1:
2: %====================================================================%
3: % MORIOND.TEX 2-Feb-1995 %
4: % This latex file rewritten from various sources for use in the %
5: % preparation of the standard proceedings Volume, latest version %
6: % for the Neutrino'96 Helsinki conference proceedings %
7: % by Susan Hezlet with acknowledgments to Lukas Nellen. %
8: % Some changes are due to David Cassel. %
9: % %
10: % Updated to LaTeX2e and adapted to Moriond 2001 conditions %
11: % by F.Montanet 24/04/2001 %
12: %====================================================================%
13:
14: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
15: \usepackage{moriond,epsfig}
16: \usepackage {color}
17: %\documentstyle[11pt,moriond,epsfig]{article}
18:
19:
20: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
21: % for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by order of
22: % first citation.
23:
24: % A useful Journal macro
25: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
26:
27: % Some useful journal names
28: \def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}
29: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
30: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
31: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
32: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.} B}
33: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
34: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
35: \def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}
36: \def\EPJ{{\em Eur. Phys. J.} C}
37:
38: % Some other macros used in the sample text
39: \def\st{\scriptstyle}
40: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}
41: \def\mco{\multicolumn}
42: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
43: \def\vep{\varepsilon}
44: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
45: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}
46: \def\vp{{\bf p}}
47: \def\ko{K^0}
48: \def\kb{\bar{K^0}}
49: \def\al{\alpha}
50: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}
51: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
52: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
53: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
54: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
55: \def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}
56:
57: \def\ifm#1{\relax\ifmmode#1\else$#1$\fi}
58: \def\DAF{DA\char8NE} \def\sig{\ifm{\sigma}}
59: \def\f{\ifm{\phi}} \def\ff{\f--factory} \def\epm{\ifm{e^+e^-}}
60: \def\ab{\ifm{\sim}} \def\x{\ifm{\times}}
61: \def\gam{\ifm{\gamma}} \def\pic{\ifm{\pi^+\pi^-}}
62: \def\pt#1,#2,{\ifm{#1\x10^{#2}}} \def\dif{\ifm{{\rm d}\,}}
63: \renewcommand{\to}{\ensuremath{\rightarrow}}
64:
65: \def\up#1{$^{#1}$} \def\dn#1{$_{#1}$} \def\L{\ifm{{\mathcal L}}}
66: \def\sig{\ifm{\sigma}} \def\plm{\ifm{\pm}}
67: \def\pio{\ifm{\pi^0\pi^0}} \def\po{\ifm{\pi^0}}
68: \def\pim{\ifm{\pi^-}} \def\pip{\ifm{\pi^+}}
