x_s`$ is observed then it will be measured very easily and precisely.

### 4.2 The determination of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$

The angle $`\beta `$ can be determined by studying many different types of b decay modes. The best determination of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ can be achieved by studying color suppressed decays such as $`bc\overline{c}s`$. The golden mode is the decay $`B^0/\overline{B}^0J/\psi K_s^0`$ since the dominant penguin contribution has the same weak phase as the tree amplitude$`^\mathrm{?}`$. The only term with a different weak phase is suppressed by $`𝒪(\lambda ^2)`$. Therefore the extraction of $`\beta `$ from the measurement of the asymmetry in $`B^0/\overline{B}^0J/\psi K_s^0`$ suffers negligible theoretical uncertainties.

At hadron colliders the golden mode $`BJ/\psi K_s^0`$ is especially interesting experimentally because the $`J/\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay mode gives a unique signature and allows for a powerful trigger. Therefore the decay $`B^0J/\psi K_S^0`$ can be reconstructed with an excellent signal to background ratio. The interference of the direct decays $`B^0J/\psi K_S^0`$ and $`B^0\overline{B}^0J/\psi K_S^0`$ gives rise to a CP asymmetry that measures $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ :

$$A_{CP}(t)=\frac{\overline{B}^0(t)B^0(t)}{\overline{B}^0(t)+B^0(t)}=\mathrm{sin}2\beta \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }m_dt$$

This formula neglects the possibility of any direct CP violation which will introduce a term dependent on $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_dt`$. The time integrated asymmetry is:

$$A_{CP}=\frac{x_d}{1+x_d^2}\mathrm{sin}2\beta $$

To measure the asymmetry we have to identify the flavor of the $`B`$ meson at the time of production. The statistical uncertainty on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is inversely proportional to $`\sqrt{ϵD^2}`$ and to $`\sqrt{S^2/(S+B)}`$ where $`S`$ is the number of signal events and $`B`$ is the number of background events within three standard deviations of the B mass. Therefore the data sample should be chosen to maximize the signal and minimize the background. CDF measured $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.79_{0.44}^{+0.41}`$ (stat + sys) using the run I data sample $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Recently the Run 1 data sample has been re-analyzed to improve the tagging performance. The latest CDF value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is $`0.91_{0.36}^{+0.37}`$ (stat + sys).

In run II CDF expects to improve the effective tagging efficiency from $`ϵ_{eff}=(6.3\pm 1.7)`$ % to $`9.1`$ %. The number of reconstructed $`BJ/\psi K_s^0`$ is expected to increase because of the increase in the center of mass energy of the Tevatron from 1.8 to 1.96 GeV/c<sup>2</sup>, increased muon coverage, and lower di-muon momentum threshold in the trigger. Monte Carlo studies estimated an increase of a factor of 50 in the $`J/\psi K_s^0`$ yield over the 400 events found in run 1A. We expect this improvement to result in an conservative error $`\sigma (\mathrm{sin}2\beta )0.05`$.

The D0 collaboration has also studied their run II capabilities for the measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$. The result of their Monte Carlo studies shows an expected data sample of about 34,000 $`BJ/\psi K_s`$ events in 2 fb<sup>-1</sup>. They expect an effective tagging efficiency of about 10% and an error $`\sigma (\mathrm{sin}2\beta )0.04`$.

BTeV at the Tevatron will reconstruct about 80,500 $`BJ/\psi K_s^0`$ after running for one year at a luminosity of $`2\times 10^{32}`$ cm<sup>-2</sup> s<sup>-1</sup>. This yields an error on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ of about 0.025.

The measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ will continue to be improved by ATLAS and CMS. The mode $`BJ/\psi K_s^0`$ was considered as one of the LHC benchmark modes in a recent study $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Combining the statistical samples after 3 years of data taking by ATLAS and CMS with 5 years of running at LHCb we expect a statistical error on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ of 0.005. This precision is an order of magnitude better than the expected statistical precision that the $`e^+e^{}`$ B-factory are expected to achieve by 2005 when they will have collected 0.5 ab<sup>-1</sup>. The large data samples expected at the LHC will allow a probe for a direct CP violating phase. Fitting the data with an additional term degrades the precision on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ by $``$ 30 %.