69: %\include{macro}
70: \newcommand{\Ref}[1]{ref.~\cite{#1}}
71: \newcommand{\pvec}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}
72: \renewcommand{\figurename}{Fig.}
73: \newcommand{\kl}{\ensuremath{K_L}}
74: \newcommand{\ks}{\ensuremath{K_S}}
75: \newcommand{\Pe}{\ensuremath{e}}
76: \newcommand{\Pem}{\ensuremath{e^-}}
77: \newcommand{\Pep}{\ensuremath{e^+}}
78: \newcommand{\Pemp}{\ensuremath{e^\mp}}
79: \newcommand{\Pmump}{\ensuremath{\mu^\mp}}
80: \newcommand{\Pnu}{\ensuremath{\nu}}
81: \newcommand{\Pnubar}{\ensuremath{\bar{\nu}}}
82: \newcommand{\Pomega}{\ensuremath{\omega}}
83: \newcommand{\Pphi}{\ensuremath{\phi}}
84: \newcommand{\Ppi}{\ensuremath{\pi}}
85: \newcommand{\Ppim}{\ensuremath{\pi^-}}
86: \newcommand{\Ppin}{\ensuremath{\pi^0}}
87: \newcommand{\Ppip}{\ensuremath{\pi^+}}
88: \newcommand{\Ppipm}{\ensuremath{\pi^\pm}}
89: \newcommand{\PK}{\ensuremath{K}}
90: \newcommand{\PKbar}{\ensuremath{\bar{K}}}
91: %
92: \newcommand{\kao}[1]{\ensuremath{K^{{#1}}}}
93: \newcommand{\kneu}[1]{\ensuremath{K_{{#1}}}}
94: %
95: \newcommand{\DAFNE} {{\bf\textrm{DA$\Phi$NE}}}
96: \newcommand{\KLOE} {{\bf\textrm{KLOE}}}
97: %- General
98: \newcommand{\eV}{{e\kern-.07em V}}
99: \newcommand{\keV} {{\rm k\eV}}
100: \newcommand{\MeV} {{\rm M\eV}}
101: \newcommand{\MeQ} {\ensuremath{{\rm M\eV^{2}}}}
102: \newcommand{\GeV} {{\rm G\eV}}
103: \newcommand{\s} {{\rm s}}
104: \newcommand{\ns} {{\rm ns}}
105: \newcommand{\nb} {{\rm nb}}
106: \newcommand{\ps} {{\rm ps}}
107: \newcommand{\mm} {{\rm mm}}
108: \newcommand{\cm} {{\rm cm}}
109: \newcommand{\mt} {{\rm m}}
110: \newcommand{\pb} {\ensuremath{{\rm pb^{-1}}}}
111: \newcommand{\fb} {\ensuremath{{\rm fb^{-1}}}}
112: \newcommand{\mdue} {\ensuremath{m^{2}_{lept}}}%
113: %-- Sigle
114: \newcommand{\kmudue}[1]{\ensuremath{K^{{#1}}_{\mu2}}}
115: \newcommand{\kpidue}[1]{\ensuremath{K^{{#1}}_{\pi2}}}
116: \newcommand{\ketre}[1] {\ensuremath{K^{{#1}}_{e3}}}
117: \newcommand{\kmutre}[1]{\ensuremath{K^{{#1}}_{\mu3}}}
118: \newcommand{\ktaup}[1] {\ensuremath{K^{{#1}}_{\tau '}}}
119: \newcommand{\ketreg}[1] {\ensuremath{K^{{#1}}_{e3\gamma}}}
120: \newcommand{\kmutreg}[1]{\ensuremath{K^{{#1}}_{\mu3\gamma}}}
121: \newcommand{\kltre}[1] {\ensuremath{K^{{#1}}_{{\rm l}3}}}
122: %-- Branching ratios long form
123: \newcommand{\Bkmudue}[1]{\ensuremath{BR(K^{{#1}} \to \mu^{{#1}}\nu)}}
124: \newcommand{\Bkmudueg}[1]{\ensuremath{BR(K^{{#1}} \to \mu^{{#1}}\nu(\gamma))}}
125: \newcommand{\Bkpidue}[1]{\ensuremath{BR(K^{{#1}} \to \pi^{{#1}}\pi^{0})}}
126: \newcommand{\Bketre}[1] {\ensuremath{BR(K^{{#1}} \to \pi^0e^{{#1}}\nu)}}
127: \newcommand{\Bkmutre}[1]{\ensuremath{BR(K^{{#1}} \to \pi^0\mu^{{#1}}\nu)}}
128:
129:
130:
131: %-- Lifetime
132: \newcommand{\lifet}[1]{\ensuremath{{\tau}_{#1}}}
133: %-- Form factors
134: %\newcommand{\ff}[1]{\ensuremath{{\lambda}_{#1}}}
135: %\newcommand{\fkfp} {\ensuremath{f_{K}/f_{\pi}}}
136: \def\rmk{\rm\kern.5mm }
137: \def\apm{\ifm{\alpha_{+-}}}
138: \def\aoo{\ifm{\alpha_{00}}}
139: \def\apmg{\ifm{\alpha_{+-\gamma}}}
140: \def\ase{\ifm{\alpha_{K\ell3}}}
141: \def\apmo{\ifm{\alpha_{+-0}}}
142: \def\aooo{\ifm{\alpha_{000}}}
143: \newcommand{\subrm}[1]{\mbox{\tiny \rm #1}}
144: %temp replacement due to no font
145: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
146: % %
147: % BEGINNING OF TEXT %
148: % %
149: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
150: \begin{document}
151: \vspace*{4cm}
152: \title{CP AND CPT TESTS WITH THE KLOE DETECTOR}
153:
154: \author{THE KLOE COLLABORATION\footnote {
155: {F.~Ambrosino},
156: {A.~Antonelli},
157: {M.~Antonelli},
158: {C.~Bacci},
159: {P.~Beltrame},
160: {G.~Bencivenni},
161: {S.~Bertolucci},
162: {C.~Bini},
163: {C.~Bloise},
164: {V.~Bocci},
165: {F.~Bossi},
166: {D.~Bowring},
167: {P.~Branchini},
168: {R.~Caloi},
169: {P.~Campana},
170: {G.~Capon},
171: {T.~Capussela},
172: {F.~Ceradini},
173: {S.~Chi},
174: {G.~Chiefari},
175: {P.~Ciambrone},
176: {S.~Conetti},
177: {E.~De~Lucia},
178: {A.~De~Santis},
179: {P.~De~Simone},
180: {G.~De~Zorzi},
181: {S.~Dell'Agnello},
182: {A.~Denig},
183: {A.~Di~Domenico},
184: {C.~Di~Donato},
185: {S.~Di~Falco},
186: {B.~Di~Micco},
187: {A.~Doria},
188: {M.~Dreucci},
189: {G.~Felici},
190: {A.~Ferrari},
191: {M.~L.~Ferrer},
192: {G.~Finocchiaro},
193: {S.~Fiore},
194: {C.~Forti},
195: {P.~Franzini},
196: {C.~Gatti},
197: {P.~Gauzzi},
198: {S.~Giovannella},
199: {E.~Gorini},
200: {E.~Graziani},
201: {M.~Incagli},
202: {W.~Kluge},
203: {V.~Kulikov},
204: {F.~Lacava},
205: {G.~Lanfranchi},
206: {J.~Lee-Franzini},
207: {D.~Leone},
208: {M.~Martini},
209: {P.~Massarotti},
210: {W.~Mei},
211: {S.~Meola},
212: {S.~Miscetti},
213: {M.~Moulson},
214: {S.~M\"uller},
215: {F.~Murtas},
216: {M.~Napolitano},
217: {F.~Nguyen},
218: {M.~Palutan},
219: {E.~Pasqualucci},
220: {A.~Passeri},
221: {V.~Patera},
222: {F.~Perfetto},
223: {L.~Pontecorvo},
224: {M.~Primavera},
225: {P.~Santangelo},
226: {E.~Santovetti},
227: {G.~Saracino},
228: {B.~Sciascia},
229: {A.~Sciubba},
230: {F.~Scuri},
231: {I.~Sfiligoi},
232: {T.~Spadaro},
233: {M.~Testa},
234: {L.~Tortora},
235: {P.~Valente},
236: {B.~Valeriani},
237: {G.~Venanzoni},
238: {S.~Veneziano},
239: {A.~Ventura},
240: {R.Versaci},
241: {G.~Xu}
242: }}
243: \address{presented by MARIANNA TESTA\\Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a degli studi di Roma ``La Sapienza'' and INFN Sezione di Roma, P.le A.Moro 2, 00185 - Rome, Italy }
244:
245: \maketitle\abstracts{
246: Neutral kaons provide one of the most sensitive system to CP and CPT violation.
247: Tests on CP, CPT and quantum mechanics have been performed at KLOE operating at the \DAF\ \epm\ collider. Results on the quantum interference in the channel $\f\to \ks\kl\to \Ppip\Ppim\Ppip\Ppim$, the measurement of the BR($\kl\to \Ppip\Ppim$) and the related CP violating parameter $\epsilon$ are presented.