### 4.3 Determination of $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$

The decay $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ could have been a powerful probe to determine $`\alpha `$. It is now well established that extracting $`\alpha `$ from $`B\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is limited because of so called ” penguin pollution”. This reaction can proceed via both the tree and penguin diagrams shown in fig. 5. The current experimental measurements $`B(B^0K\pi )1.88\times 10^5`$ and $`B(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})0.47\times 10^5`$ indicates that the penguin amplitudes can not be neglected. A large number of strategies$`^\mathrm{?}`$ have been developed to disentangle the penguin and tree contributions and provide a measurement of $`\alpha `$. One of the best known approaches was developed by Gronau and London$`^\mathrm{?}`$. It makes use of the isospin relation:

$$\sqrt{2}A(B^+\pi ^+\pi ^0)=A(B_d^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})+\sqrt{2}A(B_d^0\pi ^0\pi ^0)$$

and its CP-conjugate which form two triangles in the complex plane. This approach relies on the determination of $`B(B_d^0\pi ^0\pi ^0)`$ which is expected to be of $`𝒪(10^6)`$ and is very difficult to measure. Since the $`\pi ^0`$ mesons in this decay are energetic, the opening angle between the two photon is small and therefore they tend to overlap in the electromagnetic calorimeter.

Other methods include the mode $`B\rho \pi `$ and the study of the CP asymmetries $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ and $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. The final state $`\rho \pi `$ offers the advantage of having a relatively large branching fraction. Furthermore since the $`\rho `$ is spin 1 while the $`B`$ and $`\pi `$ are spinless, the $`\rho `$ is fully polarized in this decay which should help in maximizing the interference and therefore achieving a better error. The BTeV collaboration following the technique proposed by Snyder and Quinn $`^\mathrm{?}`$ expects to be able to measure $`\alpha `$ with a sample of 1000-2000 background free, flavor tagged events.

The CDF collaboration plans to use the decay modes $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$, $`B_sK^+K^{}`$, $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`B_s\pi ^+K^{}`$ and SU(3) flavor symmetry to measure $`\gamma `$. Based on measured $`B^0`$ branching ratios and the production fractions $`f_s`$($`f_d`$) for $`B_s`$($`B_d`$) we expect an event ratio of:

$$(B^0K\pi ):(B^0\pi \pi ):(B_sKK):(B_s\pi K)=4:1:2:0.5$$

Using the latest measurement of the $`B`$ cross section $`^\mathrm{?}`$ CDF expects between 5000 and 9000 fully reconstructed $`B^0\pi \pi `$ events in 2 fb<sup>-1</sup>. To study the reach in $`\gamma `$ CDF assumes that 5,000 $`B^0\pi \pi `$, 20,000 $`B^0K\pi `$, 10,000 $`B_sKK`$ and 2,500 $`B_s\pi K`$ will be reconstructed. CDF expects to extract the physics components from the background by making use of the invariant mass resolution and the dE/dx information provided by the open cell drift chamber. Two of the four modes of interest are self tagging ($`B^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sK^{}\pi ^\pm `$) while two are CP eigenstates ($`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sK^+K^{}`$). CDF expects to measure the time dependent CP asymmetries in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ which are given by:

$$A_{CP}=A_{CP}^{dir}cos\mathrm{\Delta }mt+A_{CP}^{mix}sin\mathrm{\Delta }mt$$

Following Fleisher $`^\mathrm{?}`$ the unitarity angle $`\gamma `$ can been extracted from the measured time dependent asymmetries by using the U-spin symmetry that relates $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sK^+K^{}`$. In the limit of U-spin symmetry the strong phase $`\theta `$ and the penguin to tree ratio $`d`$ in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ (denoted by ) are connected by:

$$\theta ^{}=\theta d^{}=d\frac{1\lambda ^2}{\lambda ^2}$$

The measured time dependent asymmetry can be used to extract $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`d`$ and $`\theta `$. The error in $`\gamma `$ varies between 6 to 15 degrees depending to the value of $`d`$ which is assumed to vary between 0.1 and 0.5.

## 5 $`B_s`$ decays

The decay $`B_s^0J/\psi \varphi `$ is the $`B_s`$ counterpart to the ”golden mode” $`B_dJ/\psi K_s`$. Since the $`J/\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ are vector mesons, the CP parity of the final state is a mixture of different CP even and odd contributions and the CP asymmetry may be diluted by possible cancellations. It is possible to disentangle the CP odd and CP even contributions through an angular analysis of the decay products $`B_s^0J/\psi (\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})\varphi (K^+K^{})`$. An interesting feature is that in the standard model we expect CP violation in this mode to be small. Therefore it is a sensitive probe for new physics. This mode can also provide information on the mixing parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ and the weak phase $`\beta _s=\mathrm{arg}\left(\frac{V_{ts}V_{tb}^{}}{V_{cs}V_{cb}^{}}\right)`$. ATLAS, CMS and LHCb have studied this decay mode extensively. ATLAS and CMS expect $`300,000`$ and $`600,000`$ events respectively after the first 3 years of operation. LHCb expects 370,000 event after 5 years of LHC running. The result of the studies $`^\mathrm{?}`$ show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ can be measured with a precision between 8 to 12 % for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s/\mathrm{\Gamma }_s=0.15`$. The mode appears to be sensitive to probing models of new physics such as the left-symmetric model with spontaneous CP violation and the isosinglet down quark mixing model $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