248: Using the Bell-Steinberger relation, CPT violating parameters have been also obtained.}
249:
250: \section{Introduction}
251: The KLOE detector operates at \DAF, an $\epm$ collider working at the center of mass energy $W\sim m_{\f} \sim 1.02$ GeV. The \f\ mesons are produced essentially at rest and decay to $\ks\kl$ ($K^+K^-$) $\sim$ 34\% ($\sim$ 49\%) of the times. The $K$ mesons are produced in a pure $J^{PC}=1^{--}$ coherent quantum state, so that observation of a \ks\ in an event signals (tags) the presence of a \kl\ and vice-versa: highly pure, almost monochromatic, back-to-back \ks\ and \kl\ beams can be obtained. Moreover \ks\ and \kl\ are distinguishable on the basis of their decay length: $\lambda_S \sim 0.6$ cm and $\lambda_L \sim 340 $ cm. \\
252: The KLOE experiment is designed to exploit the unique feature of a \f-factory environment for the measurement of CP and CPT violation in the $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ system and more generally for the study of kaons' decays and interference.
253: %The KLOE detector consists essentially of a drift chamber (DCH), surrounded by an electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC). Details ca be found elsewhere...
254: The KLOE detector consists essentially of a drift chamber (DCH), surrounded by an electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC). A superconducting coil surrounding the barrel provides a 0.52 T magnetic field. Descriptions of the EMC and DCH can be found in \Ref{kloe:dc,kloe:emc}
255: % The DCH~\cite{kloe:dc} is a cylinder of 4 m diameter and 3.3 m in length which constitutes a large fiducial volume for \kl\ decays ($\sim$1/2 of $\lambda_L$). The momentum resolution for tracks at large polar angle is $\sigma_p/p \le 0.4\%$. The EMC~\cite{kloe:emc} is a lead-scintillating fiber calorimeter consisting of a barrel and two endcaps, which cover 98\% of the solid angle. The energy resolution is $\sigma_E/E \sim 5.7\%/\sqrt{E(\mbox{GeV})}$. The intrinsic time resolution is $\sigma_T = 54 \mbox{ps}/\sqrt{E(\mbox{GeV})}$. A superconducting coil surrounding the barrel provides a 0.52 T magnetic field.\\
256: %\section{Kaon physics}
257: %The kaons are produced from the decay of the \f\ in a coherent quantum state allowing study of the quantum interference and tagging techniques.
258: %The tagging techniques are the basis of all the KLOE analysis for kaons.%%%
259:
260: %Providing a well defined normalization sample, the tagging allows to perform measurements of absolute branching ratios.\\
261: %The selection of $\ks \to \Ppip\Ppim$ provides an efficient tag for \kl\ decays. \ks's are instead tagged by identifying a \kl\ interaction in the calorimeter, which has a very clear signature given by a late ($\beta_k$ = 0.2) high energy cluster not associated to any track.
262:
263: \section{Quantum interference in the channel $\kl\ks \to \Ppip\Ppim\Ppip\Ppim$.}
264: %The kaons are produced from the decay of the \f\ in a coherent quantum state allowing study of the quantum interference.