The study of the time dependent CP asymmetry in $`BJ/\psi \eta (^{})`$ is another powerful test for new physics. This decay probes the angle $`\beta _s`$ which is estimated to be about 0.02 in the standard model without the cancellations that are possible in $`B_s^0J/\psi \varphi `$. Silva and Wolfenstein $`^\mathrm{?}`$ have pointed out that a measurement of $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ could miss new physics. For example if new physics arises in $`B^0\overline{B^0}`$ mixing through a new phase $`\theta ^{NP}`$ then a measurement of the phase in $`B^0J/\psi K_s`$ will yield $`2\beta ^{}=2\beta +\theta ^{NP}`$ while a measurement of $`\alpha `$ using $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ (after eliminating the penguin pollution) will measure $`2\alpha ^{}=2\alpha \theta ^{NP}`$. In this case we would miss the new physics since $`2\alpha ^{}+2\beta ^{}=2\alpha +2\beta `$ and therefore $`\alpha ^{}+\beta ^{}+\gamma =180^{}`$. The measurement of $`\beta _s`$ would instead clearly check the standard model since an observation of an asymmetry larger than $`𝒪(\lambda ^2)`$ will be an unambiguous signal for new physics.

The decay $`BJ/\psi \eta (^{})`$ is very challenging and requires excellent photon reconstruction capabilities. The BTeV experiment will have an excellent electromagnetic calorimeter and it expects to measure $`\beta _s`$ with an error $`\delta \beta _s`$ =0.024 after one year of running$`^\mathrm{?}`$.

## 6 Outlook and prospects

The two asymmetric B-factories, PEP-II and KEKB, have achieved reliable operation at high luminosities of a few $`10^{33}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ in a remarkably short period of time after their startup. These luminosities have enabled their experiments, B A B AR and Belle, respectively, to observe CP violation in the decays of the $`B^o`$ meson. Operational experience with both machines has now led to plans to setup super-B-factories operating at $`10^{35}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. The hadron collider experiments at the Tevatron, CDF and D0, are beginning to produce B physics results that will complement the B-factories. Dedicated experiments at the Tevatron and the LHC, BTeV, and LHCb, and the two large general purpose experiments at the LHC, CMS and ATLAS, will begin to contribute at very high levels of sensitivity to the study of CP violation and rare decays in the $`B`$ system, starting around 2007. Proposal for a “Super B-factory” with a luminosity goal of $`10^{36}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ are under discussion.

The reach of these future experiments has been studied at Snowmass $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and it summarized in table 1.

It is clear that the 10<sup>36</sup> $`e^+e^{}`$ machine can compete with the hadron collider experiments on many interesting CP violating decays and on rare decays of $`B_d`$ and $`B_u`$. It should do better on decays involving $`\tau `$’s and missing $`\nu `$’s since the hermeticity and energy constraints provided by running at threshold permit one to establish the neutrino’s presence in the event by demonstrating a recoil mass consistent with zero. The experiments at hadron collider will continue to have better reach in the study of $`B_s`$ physics. This is a strength of the hadron collider experiments. The $`e^+e^{}`$ experiments also do not have high enough energy to study $`b`$-baryons or $`B_c`$ mesons. Therefore the hadron and B-factories will be complementary and both will be needed for an exhaustive precision probe of the consistency of the flavor changing sector of the standard model and in searches for New Physics.

## 7 Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the organizing committee for this conference which brought together particle physicists and cosmologists in a beautiful setting.

## References


text:
# Lattice calculation of the lowest order hadronic contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to W. Marciano for many useful discussions, and in particular for pointing out the work in Ref. Roskies:1990ki . I also thank M. Creutz, T. Izubuchi, and A. Soni for helpful discussions. I thank RIKEN, Brookhaven National Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy for providing the facilities essential for the completion of this work. All computations were carried out on the QCDSP supercomputers at the RIKEN BNL Research Center and Columbia University.