265: Test of quantum mechanics (QM) can be performed by studying the time evolution of the quantum correlated kaon system,
266: in particular studying the interference pattern of the decay $\kl\ks \to \Ppip\Ppim\Ppip\Ppim$. According to QM,
267: the distribution of the difference of the decay times $I(\Delta t)$ of the two kaons shows a characteristic destructive interference which prevents the two kaons from decaying into the same final state at the same time. As suggested in ref.~\cite{{bib:bertlmann},{bib:eberhard}}, a simple way to parametrize a possible deviation of QM is to introduce a decoherence parameter $\zeta_{S,L}$ ($\zeta_{S,L}= 0$ in QM) as follows:
268: %\begin{equation}I(|\Delta t|)\propto e^{-|\Delta t| \Gamma_L} +e^{-|\Delta t| \Gamma_S} -2\underbrace{(1-\zeta_{S,L})}_{\begin{array}{c}{\mbox{\small decoherence}} \\{\mbox{\small introduction}} \end{array}} cos(\Delta m |\Delta t|) e^{-\frac{\Gamma_s+\Gamma_L}{2}|\Delta t| }
269: \begin{equation}I(|\Delta t|)\propto e^{-|\Delta t| \Gamma_L} +e^{-|\Delta t| \Gamma_S} -2\underbrace{(1-\zeta_{S,L})}_{{\mbox{\small decoherence}}} cos(\Delta m |\Delta t|) e^{-\frac{\Gamma_s+\Gamma_L}{2}|\Delta t| }
270: \label{eq:deltat}
271: \end{equation}
272: \begin{figure}[h]
273: \begin{center}
274: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{./fit_15_kskl_verynice.eps}
275: %\put(-130,135) {\circle*{1}}
276: \put(-125,155){\small Data = 7366 evts}
277: %\put(-130,125) {\line(0,1){1}}
278: \put(-125,145) {\color{red}{\small Fit: $ \chi^2/$dof = 15/22}}
279: \caption{Fit of the difference $\Delta t$ of the decay times of $\ks\to \Ppip\Ppim$ and $\kl\to \Ppip\Ppim$. The black points are the data and the red ones are the results of the fit. The peak at $\Delta t \sim 17 \tau_S$ is due to the regeneration on the beam pipe.}
280: \label{fig:deltat}
281: \end{center}
282: \end{figure}
283: Selecting a pure sample of $\kl\ks \to \Ppip\Ppim\Ppip\Ppim$ and fitting eq.~\ref{eq:deltat} to data, KLOE has obtained the following preliminary result:
284: $$\zeta_{S,L}= 0.043\,^{+0.038}_{{-0.035}_{\mbox{stat}}}\pm 0.008_{\mbox{syst}},$$ consistent with QM predictions. The result of the fit is shown in fig.~\ref{fig:deltat}.
285: \section{BR($\kl\to \Ppip\Ppim$)}
286: KLOE has measured the BR($\kl\to \Ppip\Ppim$) using a \kl\ beam tagged by $\ks\to \Ppip\Ppim$ decays.
287: The number of $\kl\to \Ppip\Ppim$
288: is obtained from a fit to the $\sqrt{E^2_{miss}+|\pvec_{miss}|^2}$
289: distribution, where $E_{miss}$ is the missing energy in the hypothesis of $\kl\to \Ppip\Ppim$ decay and $\pvec_{miss}$ is the missing momentum,
290: with a linear combination of Monte Carlo distributions for $\kl\to \Ppip\Ppim$, $\kl\to \pi^{\pm} e^{\mp} \nu$, $\kl\to \pi^{\pm} \mu^{\mp} \nu$
291: $\kl\to \Ppip\Ppim \Ppin$ events, inclusive with respect to final-state radiation.
292: The number of signal events has been normalized to the number of $\kl\to \pi\mu\nu$, in order to minimize systematic uncertainties on the tagging and tracking efficiency evaluation (exploiting the similar topology of the decays as well as the momentum overlap).
293: Correcting for the tagging and tracking efficiency and using the BR$(\kl\to\pi^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}\nu)$ from ref.~\cite{KLOE:brl}, we obtain: BR$(\kl\to \Ppip\Ppim) = (1.963 \pm 0.012_{\rm stat}\pm 0.017_{\rm syst})\times 10^{-3}$. The result is in good agreement with the measurement of KTeV~\cite{ktev} $(1.975 \pm 0.012)\times10^{-3}$ and in strong disagreement with that reported by the PDG~\cite{PDG2004}, $(2.090\pm0.025)\times10^{3}$.
294: This result can be used to determine $|\eta_{+-}|$
295: and $|\varepsilon|$ correcting for the small contribution of $\varepsilon'$.
296: Using the measurements of BR($\ks\to \Ppip\Ppim$) and $\tau_{\kl}$ from KLOE
297: \cite{KLOE:Rs,KLOE:brl,KLOE:KLlife}, and the value of $\tau_{\ks}$ from
298: PDG\cite{PDG2004} and subtracting the contribution of the photon direct emission~\cite{Dire} to the value of BR($\kl\to \Ppip\Ppim$), we obtain:
299: $|\eta_{+-}| = (2.219 \pm 0.013)\times 10^{-3}$.
300: Finally, using the world average measurement of
301: $\rm{Re}(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)=(1.67 \pm 0.26)\times 10^{-3}$,
302: and assuming equal phases between $\varepsilon'$ and $\varepsilon$ we obtain
303: $|\varepsilon| = (2.216 \pm 0.013)\times 10^{-3}$,
304: in disagreement with the value $|\varepsilon| = (2.284 \pm 0.014)\times 10^{-3}$
305: reported in ref.~\cite{PDG2004}.
306: The value of $|\varepsilon|$ can be
307: % be predicted from the measurement of other observables
308: % and compared with the measurement.
309: % For this purpose we use the prediction reported in Ref.~\cite{UTfit},
310: can be compared with the prediction~\cite{UTfit} $|\varepsilon| = (2.875 \pm 0.455)\times 10^{-3}$
311: where to test the mechanism of the CP violation in the Standard Model,
312: the value of $|\varepsilon|$ has been
313: computed from the measurement of the CP conserving observables:
314: $\Delta {\rm m_d}$, $\Delta {\rm m_s}$,
315: $V_{\rm{ub}}$, and $V_{\rm{cb}}$.
316: % The result of this study is shown in fig.\ref{fig:fit_klpp}, right plot.
317: No significant deviation from the Standard Model prediction has been
318: observed.
319: %Notice that, due to the large uncertainties on the computation
320: % of the hadronic matrix element corresponding to the \PK-\PKbar\ mixing,
321: % the theoretical error is much larger than the experimental one.
322: \begin{figure}\label{fig:fit_klpp}
323: \begin{center}
324: % \includegraphics[width=6.0cm]{./spectra_ip18_pp_zoom.eps}
325: \includegraphics[width=6.0cm]{./pull_epskfit1.eps}
326: \caption{%Left plot: Distribution of $\sqrt{E^2_{miss}+|\pvec_{miss}|^2}$ for a single run period, with fit to Monte Carlo distributions for difference decay channel. Right plot:
327: $|\varepsilon|$ constraints by the measurements
328: of $|V_{ub}|/|V_{uc}|$, $\Delta m_d$
329: and by the limit on $\Delta m_s$on the $(\bar{\rho},\bar{\eta})$ from ref.~\protect\cite{UTfit}, compared with the value of $|\varepsilon|$ from the measurements of BR(\kl\to\Ppip\Ppim).}
330: \end{center}
331: \end{figure}
332:
333: \section{Bell Steinberger Relation}
334: The most powerful test of CPT invariance in the neutral kaon system is presently obtained by means of the Bell-Steinberger relation \cite{bib:bellsteinberger}, which relates CPT and CP violating parameters, $ Im (\delta)$ and $Re(\epsilon)$, to the decay amplitudes of \kl\ and \ks\ into the same final state:
335: \begin{equation}
336: \begin{array}{rcl}
337: (1 + i \tan{\phi_{SW}}) [ {\rm Re}(\epsilon) - i \: {\rm Im}(\delta) ]
338: = {\displaystyle{\sum_{{\subrm{final}} \atop {\subrm{states}} \: f}}} A(\kl \to f)^\star A(\ks \to f) / \Gamma_S
339: %\\*[1mm]
340: = {\displaystyle{\sum_{{\subrm{final}} \atop {\subrm{states}} \: f}}} \alpha_f
341: \end{array}
342: \label{eqn:cpt1}
343: \end{equation}
344: %\vspace{1cm}
345: where $\phi_{SW}$ is the superweak phase, defined by $\tan{\phi_{SW}} = 2\Delta M/(\Gamma_S-\Gamma_L)$.
346: For the determination of the $\alpha_f$ parameters,
347: experimental inputs are \kl\ and \ks\ branching
348: ratios, the relative phases between the amplitudes, and the \kl\ and \ks\
349: lifetimes, $\tau_{\ks}$ and $\tau_{\kl}$. %, these latter being common for all of the decays.
350: We use the value of
351: $\tau_{\ks}$ reported by the PDG~\cite{PDG2004} and $\tau_{\kl}$ from KLOE average~\cite{KLOE:brl,KLOE:KLlife}
352: and the following measurements:
353: %The values of \apmo, and \aooo\ are determined from:
354: % The values of \apm, and \aoo\ \apm$\gamma$ are determined from:
355: %KLOE has extracted $Re(\epsilon)$ and $Im(\delta)$ by means of the BSR using the folliwing experimental inputs:
356: \begin{itemize}
357: \item the new KLOE measurement of
358: BR(\ks\to\Ppip\Ppim), BR(\ks\to\Ppin\Ppin) from ref~\cite{KLOE:Rs}
359: which enters in the evaluation of $|\alpha_{+-}|$ and $|\alpha_{00}|$,
360: % which improves the previus KLOE result\cite{KLOE:KSpipi} and
361: % is the most accurate ....
362: \item the average between the BR(\kl\to\Ppip\Ppim)
363: here presented and that measured by KTeV\cite{ktev}, used to determine $|\alpha_{+-}|$,
364: \item the measurement of BR(\kl\to\Ppin\Ppin) from KTeV \cite{ktev},
365: % which is also
366: % in disagreement the value reported
367: % in the PDG compilation\cite{PDG2004}.
368: % This value is
369: used to determine $|\alpha_{00}|$,
370: \item the values, $\phi_{+-}$ and $\phi_{00}$, of the phases of $\alpha_{+-}$
371: and $\alpha_{00}$, taken from the PDG\cite{PDG2004} fit without assuming CPT symmetry,
372: \item the measurement of the CP conserving
373: direct component contribution
374: to the process \kl\to\pic$\gamma$ from ref~\cite{Dire} and the
375: upper limit on the direct component contribution to the process
376: \ks\to\pic$\gamma$ \cite{PDG2004}, both entering in the evaluation of $\alpha_{+-\gamma}$,
377: %\item the value, $\phi_{+-\gamma}$, of the phase of $\alpha_{+-\gamma}$
378: % has not been measured yet. We assume no constraints on this
379: % quantity
380: %{\red is there any measurement?}.
381: \item the recent KLOE upper limit on the BR($\ks\to \Ppin\Ppin\Ppin$)\cite{KLOE:ks3pi0}, which constraints the value of $|\alpha_{000}|$,
382: \item the measurement of the BR(\ks\to \Ppip\Ppim\Ppin) reported in the
383: PDG~\cite{PDG2004},
384: \item the recent KLOE measurement of the semileptonic $K_S$ charge asymmetry $A_S$~\cite{KLOE:Rs},
385: which allows to calculate the semileptonic contribution $\alpha_{kl3}= 2\tau_{\ks}/\tau_{\kl} B(kl3)((A_S+A_L)/4-i Im(\delta)+Im(x+))$, being $x+$ the parameter describing the $\Delta S=\Delta Q$ violation in the semileptonic decays. $Im(x+)$ has been determined from a combined fit of $A_S$ with the semileptonic time dependent decay rate asymmetry measured by CPLEAR~\cite{cplear2}. The semileptonic $K_L$ charge asymmetry $A_L$ has been taken from the PDG~\cite{PDG2004}.
386: \end{itemize}
387: As $\phi_{+-\gamma}$, the phase of $\alpha_{+-\gamma}$, has not been measured yet, no constraints have been assumed on its value. Using these experimental inputs, the differences between the \ks\ and \kl\ masses and lifetimes, $\Delta M$ and $\Delta \Gamma$, reported in the PDG\cite{PDG2004} (for the determination of $\phi_{SW}$), we obtain:
388: ${\rm Re}(\epsilon) = (160.2\pm 1.3)\times 10^{-5}$ and ${\rm Im}(\delta) = (1.2\pm 1.9)\times 10^{-5}$, resulting in a considerable improvement to the CPLEAR measurement~\cite{cplear}: ${\rm Re}(\epsilon) = (164.9\pm 2.5)\times 10^{-5}$ and ${\rm Im}(\delta) = (2.4\pm 5.0)\times 10^{-5}$.
389: %The main contribution to the error is due to the $\pi\pi (\gamma)$ amplitudes.
390: % represent the largest contribution
391: %for the $\alpha$ determination.
392: %Untill the recent anlyses from NA48 and KLOE this was the limiting
393: %contribution to the CPT thest using the Bell Steinberger unitarity
394: %relation
395: % obtained by the CPLEAR collaboration with the
396: % study of the time dependent.....
397: % The CPLEAR result
398: \section*{References}
399: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
400: \bibitem{kloe:dc} M.~Adinolfi {\it et al.}, KLOE Collaboration, \Journal{\NIMA} {488} {51} {2002}
401: \bibitem{kloe:emc} M.~Adinolfi {\it et al.}, KLOE Collaboration, \Journal{\NIMA} {482} {364} {2002}
402:
403: \bibitem{bib:bertlmann} R.~A.~Bertlmann {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PRD} {60} {114032} {1999}
404: \bibitem{bib:eberhard} P.~H.~Eberhard, {\it Test of quantum mechanics at a \f\ factory}, vol.1. The Second \DAF\ Physics Handbook; eds. L.~Maiani {\it et. al.}, (SIS-Publ. dei Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati), Frascati , Italy (1995)
405:
406: \bibitem{ktev} KTeV Collaboration, T.Alexopolous {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PRD} {70} {0920006} {2004}
407:
408: \bibitem{PDG2004} Particle Data Group, S. Eidelman {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PLB} {592} {1} {2004}
409: \bibitem{KLOE:brl} KLOE Collaboration, F. Ambrosino {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PLB} {632}{43} {2006}
410: \bibitem{KLOE:KLlife} KLOE Collaboration, F.~Ambrosino {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PLB} {626}{15} {2006}
411:
412: \bibitem{KLOE:Rs} KLOE Collaboration, F. Ambrosino {\it et al.}, Precise measurement of $\Gamma(\ks \to \pic )/\Gamma(\ks \to \pio)$ with the KLOE detector at \DAF\ hep-ex/0601025
413:
414: \bibitem{Dire} E. Ramberg {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PRL} {70}{2525}{1993}
415: \bibitem{UTfit} UTfit Collaboration (http://www.utfit.org), private communication%M. Bona {\it et al} JHEP {\bf 07}, 028 (2005)
416: \bibitem{bib:bellsteinberger} J.S.~Bell and J.~Steinberger,
417: Proc.\ of Oxford Int.\ Conf.\ on Elementary Part., 195 (1965)
418: \bibitem{KLOE:ks3pi0} KLOE collaboration, F.~Ambrosino {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PLB} {619}{61} {2005}
419: \bibitem{cplear2} CPLEAR Collaboration, Angelopoulos {\it et al.}, \Journal{EPJ}{22}{55} {2001}
420: \bibitem{cplear} CPLEAR Collaboration, Apostolakis {\it et al.}, \Journal{\PLB} {456} {297} {1999}
421:
422:
423: %\bibitem{ma}L. Maiani, \Journal{\PLB}{62}{183}{1976}.
424: %\bibitem{bu}J.D. Bjorken and I. Dunietz, \Journal{\PRD}{36}{2109}{1987}.
425: %\bibitem{bd}C.D. Buchanan {\it et al}, \Journal{\PRD}{45}{4088}{1992}.
426: \end{thebibliography}
427: \end{document}
428:
429: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
430: % End of moriond.tex %
431: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
432: