1: \documentstyle[epsfig,12pt]{aipproc}
2: \def \b{B^0}
3: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
4: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
5: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No. EFI}
6: \def \k{K^0}
7: \def \m{{\cal M}}
8: \def \ob{\overline{B^0}}
9: \def \ok{\overline{K^0}}
10: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
11: \def \tl{\tilde{\lambda}}
12: \topmargin 0.1in
13: \begin{document}
14: \title{CP Violation -- A Brief Review
15: \footnote{Invited talk presented at 2nd Tropical
16: Workshop in Particle Physics and Cosmology, San Juan, Puerto Rico,
17: May 1--6, 2000, proceedings to be published by AIP. \efi~2000-16,
18: hep-ph/0005258.}}
19: \author{Jonathan L. Rosner}
20: \address{Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics \\
21: University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 USA}
22: \maketitle
23: \begin{abstract}
24: Some past, present, and future aspects of CP violation are reviewed. The
25: discrete symmetries C, P, and T are introduced with an example drawn from
26: Maxwell's Equations. The history of the discovery of CP violation in the
27: kaon system is described briefly, and brought up-to-date with a review of
28: recent results on kaon decays. The candidate theory of CP violation, based
29: on phases in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix, will be tested
30: by studies of $B$ mesons, both in decays to CP eigenstates and in
31: ``direct'' decays; we will soon learn a great deal more about whether the
32: CKM picture is self-consistent. Future measurements are noted and some
33: brief remarks are made about the ``other'' manifestation of CP violation,
34: the baryon asymmetry of the Universe.
35: \end{abstract}
36:
37: \section{Introduction}
38:
39: Fundamental discrete symmetries have provided both guidance and puzzles in
40: our evolving understanding of elementary particle interactions.
41: The discrete symmetries C (charge inversion), P (parity, or space reflection),
42: and T (time reversal) are preserved by strong and electromagnetic
43: processes, but violated by weak decays. For a brief period of several
44: years, it was thought that the products CP and T were preserved by all
45: processes, but that belief was shattered with the discovery of CP violation in
46: neutral kaon decays in 1964 \cite{CCFT}. The product CPT
47: seems to be preserved, as is expected in local Lorentz-invariant quantum field
48: theories \cite{CPT}.
49:
50: Since 1973 we have had a candidate theory of CP violation \cite{KM}, based
51: on phases in the coupling constants describing the weak charge-changing
52: transitions of quarks. These couplings are described by the unitary
53: $3 \times 3$ {\it Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa} (CKM) \cite{KM,Cab} matrix.
54: This theory has survived a qualitative test with the establishment of
55: direct CP violation in neutral kaon decays \cite{E832,NA48}. It is well
56: on its way to being tested in a wealth of $B$ decay processes. Will these
57: tests be passed? What are the implications in either case? What will we
58: learn about the ``other'' manifestation of CP asymmetry in nature, the
59: baryon asymmetry of the Universe? This brief review is devoted to these
60: questions.
61:
62: In Section II we introduce the discrete symmetries P, T, and C by the
63: example of Maxwell's equations. Section III is devoted to the history and
64: present status of CP violation and related phenomena in kaon decays,
65: while Section IV deals with results and prospects for $B$ mesons. Some
66: future measurements are discussed in Section V. The baryon number of the
67: Universe and its relation to CP violation are treated briefly in Section VI,
68: while Section VII concludes.
69:
70: \section{Discrete symmetries}
71:
72: Maxwell's equations in vacuum
73: provide a convenient framework for illustrating the action of discrete
74: symmetries, since each term in each equation must transform similarly.
75:
76: Under P, we have ${\bf E}({\bf x},t) \to - {\bf E}(-{\bf x},t)$,
77: ${\bf B}({\bf x},t) \to {\bf B}(-{\bf x},t)$,
78: $\nabla \to - \nabla$, ${\bf j}({\bf x},t) \to - {\bf j}({\bf -x},t)$,
79: i.e., electric fields change in sign while magnetic fields do not, and
80: currents change in direction. Under time reversal,
81: ${\bf E}({\bf x},t) \to {\bf E}({\bf x},-t)$,
82: ${\bf B}({\bf x},t) \to - {\bf B}({\bf x},-t)$,
83: $\partial/\partial t \to - \partial/\partial t$,
84: ${\bf j}({\bf x},t) \to - {\bf j}({\bf x}, -t)$,
85: i.e., magnetic fields change in sign while electric fields do not, since
86: directions of currents are reversed. Under C,
87: ${\bf E}({\bf x},t) \to - {\bf E}({\bf x},t)$,
88: ${\bf B}({\bf x},t) \to - {\bf B}({\bf x},t)$,
89: $\rho({\bf x},t) \to - \rho({\bf x},t)$,
90: ${\bf j}({\bf x},t) \to - {\bf j}({\bf x}, t)$,
91: i.e., both electric and magnetic fields change sign, since their sources
92: $\rho$ and ${\bf j}$ change sign. Finally, under CPT, space and time are
93: inverted but electric and magnetic fields retain their signs: ${\bf E}({\bf
94: x},t) \to {\bf E}({\bf -x},-t)$, ${\bf B}({\bf x},t) = {\bf B}(-{\bf x},-t)$.
95:
96: The behavior of the Maxwell equations under P, T, C, and CPT is summarized in
97: Table 1. Each term behaves as shown. It is interesting that a fundamental
98: term in the Lagrangian behaving as ${\bf E} \cdot {\bf B}$, while Lorentz
99: covariant, violates P and T. The strong suppression of such a term (as
100: evidenced by the small value of the neutron electric dipole moment) is known
101: as the {\it strong CP problem} \cite{SCPrev}, and, although of fundamental
102: importance, will not be discussed further here.
103:
104: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
105: \begin{table}
106: \caption{Behavior of Maxwell's equations under discrete symmetries.}
107: \begin{center}
108: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c}
109: Equation & P & T & C & CPT \\ \hline
110: $\nabla \cdot {\bf E} = 4 \pi \rho$ & $+$ & $+$ & $-$ & $-$ \\
111: $\nabla \cdot {\bf B} = 0$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ \\
112: $\nabla \times {\bf B} - \frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial {\bf E}}{\partial t} =
113: \frac{4 \pi}{c}{\bf j}$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ \\
114: $\nabla \times {\bf E} + \frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t} = 0$
115: & $+$ & $+$ & $-$ & $-$ \\ \hline
116: \end{tabular}
117: \end{center}
118: \end{table}
119:
120: \section{CP symmetry for kaons}
121:
122: \subsection{$K \to \pi \pi$ decays}
123:
124: While some neutral particles (such as $\gamma$, $Z^0$, and $\pi^0$) are equal
125: to their antiparticles, others (such as the neutron) are not. The $K^0$,
126: discovered in cosmic radiation in the late 1940's \cite{RB}, is
127: one such particle. It is characterized by an additive quantum number $S = 1$,
128: {\it strangeness}, introduced \cite{GN} in order to explain its strong
129: production (which conserves strangeness) and weak decay (which does not). The
130: antiparticle of $K^0$, the $\ok$, has $S = -1$. Since strangeness is
131: violated in decays, one must appeal to discrete symmetries to describe the
132: linear combinations of $K^0$ and $\ok$ corresponding to states of
133: definite mass and lifetime. These states are
134: \beq \label{eqn:k1k2}
135: K_1 = \frac{\k + \ok}{\s}~~~,~~K_2 = \frac{\k - \ok}{\s}~~~.
136: \eeq
137: The $K_1$ is permitted to decay to $\pi \pi$ and thus should be short-lived,
138: while the $K_2$ is forbidden to decay to $\pi \pi$, must instead decay to
139: $3 \pi$, $\pi \ell \nu_\ell$, etc., and thus will be longer-lived. Indeed,
140: the short-lived neutral kaon ($\sim K_1$)
141: lives for only 0.089 ns, while the long-lived neutral kaon ($\sim K_2$)
142: lives for 52 ns, nearly a factor of 600 longer.
143:
144: The original argument by Gell-Mann and Pais \cite{GP}, based in 1955 on C and P
145: conservation, was recast in 1957 in terms of the product CP \cite{CPK}, to
146: correspond to the newly formulated CP-invariant theory of the weak
147: interactions. The $K^0$ and $\ok$ have spin zero. A spin-zero final state of
148: $\pi \pi$ has CP eigenvalue equal to $+1$. Thus, if CP is conserved, it is the
149: CP-even linear combination of $K^0$ and $\ok$ which decays to $\pi \pi$. With
150: a phase convention such that $CP |K^0 \rangle
151: = | \ok \rangle$, this is just the combination $K_1$.
152: The Gell-Mann--Pais proposal was soon confirmed \cite{KL} by the discovery of
153: the predicted long-lived particle corresponding to $K_2$.
154:
155: Similar behavior is encountered in many cases of degenerate systems, such as
156: two coupled pendula \cite{BW} or a drum-head in its first excited state. In
157: the latter case, the drum has two degenerate modes, each with one nodal line
158: corresponding to a diameter, which will be orthogonal to one another if the
159: corresponding nodal lines are perpendicular to each other. Consider two
160: equally valid bases:
161:
162: \begin{itemize}
163:
164: \item{(B1)} Diagonal nodal lines point to the upper right ($R$)
165: and the upper left ($L$).
166:
167: \item{(B2)} The nodal lines are horizontal ($H$) and vertical ($V$).
168:
169: \end{itemize}
170:
171: We can draw the analogy $R \leftrightarrow \k$, $L \leftrightarrow \ok$.
172: Suppose, now, that a fly alights on the bottom edge of the drum head, such
173: that it sits on the nodal line of the $V$ mode. Then the modes $V$ and $H$
174: are split from one another. The mode $H = (R + L)/\s$ which couples to the
175: fly will shift in mass and lifetime. It is analogous to $K_1$ and the fly
176: is analogous to the $\pi \pi$ system. The mode $V$ is unaffected by the
177: fly. It is analogous to $K_2$.
178:
179: In 1964, Christenson, Cronin, Fitch, and Turlay \cite{CCFT}, using a spark
180: chamber exposed to a beam of long-lived neutral kaons, found that these
181: particles indeed {\it did} decay to $\pi \pi$. For many years this phenomenon
182: could be described in terms of a single parameter $\epsilon$, such that the
183: states of definite mass and lifetime become
184: \beq \label{eqn:mix}
185: K_1 \to K_S~({\rm ``short"}) \simeq K_1 + \epsilon K_2~~,~~~
186: K_2 \to K_L~({\rm ``long"}) \simeq K_2 + \epsilon K_1~~~,
187: \eeq
188: with $|\epsilon| \simeq 2 \times 10^{-3}$, and Arg($\epsilon) \simeq \pi/4$.
189: Confirmation of this description was provided by the rate asymmetry in the
190: decays $K_L \to \pi^\pm \ell^\mp \nu_\ell$, which measures Re $\epsilon$.
191: But what is the source of $\epsilon$?
192:
193: One possibility was suggested almost immediately by Wolfenstein \cite{SW}:
194: A new ``superweak'' $|\Delta S = 2|$ interaction could mix $\k = d \bar s$ and
195: $\ok = s \bar d$ (where $d$ and $s$ denote quarks) without any other observable
196: consequences. This theory would imply, for example, that no difference in
197: the ratio of CP-violating and CP-conserving amplitudes would arise when
198: comparing $\pi^+ \pi^-$ and $\pi^0 \pi^0$ final states.
199:
200: A new opportunity for generating not only $\epsilon$ but other CP-violating
201: effects as well arises when there are at least three quark families, as
202: first proposed by Kobayashi and Maskawa \cite{KM}. Loop diagrams inducing
203: the transition $d \bar s \leftrightarrow s \bar d$ involving internal lines of
204: $W^+ W^-$ and $u,c,t$ quarks and antiquarks can lead to $\epsilon \ne 0$ when
205: the coupling constants are complex. With three quark families, one cannot
206: redefine phases of quarks so that all the couplings are real. Some other
207: consequences of the Kobayashi-Maskawa theory will be mentioned presently.
208:
209: The time-dependence of the two-component $\k$ and $\ok$ system is governed by
210: a $2 \times 2$ {\it mass matrix} $\m$ (for reviews see \cite{Revs}):
211: \beq
212: i \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left[ \begin{array}{c} \k \\ \ok \end{array}
213: \right] = \m \left[ \begin{array}{c} \k \\ \ok \end{array} \right]~~~,
214: \eeq
215: where $\m = M - i \Gamma/2$, and $M$ and $\Gamma$ are Hermitian matrices.
216: The eigenstates are, approximately,
217: \beq
218: K_S \simeq K_1 + \epsilon K_2~~,~~~K_L \simeq K_2 + \epsilon K_1~~~,
219: \eeq
220: corresponding to the eigenvalues $\mu_{S,L} = m_{S,L} - i \gamma_{S,L}/2$, with
221: \beq
222: \epsilon \simeq \frac{{\rm Im}(\Gamma_{12}/2) + i~{\rm Im}~M_{12}}
223: {\mu_S - \mu_L}~~~.
224: \eeq
225: Using both data and the magnitude of CKM matrix elements one can show
226: \cite{Revs} that the second term dominates. Since the mass difference
227: $m_L - m_S$ and width difference $\gamma_S - \gamma_L$ are nearly equal,
228: the phase of $\mu_L - \mu_S$ is about $\pi/4$, so that the phase of $\epsilon$
229: is also $\pi/4$ (mod $\pi$).
230:
231: It is easy to emulate the {\it CP-conserving} neutral kaon system in
232: table-top demonstrations of systems with two degenerate states, such as the
233: pair of coupled pendula mentioned above \cite{BW}. The demonstration of CP
234: violation is harder, requiring systems that emulate Im($M_{12}) \ne 0$ or
235: Im($\Gamma_{12}) \ne 0$. One can couple two identical resonant circuits
236: ``directionally'' to each other so that the energy fed from circuit 1 to
237: circuit 2 differs from that fed in the reverse direction \cite{TTTV}. Devices
238: with this property utilize Faraday rotation of the plane of polarization of
239: radio-frequency waves. More recently, it was realized \cite{RS} that this
240: asymmetric coupling is inherent in the equations of motion of a spherical
241: (or ``conical'') pendulum in a rotating coordinate system, giving rise to
242: the precession of the plane of oscillation of the Foucault pendulum. In
243: either case the analogy actually deepens the mystery of CP violation, since
244: the CP-violating effect is imposed, so to speak, ``from the outside,''
245: using a magnetic field in the case of directional couplers or a rotating
246: coordinate frame in the case of the Foucault pendulum.
247:
248: To return to the CKM matrix, we have the following parameterization
249: suggested by Wolfenstein \cite{WP}:
250: \beq
251: V \equiv \left[ \begin{array}{c c c}
252: V_{ud} & V_{us} & V_{ub} \\
253: V_{cd} & V_{cs} & V_{cb} \\
254: V_{td} & V_{ts} & V_{tb} \\ \end{array} \right] = \left[ \begin{array}{c c c}
255: 1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2} & \lambda & A \lambda^3 (\rho - i \eta) \\
256: - \lambda & 1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2} & A \lambda^2 \\
257: A \lambda^3(1 - \rho - i \eta) & - A \lambda^2 & 1 \end{array} \right]~~~,
258: \eeq
259: where $\lambda = \sin \theta_{\rm C} \simeq 0.22$ describes strange particle
260: decays. Here $\theta_{\rm C}$ is the Gell-Mann--L\'evy--Cabibbo \cite{Cab,GL}
261: angle, originally introduced to preserve the universal strength of the
262: hadronic weak current. The unitarity of the CKM matrix, $V^\dag = V^{-1}$, is
263: the modern way of implementing this requirement.
264:
265: We learn $|V_{cb}| = A \lambda^2 \simeq 0.039 \pm 0.003$ from the dominant
266: decays of $b$ quarks, which are to charmed quarks \cite{CKMrevs}. (We have
267: expanded errors somewhat in comparison with those quoted in some reviews
268: \cite{Parodi}. The
269: dominant source of error in many cases is theoretical.) Similarly, charmless
270: $b$ decays give $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}| = 0.090 \pm 0.025 = \lambda (\rho^2 +
271: \eta^2)^{1/2}$, leading to a constraint on $\rho^2 + \eta^2$.
272:
273: As a result of the unitarity of the CKM matrix, the quantities $V^*_{ub}/A
274: \lambda^3 = \rho + i \eta$, $V_{td}/A \lambda^3 = 1 - \rho - i \eta$, and 1
275: form a triangle in the $(\rho,\eta)$ plane (Fig.~1).
276: The angles opposite these sides
277: are, respectively, $\beta = -{\rm Arg}(V_{td})$, $\gamma = {\rm
278: Arg}(V^*_{ub})$, and $\alpha = \pi - \beta - \gamma$. We still do not have
279: satisfactory limits on the angle $\gamma$ (equivalently, on the magnitude of
280: the side $V_{td}$) of this ``unitarity triangle.'' Further information comes
281: from the following constraints (see \cite{JRlatt} for more details):
282:
283: % This is Figure 1
284: \begin{figure}
285: \centerline{\epsfysize = 1.8in \epsffile {fig1.eps}}
286: \caption{Unitarity triangle for CKM elements. Here $\rho + i \eta =
287: V^*_{ub}/A \lambda^3$; $1 - \rho - i \eta = V_{td}/A \lambda^3$.}
288: \end{figure}
289:
290: \begin{enumerate}
291:
292: \item The magnitude of $\epsilon$ constrains mainly the imaginary part of
293: $V_{td}^2$, which is proportional to
294: $\eta(1-\rho)$, since the top quark dominates the
295: loop diagram giving rise to $\k$--$\ok$ mixing. A correction due to charmed
296: quarks changes the 1 to 1.44, with the result $\eta(1.44 - \rho) = 0.51 \pm
297: 0.18$.
298:
299: \item We have taken the amplitude for mixing of the neutral $\b$ meson with its
300: antiparticle $\ob$ to be $\Delta m_d = 0.473 \pm 0.016$ ps$^{-1}$ \cite{BOSC}.
301: The subscript $d$ denotes the light quark in the $\b$. Taking
302: the matrix element of the four-quark operator inducing the relevant $\bar b d
303: \leftrightarrow \bar d b$ transition to be $f_B \sqrt{B_B} = 200 \pm 40$ MeV,
304: we find a constraint on $|V_{td}|$ which amounts to $|1 - \rho - i \eta| =
305: 1.01 \pm 0.21$.
306:
307: \item We have used the following lower limit for mixing of the strange $b$
308: meson $B_s = \bar b s$ with its antiparticle: $\Delta m_s > 14.3$ ps$^{-1}$
309: (95\% c.l.) \cite{BOSC,Blay}. Since the relevant CKM elements (including
310: $|V_{ts}| = A \lambda^2$) are fairly well known, this result serves mainly to
311: constrain the combination of hadronic parameters $f_{B_s} \sqrt{B_{B_s}}$ and
312: hence, through the assumption $[f_{B_s} \sqrt{B_{B_s}}]/[f_B \sqrt{B_B}] <
313: 1.25$ \cite{JRFM}, yields the bound $|V_{ts}/V_{td}| > 4.3$ or $|1 - \rho - i
314: \eta| < 1.05$.
315:
316: \end{enumerate}
317:
318: The resulting limits on $(\rho,\eta)$ are a roughly rectangular region
319: bounded on the left by $|1 - \rho - i \eta| < 1.05$, on the top and bottom
320: by $0.3 < (\rho^2 + \eta^2)^{1/2} < 0.52$, and on the right by $|1 - \rho - i
321: \eta| > 0.8$. Only a small region is excluded by the bound arising from
322: the parameter $\epsilon$: $\eta(1.44 - \rho) > 0.33$. Even without this
323: bound, the case of real CKM matrix elements ($\eta = 0$), i.e., a superweak
324: origin for $\epsilon$, is disfavored. The boundaries of this region give rise
325: to the minimum and maximum values of $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ shown in Table 2.
326: These bounds imply
327: \beq
328: -0.71 < \sin 2 \alpha < 0.59~~,~~~
329: 0.59 < \sin 2 \beta < 0.89~~,~~~
330: 0.54 < \sin^2 \gamma < 1~~~
331: \eeq
332: for quantities which are measurable in $B$ decays (see below). The allowed
333: values of $(\rho,\eta)$ are $\simeq (0.14 \pm 0.15,~0.38 \pm 0.13)$.
334:
335: \begin{table}
336: \caption{Ranges of angles in the unitarity triangle.}
337: \begin{center}
338: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c}
339: Angle & Expression & & Degrees & $\rho$ & $\eta$ \\ \hline
340: $\alpha$ & $\pi - \beta - \gamma$ & Min & 72 & $-0.01$ & 0.30 \\
341: & & Max & 113 & 0.25 & 0.27 \\
342: $\beta$ & tan$^{-1}[\rho/(1-\eta)]$ & Min & 17 & $-0.01$ & 0.30 \\
343: & & Max & 31 & 0.29 & 0.43 \\
344: $\gamma$ & tan$^{-1}(\eta/\rho)$ & Min & 48 & 0.25 & 0.27 \\
345: & & Max & 92 & $-0.01$ & 0.30 \\ \hline
346: \end{tabular}
347: \end{center}
348: \end{table}
349:
350: The Kobayashi-Maskawa theory predicts small differences in CP-violating
351: decays to pairs of charged and neutral pions. These arise in the
352: following way.
353:
354: \begin{enumerate}
355:
356: \item ``Tree'' amplitudes are
357: governed by $\bar s \to \bar u u \bar d$. Since this subprocess has three
358: nonstrange quarks in the final state, it contributes to both $\Delta I = 1/2$
359: and $\Delta I = 3/2$ transitions, and hence to both $I_{\pi \pi} = 0$ and
360: $I_{\pi \pi} = 2$ final states. The corresponding CKM matrix elements are
361: real, so these amplitudes do not have a weak phase.
362:
363: \item ``Penguin'' amplitudes involve a transition $\bar s \to \bar d$ with
364: internal $W$ and $u,c,t$ lines and emission or absorption of a gluon.
365: The subprocess has only one nonstrange quark
366: in the final state so it contributes only to $\Delta I = 1/2$ transitions
367: and hence only to the $I_{\pi \pi} = 0$ final state. Because of the presence
368: of all three $Q=2/3$ quarks in internal lines, these amplitudes have a weak
369: phase.
370:
371: \end{enumerate}
372:
373: As a consequence of the different isospin structure and weak phases of
374: the tree and penguin amplitudes, the $I_{\pi \pi} = 0$ and $I_{\pi \pi} = 2$
375: amplitudes thus acquire different weak phases, leading to a small difference
376: from unity of the ratio
377: \beq
378: R \equiv \frac{\Gamma(K_L \to \pi^+ \pi^-)/\Gamma(K_S \to \pi^+ \pi^-)}
379: {\Gamma(K_L \to \pi^0 \pi^0)/\Gamma(K_S \to \pi^0 \pi^0)}
380: = 1 + 6 {\rm~Re} \frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon}~~~,
381: \eeq
382: where $\epsilon'$ is related to the imaginary part of the ratio of the
383: $I_{\pi \pi} = 2$ and $I_{\pi \pi} = 0$ amplitudes. The ratio $\epsilon'/
384: \epsilon$ acquires an important term proportional to the CKM parameter $\eta$
385: from the penguin contribution. This term is partially canceled by an
386: ``electroweak penguin'' in which the gluon mentioned above is replaced by a
387: virtual photon or $Z$, whose isospin-dependent couplings to quarks
388: induce $\Delta I = 3/2$ contributions. $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ is expected to
389: be nearly real. Its magnitude was estimated by one group \cite{Buras} to be a
390: few parts in $10^4$, with a broad and somewhat asymmetric probability
391: distribution extending from slightly below zero to above $2 \times 10^{-3}$.
392: Some other estimates, discussed in Refs.~\cite{K99}, permit higher values.
393:
394: \begin{table}
395: \caption{Experimental values for Re$(\epsilon'/\epsilon)$.}
396: \begin{center}
397: \begin{tabular}{c c c c}
398: \protect
399: Experiment & Reference & Value ($\times 10^{-4}$) & $\Delta \chi^2$ \\ \hline
400: Fermilab E731 & \cite{E731} & $7.4 \pm 5.9$ & 3.97 \\
401: CERN NA31 & \cite{NA31} & $23.0 \pm 6.5$ & 0.35 \\
402: Fermilab E832 & \cite{E832} & $28.0 \pm 4.1$ & 4.65 \\
403: CERN NA48 & \cite{NA48} & $14.0 \pm 4.3$ & 1.44 \\
404: Average & & $19.2 \pm 4.6$ & $\sum = 10.4$ \\ \hline
405: \end{tabular}
406: \end{center}
407: \end{table}
408:
409: The most recent experiments on Re($\epsilon'/\epsilon$) are summarized in
410: Table 3. A scale factor \cite{PDG} of 1.86 is included in the error of the
411: average to account for the large spread in quoted results. The value of
412: $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ is non-zero, with a magnitude in the ballpark of
413: estimates based on the Kobayashi-Maskawa theory. The fact that it is larger
414: than some theoretical estimates is not a serious problem, given that we still
415: cannot account reliably for the
416: large enhancement of $\Delta I = 1/2$ amplitudes with respect to $\Delta I =
417: 3/2$ amplitudes in {\it CP-conserving} $K \to \pi \pi$ decays.
418:
419: \subsection{Other rare kaon decays}
420:
421: A CP- or T-violating angular asymmetry in $K_L \to \pi^+ \pi^- e^+ e^-$ has
422: recently been reported \cite{KTeVa,NA48a}. With a final state consisting of
423: four distinct particles, using the three independent final c.m. momenta, one
424: can construct a T-odd observable whose presence is signaled by a characteristic
425: distribution in the angle $\phi$ between the $\pi^+ \pi^-$ and $e^+ e^-$ planes.
426:
427: The asymmetry in $\sin \phi \cos \phi$ reported in Ref.~\cite{KTeVa}
428: is $(13.6 \pm 2.5 \pm 1.2)\%$. It arises from interference between two
429: processes. (1) The $K_L$ decays to $\pi^+ \pi^-$ with an amplitude $\epsilon$.
430: This process is CP-violating. One of the pions then radiates a virtual photon
431: which internally converts to $e^+ e^-$. (2) The CP-odd state $K_2$ can
432: decay directly to $\pi^+ \pi^- \gamma$ via a weak magnetic dipole transition.
433: This process is CP-conserving.
434:
435: The decay $K_L \to \mu^+ \mu^- \gamma$ has recently been studied
436: with sufficiently high statistics to permit a greatly improved measurement
437: of the virtual-photon form factor in $K_L \to \gamma^* \gamma$ \cite{BQ}.
438: This measurement is useful in estimating the long-distance contribution to
439: the real part of the amplitude in $K_L \to \gamma^{(*)} \gamma^{(*)} \to
440: \mu^+ \mu^-$, which in turn allows one to limit the short-distance contribution
441: to $K_L \to \mu^+ \mu^-$. Since this contribution involves loops with
442: virtual $W$'s and $u,c,t$ quarks, useful bounds on CKM matrix elements can be
443: placed. Preliminary results \cite{BQ} indicate $\rho > -0.2$, the best limit
444: so far from any process involving kaons.
445:
446: Several neutral-current processes involving $K \to \pi + ({\rm lepton
447: ~pair})$ can shed further light on the Kobayashi-Maskawa theory of CP
448: violation \cite{BuK}.
449:
450: \begin{enumerate}
451:
452: \item The decay $K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar \nu$ is sensitive primarily to
453: $|V_{td}|$, with a small charm correction, and so constrains the combination
454: $|1.4 - \rho - i \eta|$. The predicted branching ratio is roughly
455: \beq
456: {\cal B}(K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar \nu) \simeq 10^{-10} \left| \frac{1.4 - \rho
457: - i \eta}{1.4} \right|^2~~~,
458: \eeq
459: For $0 \le \rho \le 0.3$ one then predicts (see \cite{BuK}) ${\cal B}(K^+ \to
460: \pi^+ \nu \bar \nu) = (0.8 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{-10}$, with additional
461: uncertainties associated with the charmed quark mass and the
462: magnitude of $V_{cb}$. A measurement of this branching ratio with an
463: accuracy of 10\% is of high priority in constraining $(\rho,\eta)$ further.
464:
465: The Brookhaven E787 Collaboration has reported one event
466: with negligible background \cite{E787}, corresponding to
467: \beq
468: {\cal B}(K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar \nu) = (1.5^{+3.4}_{-1.2}) \times 10^{-10}~~~.
469: \eeq
470: More data are expected from the final stages of analysis of this experiment,
471: as well as from a future version (Brookhaven E949) with improved sensitivity.
472:
473: \item The decays $K_L \to \pi^0 \ell^+ \ell^-$ are expected to be dominated by
474: CP-violating contributions, both indirect ($\sim \epsilon$) and direct.
475: There is also a CP-conserving ``contaminant'' from the intermediate state
476: $K_L \to \pi^0 \gamma \gamma$. The direct contribution probes the CKM parameter
477: $\eta$. It is expected to be comparable in magnitude to the indirect
478: contribution, and to have a phase of about $\pi/4$ with respect to it. Each
479: contribution (including the CP-conserving one) is expected to correspond to
480: a $\pi^0 e^+ e^-$ branching ratio of a few parts in $10^{12}$.
481: However, the decay $K_L \to \pi^0 e^+ e^-$ may be limited by backgrounds
482: in the $\gamma \gamma e^+ e^-$ final state associated with radiation of a
483: photon in $K_L \to \gamma e^+ e^-$ from one of the leptons
484: \cite{HG}. Present experimental upper limits (90\% c.l.) \cite{pll} are
485: \beq
486: {\cal B}(K_L \to \pi^0 e^+ e^-) < 5.64 \times 10^{-10}~,~~
487: {\cal B}(K_L \to \pi^0 \mu^+ \mu^-) < 3.4 \times 10^{-10}~~,
488: \eeq
489: still significantly above theoretical expectations.
490:
491: \item The decay $K_L \to \pi^0 \nu \bar \nu$ is expected to be due entirely to
492: CP violation, and provides a clean probe of $\eta$. Its branching
493: ratio, proportional to $A^4 \eta^2$, is expected to be about $3 \times
494: 10^{-11}$. The best current experimental upper limit (90\% c.l.) for this
495: process \cite{pnn} is ${\cal B}(K_L \to \pi^0 \nu \bar \nu) < 5.9 \times
496: 10^{-7}$, several orders of magnitude above the expected value.
497:
498: \end{enumerate}
499:
500: \subsection{Is the CKM picture of CP violation right?}
501:
502: Two key tests have been passed so far. The theory has succeeded, albeit
503: qualitatively, in predicting the range Re$(\epsilon'/\epsilon) = (1~{\rm to}~2)
504: \times 10^{-3}$. Its prediction for the branching ratio for $K^+ \to \pi^+
505: \nu \bar \nu$ is in accord with the experimental rate deduced from the one
506: event observed so far.
507:
508: One test still to be passed in the decays of neutral kaons is the measurement
509: of the height $\eta$ of the unitarity triangle through the decay $K_L \to
510: \pi^0 \nu \bar \nu$. Prospects for this measurement will be mentioned below.
511: However, in the nearer term, one looks forward to a rich set of effects in
512: decays of particles containing $b$ quarks, particularly the $B$ mesons. To
513: this end, experiments are under way at a number of laboratories around the
514: world.
515:
516: Asymmetric $e^+ e^-$ collisions are being studied at two ``$B$ factories,''
517: the PEP-II machine at SLAC with the BaBar detector, and the KEK-B collider in
518: Japan with the Belle detector. By end of April 2000, these detectors
519: were recording about 100 and 60 pb$^{-1}$ of data per day, respectively, and
520: had accumulated about 6 and 2 fb$^{-1}$ of data at the energy of the
521: $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance, which decays almost exclusively to $B \bar B$. The
522: BaBar experiment expects to have about 100 tagged $B^0 \to J/\psi K_S$ decays
523: by this coming summer \cite{SS}.
524:
525: Significant further data on $e^+ e^-$ collisions at the $\Upsilon(4S)$
526: are expected from the Cornell Electron Storage Ring with the upgraded CLEO-III
527: detector. The HERA-b experiment at DESY in Hamburg will study $b$ quark
528: production via the collisions of 920 GeV protons with a fixed target. The
529: CDF and D0 detectors at Fermilab will devote a significant part of their
530: program at Run II of the Tevatron to $B$ physics. In the longer term, one can
531: expect further results on $B$ physics from the general-purpose LHC detectors
532: ATLAS and CMS and the dedicated LHC-b detector at CERN, and possibly the
533: dedicated BTeV detector at Fermilab.
534:
535: \section{CP violation and $B$ decays}
536:
537: In constrast to the neutral kaon system, in which the eigenstates of the
538: mass matrix differ in lifetime by nearly a factor of 600, the eigenstates of
539: the corresponding $\b$--$\ob$ mass matrix are expected to differ in lifetime
540: by at most 10--20\% for strange $B$'s \cite{BBD}, and considerably less
541: for nonstrange $B$'s. Thus, instead of studying the properties of mass
542: eigenstates like $K_L$, one must resort to other means. There are two main
543: avenues of study.
544:
545: \begin{itemize}
546:
547: \item {\it Decays to CP eigenstates $f = \pm {\rm CP}(f)$} utilize interference
548: between direct decays $\b \to f$ or $\ob \to f$ and the corresponding paths
549: involving mixing: $\b \to \ob \to f$ or $\ob \to \b \to f$. Final states
550: such as $f = J/\psi K_S$ provide ``clean'' examples in which one quark
551: subprocess is dominant. In this case one measures $\sin 2 \beta$ with
552: negligible corrections. For the final state $\pi^+ \pi^-$, one measures
553: $\sin 2 \alpha$ only to the extent that the direct decay is dominated by
554: a ``tree'' amplitude (the quark subprocess $b \to u \bar u d$). When
555: contamination from the penguin subprocess $b \to d$ is present (as it is
556: expected to be at the level of several tens of percent), one must measure
557: decays to other $\pi \pi$ states (such as $\pi^\pm \pi^0$ and $\pi^0 \pi^0$)
558: to sort out various decay amplitudes \cite{GrL}.
559:
560: \item {\it ``Self-tagging'' decays} involve final states $f$ such as $K^+
561: \pi^-$ which can be distinguished from their CP-conjugates $\bar f$. A
562: CP-violating rate asymmetry arises if there exist two weak amplitudes
563: $a_i$ with weak phases $\phi_i$ and strong phases $\delta_i$ ($i=1,2)$:
564: $$
565: A(B \to f) = a_1 e^{i(+\phi_1 + \delta_1)} + a_2 e^{i(+\phi_2 + \delta_2)}~~~,
566: $$
567: \beq
568: ~~~~~A(\bar B \to \bar f) = a_1 e^{i(-\phi_1 + \delta_1)} + a_2 e^{i(-\phi_2
569: + \delta_2)}~~~.
570: \eeq
571: Note that the weak phase changes sign under CP-conjugation, while the strong
572: phase does not. The rate asymmetry is then
573: \beq
574: {\cal A}(f) \equiv \frac{\Gamma(f) - \Gamma(\bar f)}
575: {\Gamma(f) + \Gamma(\bar f)}
576: = \frac{2 a_1 a_2 \sin(\phi_1 - \phi_2) \sin(\delta_1 - \delta_2)}
577: {a_1^2 + a_2^2 + 2 a_1 a_2 \cos(\phi_1 - \phi_2) \cos (\delta_1 - \delta_2)}~~.
578: \eeq
579: Thus the two amplitudes must have different weak {\it and} strong phases in
580: order for a rate asymmetry to be observable. The
581: CKM theory predicts the weak phases, but no reliable estimates of strong phases
582: in $B$ decays exist. Some ways of circumventing this difficulty will be
583: mentioned.
584:
585: \end{itemize}
586:
587: \subsection{Decays to CP eigenstates}
588:
589: The interference between mixing and decay in decays of neutral $B$ mesons to
590: CP eigenstates leads to a term which modulates the exponential decay (see,
591: e.g., \cite{DR}):
592: \beq
593: \frac{d \Gamma(t)}{d t} \sim e^{- \Gamma t} (1 \mp {\rm Im} \lambda_0 \sin
594: \Delta m t)~~~,
595: \eeq
596: where the upper sign refers to $\b$ decays and the lower to $\ob$ decays.
597: $\Delta m$ is the mass splitting mentioned earlier, and the factor
598: $\lambda_0$ expresses the interference of decay and mixing amplitudes. For
599: $f = J/\psi K_S$, $\lambda_0 = -e^{-2 i \beta}$ to a good approximation, while
600: for $f = \pi^+ \pi^-$, $\lambda_0 \simeq e^{2 i \alpha}$ only to the extent
601: that the effect of penguin amplitudes can be neglected in comparison with
602: the dominant tree contribution.
603:
604: The time integral of the modulation term is
605: \beq
606: \int_0^\infty dt e^{- \Gamma t} \sin \Delta m t = \frac{1}{\Gamma} \frac{x}
607: {1 + x^2} \le \frac{1}{\Gamma} \cdot \frac{1}{2}~~~,
608: \eeq
609: where $x \equiv \Delta m/\Gamma$. This expression is maximum for $x = 1$,
610: and 95\% of maximum for the observed value $x \simeq 0.72$. It has been
611: fortunate that the $\b$ mixing
612: amplitude and decay rate are so well matched to one another.
613:
614: The CDF Collaboration \cite{CDFB} has learned how to ``tag'' neutral $B$
615: mesons at the time of their production and thus to measure the decay
616: rate asymmetry in $\b~(\ob) \to J/\psi K_S$. This asymmetry arises from the
617: phase $2 \beta$ characterizing the two powers of $V_{td}$ in the $\b$--$\ob$
618: mixing amplitude. The tagging methods are of two main types. ``Opposite-side''
619: methods rely on the fact that strong interactions always produce $b$ and $\bar
620: b$ in pairs, so that in order to determine the initial flavor of a decaying $B$
621: one must find out something about the ``other'' $b$-containing hadron produced
622: in association with it, either via the charge of the jet containing it or
623: via the charge of the lepton or kaon it emits when decaying. ``Same-side''
624: methods \cite{GNR} utilize the fact that a $\b$ tends to be associated more
625: frequently with a $\pi^+$, and a $\ob$ with a $\pi^-$, somewhere nearby in
626: phase space, whether through the dynamics of fragmentation or through the
627: decays of excited $B$ resonances.
628:
629: The CDF result is $\sin 2 \beta = 0.79^{+0.41}_{-0.44}$. An earlier result
630: from OPAL \cite{OPALB} and a newer result from ALEPH
631: \cite{ALEPHB}, both utilizing $B$'s produced in the decays of
632: the $Z^0$, can be combined with the CDF value to obtain $\sin 2 \beta = 0.91
633: \pm 0.35$, which exceeds zero at the 99\% confidence level \cite{ALEPHB}.
634: At the $1 \sigma$ lower limit (0.56) this is very close to the lower bound
635: (0.59) quoted in Table 2.
636:
637: \subsection{``Self-tagging'' decays and direct CP violation}
638:
639: An example of direct CP violation can
640: occur in $\b \to K^+ \pi^-$. One expects two types of contribution
641: to this process: a ``tree'' amplitude governed by the quark subprocess
642: $\bar b \to \bar u u \bar s$ with CKM factor $V^*_{ub} V_{us}$, and a
643: ``penguin'' amplitude governed by the quark subprocess $\bar b \to \bar s$
644: with dominant CKM factor $V^*_{tb} V_{ts}$ (since the contribution of the
645: top quark in the internal loop is dominant).
646: These contributions are summarized in Table 4.
647:
648: \begin{table}
649: \caption{Main amplitudes contributing to $\b \to K^{(*)+} \pi^-$.}
650: \begin{center}
651: \begin{tabular}{c c c c}
652: Amplitude & Subprocess & CKM factor & Weak phase \\ \hline
653: Tree & $\bar b \to \bar u u \bar s$ & $V^*_{ub} V_{us}$ & $\gamma$ \\
654: Penguin & $\bar b \to \bar s$ & $V^*_{tb} V_{ts}$ & $\pi$ \\
655: \end{tabular}
656: \end{center}
657: \end{table}
658:
659: Since the tree and penguin amplitudes have a relative weak phase $\gamma$
660: (mod $\pi$), one can have $\Gamma(\b \to K^+ \pi^-) \ne \Gamma(\ob \to K^-
661: \pi^+)$ as long as the strong phases $\delta_T$ and $\delta_P$
662: are different in the tree and penguin
663: amplitudes. However, even if these strong phases do not differ from one
664: another, the ratios of rates for various charge states of $B \to K \pi$ decays
665: can provide separate information on the weak phase $\gamma$ \cite{GR,FM,NR} and
666: the strong phase difference $\delta_T -\delta_P$.
667:
668: One must first deal with electroweak penguins which were
669: also relevant for the interpretation of $\epsilon'/\epsilon$. An early
670: suggestion (see the first of Refs.~\cite{GR}) proposed a way to extract
671: $\gamma$ from the rates for $B^+ \to (\pi^0 K^+, \pi^+ \k, \pi^+ \pi^0)$ and
672: the charge-conjugate processes. The amplitudes for the first two processes
673: (with appropriate factors of $\s$) form a triangle with an amplitude related
674: to the third process by flavor SU(3) as long as electroweak penguins are
675: negligible, which they are not \cite{DH}.
676: It turns out, however \cite{NR}, that the relevant electroweak
677: penguin's contribution to this process can be calculated, so that sufficiently
678: precise measurements of the rates for the above processes can indeed yield
679: useful information on $\gamma$.
680:
681: The possibility has been raised recently
682: \cite{NR,GRg,Hou} that the weak phase $\gamma$ may exceed $90^\circ$. Two
683: processes whose rates hint at this constraint are $\b \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and
684: $\b \to K^{*+} \pi^-$. The former process has a rate which is somewhat
685: smaller than expected, while the rate for the latter is larger than expected.
686:
687: The amplitudes contributing to $\b \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ are summarized in Table 5.
688: The relative phase of the tree and penguin amplitudes is $\gamma + \beta =
689: \pi - \alpha$. The two amplitudes will interfere destructively if the final
690: strong phase difference is small (as expected from perturbative QCD estimates,
691: which indeed may be risky), and if $\alpha < \pi/2$. This would tend to
692: favor not-too-positive values of $\rho$. There is some hint that the
693: interference is indeed destructive. The observed branching ratio \cite{CLB}
694: ${\cal B}(\b \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = (4.3^{+1.6}_{-1.4} \pm 0.5) \times 10^{-6}$
695: is less than the value of about $10^{-5}$ which one would estimate \cite{GRg}
696: from the tree amplitude alone (e.g., using the observed $B \to \pi e \nu_e$
697: branching ratio and factorization).
698:
699: \begin{table}
700: \caption{Main amplitudes contributing to $\b \to \pi^+ \pi^-$.}
701: \begin{center}
702: \begin{tabular}{c c c c}
703: Amplitude & Subprocess & CKM factor & Weak phase \\ \hline
704: Tree & $\bar b \to \bar u u \bar d$ & $V^*_{ub} V_{ud}$ & $\gamma$ \\
705: Penguin & $\bar b \to \bar d$ & $V^*_{tb} V_{td}$ & $-\beta$ \\
706: \end{tabular}
707: \end{center}
708: \end{table}
709:
710: The same types of amplitudes contributing to $\b \to K^+ \pi^-$ also
711: contribute to $\b \to K^{*+} \pi^-$ (see Table 4). As in
712: $\b \to K^+ \pi^-$, the relative phase between the tree and penguin amplitudes
713: is expected to be $\gamma - \pi$. One thus expects constructive
714: interference between the two amplitudes if the strong phase difference
715: is small and $\gamma > \pi/2$. Indeed, the branching ratio for $\b \to K^{*+}
716: \pi^-$ appears to exceed $2 \times 10^{-5}$, while the pure ``penguin''
717: process $B^+ \to K^+ \phi$ has a branching ratio less than $10^{-5}$.
718:
719: A global fit to the above two processes and many others (see the second of
720: Refs.~\cite{Hou}) finds $\gamma = (114^{+24}_{-23})^\circ$, which just grazes
721: the allowed region quoted in Table 2. Since the upper bound on $\gamma$ in
722: Table 2 is set primarily by the lower limit on $B_s$--$\overline{B_s}$ mixing,
723: such mixing should be visible in experiments of only
724: slightly greater sensitivity than those performed up to now.
725:
726: The Tevatron and the LHC
727: will copiously produce both nonstrange and strange neutral $B$'s,
728: decaying to $\pi^+ \pi^-$, $K^\pm \pi^\mp$, and $K^+ K^-$ \cite{WurtJesik}.
729: Each of these channels has particular advantages.
730:
731: \begin{itemize}
732:
733: \item The decays
734: $\b \to K^+ K^-$ and $B_s \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ should be highly
735: suppressed unless these final states are ``fed'' by rescattering from other
736: channels \cite{resc}.
737:
738: \item The decays $\b \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $B_s \to K^+ K^-$ can yield $\gamma$
739: when their time-dependence is measured \cite{RFKK}. The kinematic peaks
740: for these two states overlap significantly, so one must either use particle
741: identification or utilize the vastly different oscillation
742: frequencies for $\b$--$\ob$ and $B_s$--$\overline{B_s}$ mixing to distinguish
743: the two final states.
744:
745: \item A recent proposal for measuring $\gamma$ \cite{bskpi} utilizes the decays
746: $\b \to K^+ \pi^-$, $B^+ \to \k \pi^+$, $B_s \to K^- \pi^+$, and the
747: corresponding charge-conjugate processes. The $\b \to K^+ \pi^-$ and
748: $B_s \to K^- \pi^+$ peaks are well separated from one another and from
749: $\b \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $B_s \to K^+ K^-$ kinematically \cite{WurtJesik}.
750:
751: \end{itemize}
752:
753: The proposal of Ref.~\cite{bskpi} is based on the observation that $B \to K
754: \pi$ decays involve two types of amplitudes, tree ($T$) and penguin ($P$),
755: with relative weak phase $\gamma$ and relative strong phase $\delta$.
756: The decays $B^+ \to \k \pi^+$ are expected to be dominated by the penguin
757: amplitude (there is no tree contribution except through rescattering from other
758: final states), so this channel is not expected to display any CP-violating
759: asymmetries. One expects $\Gamma(B^+ \to \k \pi^+) = \Gamma(B^- \to \ok
760: \pi^-)$. This will provide a check of the assumption that rescattering
761: effects can be neglected. A typical amplitude is given by $A(\b \to K^+
762: \pi^-) = - [P + T e^{i(\gamma + \delta)}]$, where the signs are associated
763: with phase conventions for states \cite{GHLR}.
764:
765: We now define
766: \beq
767: \left\{ \begin{array}{c} R \\ A_0 \end{array} \right\}
768: \equiv \frac{\Gamma(\b \to K^+ \pi^-)
769: \pm \Gamma(\ob \to K^- \pi^+)}{2 \Gamma(B^+ \to \k \pi^+)}~~~,
770: \eeq
771: \beq
772: \left\{ \begin{array}{c} R_s \\ A_s \end{array} \right\}
773: \equiv \frac{\Gamma(B_s \to K^- \pi^+)
774: \pm \Gamma(\overline{B_s} \to K^+ \pi^-)}{2 \Gamma(B^+ \to \k \pi^+)}~~~,
775: \eeq
776: and $r \equiv T/P$, $\tl \equiv V_{us}/V_{ud}$. Then one finds
777: \beq
778: R = 1 + r^2 + 2 r \cos \delta \cos \gamma~~,~~~
779: R_s = \tl^2 + \left( \frac{r}{\tl} \right)^2 - 2 r \cos \delta \cos \gamma~~~,
780: \eeq
781: \beq
782: A_0 = - A_s = -2 r \sin \gamma \sin \delta~~~.
783: \eeq
784: The sum of $R$ and $R_s$ allows one to determine $r$. Then using $R$, $r$, and
785: $A_0$, one can solve for both $\delta$ and $\gamma$. The prediction $A_s =
786: - A_0$ serves as a check of the flavor SU(3) assumption which gave these
787: relations. An error of $10^\circ$ on $\gamma$ seems feasible with forthcoming
788: data from Run II of the Tevatron.
789:
790: The CLEO Collaboration has recently presented some upper limits on CP-violating
791: asymmetries in $B$ decays to light-quark systems \cite{CLEOCP}, based on 9.66
792: million events recorded at the $\Upsilon(4S)$. With asymmetries defined as
793: \beq
794: {\cal A}_{CP} \equiv
795: \frac{\Gamma(\overline{B} \to \bar f) - \Gamma(B \to f)}
796: {\Gamma(\overline{B} \to \bar f) + \Gamma(B \to f)}~~~,
797: \eeq
798: the results are shown in Table 6. No statistically significant asymmetries
799: have been seen yet. The sensitivity of these results is not yet adequate
800: to probe the maximum predicted values \cite{comb} $|{\cal A}_{CP}^{K^+ \pi}|
801: \le 1/3$, but is getting close.
802:
803: \begin{table}
804: \caption{CP-violating asymmetries in decays of $B$ mesons to light quarks.}
805: \begin{center}
806: \begin{tabular}{c c c}
807: Mode & Signal events & ${\cal A}_{CP}$ \\ \hline
808: $K^+ \pi^-$ & $80^{+12}_{-11}$ & $-0.04 \pm 0.16$ \\
809: $K^+ \pi^0$ & $42.1^{+10.9}_{-9.9}$ & $-0.29 \pm 0.23$ \\
810: $K_S \pi^+$ & $25.2^{+6.4}_{-5.6}$ & $+0.18 \pm 0.24$ \\
811: $K^+ \eta'$ & $100^{+13}_{-12}$ & $+0.03 \pm 0.12$ \\
812: $\omega \pi^+$ & $28.5^{+8.2}_{-7.3}$ & $-0.34 \pm 0.25$ \\ \hline
813: \end{tabular}
814: \end{center}
815: \end{table}
816:
817: \section{Some future measurements}
818:
819: The future of the experimental study of CP violation involves a broad program
820: of experiments with kaons, charmed and $B$ mesons, and neutrinos. We mention
821: just a few of the possibilities.
822:
823: \subsection{Rare kaon decays}
824:
825: Plans are afoot for measurement of the branching ratio for $K_L \to \pi^0
826: \nu \bar \nu$ at the required sensitivity (${\cal B} \simeq 3 \times 10^{-3}$).
827: Experiments are envisioned using both relatively slow kaons at Brookhaven
828: National Laboratory \cite{K0pio} and faster kaons at the Fermilab Main
829: Injector \cite{KAMI}. A Fermilab proposal \cite{CKM} seeks to accumulate
830: 100 events of $K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar \nu$ in order to measure $|V_{td}|$ to
831: a statistical precision of 5\% and an overall precision of 10\%.
832:
833: \subsection{Charmed mesons}
834:
835: Impressive strides have been taken in the measurement of mass differences
836: and lifetime differences for CP eigenstates of the neutral charmed mesons $D^0$
837: \cite{CLEOD,FOCUS}. No significant effects have been seen yet at the level
838: of a percent or so, but there are tantalizing hints \cite{ChTh}. It would be
839: worth while to follow up these possibilities. Electron-positron colliders,
840: mentioned below, will devote much of their running time to the study of $B$
841: mesons, but charmed mesons are accumulated as well in such experiments, and
842: the samples of them will increase. Hadronic experiments dedicated to
843: producing large numbers of $B$'s may also have more to say about mixing,
844: lifetime differences, and CP violation for charmed mesons.
845:
846: \subsection{$B$ production in symmetric $e^+ e^-$ collisions}
847:
848: Although asymmetric $e^+ e^-$ colliders, known as ``B-factories,'' are now
849: starting to take data at an impressive rate, the CLEO Collaboration at the
850: symmetric CESR machine has recently celebrated 20 years of $B$ physics,
851: and is continuing with an active program. It will be able in the
852: CLEO-III program to probe charmless $B$ decays down to branching ratios of
853: $10^{-6}$. In so doing, it may be able to detect the elusive $\b \to \pi^0
854: \pi^0$ mode, whose rate will help pin down the penguin amplitude's
855: contribution and permit a determination of the CKM phase $\alpha$ \cite{GrL}.
856:
857: Other final states of great interest at this level include $VP$ and $VV$,
858: where $P,V$ denote light pseudoscalar and vector mesons. There is a good
859: chance that direct CP violation may show up in one or more channels if final
860: state phase differences are sufficiently large. The detailed study of angular
861: correlations in $VV$ channels may be able to provide useful information on
862: strong final state phases.
863:
864: A useful probe of rescattering effects \cite{resc}, mentioned above, is
865: the decay $\b \to K^+ K^-$. This decay is expected to have a branching
866: ratio of only a few parts in $10^8$ if rescattering is unimportant, but could
867: be enhanced by more than an order of magnitude in the presence of rescattering
868: from other channels.
869:
870: A challenging channel of fundamental importance is $B^+ \to \tau^+ \bar
871: \nu_\tau$. The rate for this process will provide information on the
872: combination $f_B |V_{cb}|$. Rare decays which have not yet been seen
873: (such as $B \to X \ell^+ \ell^-$ and $B \to X \nu \bar \nu$) will probe the
874: effects of new particles in loops.
875:
876: \subsection{$B$ production in asymmetric $e^+ e^-$ collisions}
877:
878: The benchmark process for the BaBar and Belle detectors will be the measurement
879: of $\sin 2 \beta$ in $\b \to J/\psi K_S$. The PEP-II and KEK-B machines
880: utilize asymmetric $e^+ e^-$ collisions in order to create a moving reference
881: frame in which the decays of $\b$ and $\ob$ are separated by a large enough
882: distance for their separation to be detectable. (Each travels only an average
883: distance of 30 $\mu$m in the center of mass.) This facilitates both flavor
884: tagging and improvement of signal with respect to background. These machines
885: will make possible a host of time-dependent studies in such decays as $B \to
886: \pi \pi$, $B \to K \pi$, etc., and their impressive luminosities will
887: eventually add significantly to the world's tally of detected $B$'s.
888:
889: \subsection{Hadronic $B$ production}
890:
891: The strange $B$'s cannot be produced at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ which will dominate
892: the attention of $e^+ e^-$ colliders for some years to come. Hadronic reactions
893: at high energies will produce copious $b$'s incorporated into
894: all sorts of hadrons: nonstrange, strange, and charmed mesons, and baryons.
895: One looks forward to a measurement of the strange-$B$ mixing
896: parameter $x_s = \Delta m_s/\Gamma_s$. The decays of $B_s$ can provide
897: valueable information on CKM phases and CP violation, as in
898: $B_s \to K^+ K^-$ \cite{RFKK}. The width difference of 10--20\% expected
899: between the CP-even and CP-odd eigenstates of the $B_s$ system \cite{BBD}
900: should be visible in the next round of experiments.
901:
902: \subsection{Neutrino studies}
903:
904: The origin of magnitudes and phases in the CKM matrix is intimately connected
905: with the origin of the quark masses themselves, whose physics still eludes us.
906: We will not understand this pattern until we have mapped out a similar pattern
907: for the leptons, a topic to which many other talks in this Workshop are
908: devoted. Our understanding of neutrino masses and mixings
909: will benefit greatly from forthcoming experiments at the Sudbury Neutrino
910: Observatory \cite{SNO}, Borexino \cite{Bxo}, K2K \cite{Kam}, and Fermilab
911: (BooNE and MINOS) \cite{Fnu}, to name a few.
912:
913: \subsection{The $(\rho,\eta)$ plot in a few years}
914:
915: \begin{figure}
916: \centerline{\epsfysize = 3in \epsffile {fig2.eps}}
917: \caption{\small Example of a region in the $(\rho,\eta)$ plane that might be
918: allowed by data in the year 2003. Constraints are based on the following
919: assumptions: $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}| = 0.08 \pm 0.008$ (solid semicircles),
920: $|V_{ub}/V_{td}|=|(\rho-i\eta)/(1-\rho-i\eta)| = 0.362 \pm 0.036$ based on
921: present data on $B^0$--$\bar B^0$ mixing and a measurement of $B(B^+ \to \tau^+
922: \nu_\tau)$ to $\pm 20\%$ (dashed semicircles), CP-violating $K$--$\bar K$
923: mixing as discussed in Sec.~2 but with $V_{cb}$ measured to $\pm 4\%$ (dotted
924: hyperbolae), the bound $x_s > 20$ for $B_s^0$--$\bar B_s^0$ mixing (to the
925: right of the dot-dashed semicircle), and measurement of $\sin 2 \beta$ to $\pm
926: 0.059$ (diagonal straight lines). The plotted point, corresponding to
927: $(\rho,\eta) = (0.06,0.36)$, lies roughly within the center of the allowed
928: region.}
929: \end{figure}
930:
931: The $(\rho,\eta)$ plot might appear as shown in Fig.~2 in a few years
932: \cite{JRlatt,NSF}. We can look forward either to a reliable determination of
933: parameters or to the possibility that one or more
934: experiments give contradictory results, indicating the need for new
935: physics. Such new physics most typically shows up in the form of additional
936: contributions to $\b$--$\ob$ mixing \cite{GLmix}, though it can also show up in
937: decays \cite{GW}.
938:
939: \section{Baryon asymmetry}
940:
941: The ratio of the number of baryons $n_B$ to the number of photons $n_\gamma$ in
942: the Universe is a few parts in $10^{10}$, much larger than the corresponding
943: ratio for antibaryons. Shortly after the discovery of CP violation in neutral
944: kaon decays, Sakharov proposed in 1967 \cite{Sakh} three ingredients needed to
945: understand this preponderance of matter over antimatter: (1) an epoch in which
946: the Universe was not in thermal equilibrium, (2) an interaction violating
947: baryon number, and (3) CP (and C) violation. However, one can't
948: explain the observed baryon asymmetry merely by means of the CP violation
949: contained in the CKM matrix. The effects are too small unless some new physics
950: is introduced. Two examples are the following:
951:
952: \begin{itemize}
953:
954: \item The concept of supersymmetry, in which each particle of spin $J$ has
955: a ``superpartner'' of spin $J \pm 1/2$, affords many opportunities for
956: introducing new CP-violating phases and interactions which could affect
957: particle-antiparticle mixing \cite{SSBrev}.
958:
959: \item The presence of neutrino masses at the sub-eV level can signal large
960: Majorana masses for right-hand neutrinos, exceeding $10^{11}$ GeV \cite{PR}.
961: Lepton number ($L$) is violated by such masses. The violation of $L$ can
962: easily be reprocessed into baryon number ($B$) violation by $B-L$ conserving
963: interactions at the electroweak scale \cite{LepBar}. New CP-violating
964: interactions must then exist at the high mass scale if lepton number is to
965: be generated there. It is conceivable that these interactions
966: are related to CKM phases, but the link will be very indirect \cite{DPF}.
967: In any case, if this alternative is the correct one, it will be very important
968: to understand the leptonic analogue of the CKM matrix!
969:
970: \end{itemize}
971:
972: \section{Conclusions}
973:
974: The CKM theory of CP violation in neutral kaon decays has
975: passed a crucial test. The parameter $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ is
976: nonzero, and has the expected order of magnitude, though exceeding
977: some theoretical estimates. Still to come will be
978: several tests using $B$ mesons, including the observation of a difference in
979: rates between $\b \to J/\psi K_S$ and $\ob \to J/\psi K_S$. There will be
980: more progress in ``tagging'' neutral $B$'s, and we
981: can look forward to rich information from measurements of decay
982: rates of charged and neutral $B$'s into a variety of final states.
983:
984: I see two possibilities for our understanding of CP violation in the next few
985: years. (1) If $B$ decays do not provide a consistent set of CKM phases, we will
986: be led to examine other sources of CP violation.
987: Most of these, in contrast to the CKM theory, predict neutron
988: and electron dipole moments very close to their present experimental upper
989: limits. (2) If, on the other hand, the CKM picture still hangs together after
990: a few years, attention should naturally shift to the next ``layer of the
991: onion'': the origin of the CKM phases (and the associated quark and
992: lepton masses). It is probably time to start anticipating this possibility,
993: given the resilience of the CKM picture since it was first proposed nearly
994: 30 years ago.
995:
996: \section{Acknowledgements}
997:
998: It is a pleasure to thank Maria Eugenia and Jose Nieves for their wonderful
999: hospitality in San Juan. This work was supported in part by the United States
1000: Department of Energy under Grant No.\ DE FG02 90ER40560.
1001:
1002: % Journal and other miscellaneous abbreviations for references
1003: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.\ J. Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1004: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1005: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.\ Polonica {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1006: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1007: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1008: \def \cn{Collaboration}
1009: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,
1010: Singapore, 1989)}
1011: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.~Phys.~J.~C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1012: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and
1013: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by
1014: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
1015: Batavia, IL, 1979}
1016: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and
1017: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel
1018: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl., vol. 3) (North-Holland,
1019: Amsterdam, 1988)}
1020: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
1021: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1022: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High
1023: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,
1024: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,
1025: IL, 1972)}
1026: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1027: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
1028: \def \jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1029: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.~Phys.~B~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1030: \def \lg{{\it Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on
1031: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, August 9--14 1999,
1032: edited by J. Jaros and M. Peskin (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)}
1033: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of
1034: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --
1035: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore,
1036: 1987)}
1037: \def \kdvs#1#2#3{{Kong.~Danske Vid.~Selsk., Matt-fys.~Medd.} {\bf #1}, No.~#2
1038: (#3)}
1039: \def \ky85{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and
1040: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.
1041: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}
1042: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1043: \def \nat#1#2#3{Nature {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1044: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim. {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1045: \def \np#1#2#3{Nucl. Phys. {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1046: \def \PDG{Particle Data Group, L. Montanet \ite, \prd{50}{1174}{1994}}
1047: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP Lett.
1048: {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}
1049: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys. Lett. {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1050: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys. Lett. A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1051: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys. Lett. B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1052: \def \pr#1#2#3{Phys. Rev. {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1053: \def \prc#1#2#3{Phys. Rev. C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1054: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys. Rev. D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1055: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1056: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys. Rep. {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1057: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1058: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1059: \def \rp#1{~~~~~\ldots\ldots{\rm rp~}{#1}~~~~~}
1060: \def \si90{25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore,
1061: Aug. 2-8, 1990}
1062: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of
1063: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),
1064: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}
1065: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on
1066: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.
1067: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}
1068: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary
1069: Particle Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.
1070: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}
1071: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the
1072: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass, Colorado),
1073: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}
1074: \def \tasi{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990
1075: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,
1076: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker
1077: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}
1078: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad. Fiz. {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf #1},
1079: #4 (#3)]}
1080: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov. Phys. -
1081: JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}
1082: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit. Phys. C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1083: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit. Phys. D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1084:
1085: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1086:
1087: \bibitem{CCFT} J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch, and R. Turlay,
1088: \prl{13}{138-140}{1964}.
1089:
1090: \bibitem{CPT} J. Schwinger, \pr{91}{713-728}{1953}; \pr{94}{1362-1384}{1954};
1091: G. L\"uders, \kdvs{28}{5, 1-17}{1954}; \apny{2}{1-15}{1957}; W. Pauli, in
1092: {\it Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics}, edited by W. Pauli
1093: (Pergamon, New York, 1955), pp.~30-51.
1094:
1095: \bibitem{KM} M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, \ptp{49}{652-657}{1973}.
1096:
1097: \bibitem{Cab} N. Cabibbo, \prl{10}{531-532}{1963}.
1098:
1099: \bibitem{E832} KTeV (Fermilab E832) Collaboration, A. Alavi-Harati \ite,
1100: \prl{83}{22}{1999}.
1101:
1102: \bibitem{NA48} NA48 \cn, G. D. Barr \ite, presented at CERN seminar
1103: by A. Ceccucci, Feb.\ 29, 2000 (unpublished). Follow the links on
1104: http://www/cern.ch/NA48/ for a copy of the transparencies.
1105:
1106: \bibitem{SCPrev} For a review see S. M. Barr, in {\it TASI 94: CP Violation
1107: and the Limits of the Standard Model,} Boulder, CO, 29 May -- 24 June 1994,
1108: edited by J. F. Donoghue (World Scientific, River Edge, NJ, 1995), pp.~87-111.
1109:
1110: \bibitem{RB} G. D. Rochester and C. C. Butler, \nat{160}{855-857}{1947}.
1111:
1112: \bibitem{GN} M. Gell-Mann, \pr{92}{833-834}{1953}; ``On the Classification of
1113: Particles,'' 1953 (unpublished); M. Gell-Mann and A. Pais, in
1114: {\it Proceedings of the 1954 Glasgow Conference on Nuclear and Meson Physics},
1115: edited by E. H. Bellamy and R. G. Moorhouse (Pergamon, London and New York,
1116: 1955); M. Gell-Mann, \nc{4}{Suppl.\ 848-866}{1956};
1117: T. Nakano and K. Nishijima, \ptp{10}{581-582}{1953};
1118: K. Nishijima, \ptp{12}{107-108}{1954}; \ptp{13}{285--304}{1955}.
1119:
1120: \bibitem{GP} M. Gell-Mann and A. Pais, \pr{97}{1387-1389}{1955}.
1121:
1122: \bibitem{CPK} T. D. Lee, R. Oehme, and C. N. Yang, \pr{106}{340-345}{1957};
1123: L. D. Landau, \np{3}{127-131}{1957}.
1124:
1125: \bibitem{KL} K. Lande, E. T. Booth, J. Impeduglia, and L. M. Lederman,
1126: \pr{103}{1901-1904}{1956}.
1127:
1128: \bibitem{BW} B. Winstein, in {\it Festi-Val -- Festschrift
1129: for Val Telegdi}, ed.~by K. Winter (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988), pp.~245-265.
1130:
1131: \bibitem{SW} L. Wolfenstein, \prl{13}{562-564}{1964}.
1132:
1133: \bibitem{Revs}
1134: P. K. Kabir, {\it The CP Puzzle} (Academic Press, New York, 1968);
1135: T. P. Cheng and L. F. Li, {\it Gauge Theory of Elementary
1136: Particles} (Oxford University Press, 1984);
1137: R. G. Sachs, {\it The Physics of Time Reversal
1138: Invariance} (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988);
1139: K. Kleinknecht, in \cp89, pp.~41-104;
1140: J. L. Rosner, in \tasi, pp.~91-224;
1141: B. Winstein and L. Wolfenstein, \rmp{63}{1113-1148}{1992}.
1142:
1143: \bibitem{TTTV} J. L. Rosner, \ajp{64}{982-985}{1996}.
1144:
1145: \bibitem{RS} J. L. Rosner and S. A. Slezak, \efi~99-51, hep-ph/9912506,
1146: submitted to Am.~J.~Phys.
1147:
1148: \bibitem{WP} L. Wolfenstein, \prl{51}{1945-1947}{1983}.
1149:
1150: \bibitem{GL} M. Gell-Mann and M. L\'evy, \nc{16}{705-725}{1960}.
1151:
1152: \bibitem{CKMrevs} For reviews of information on CKM matrix elements see,
1153: e.g., F. Gilman, K. Kleinknecht, and Z. Renk, \epjc{3}{103-106}{1998};
1154: A. F. Falk, hep-ph/9908520, published in \lg;
1155: A. Ali and D. London, preprint hep-ph/0002167.
1156:
1157: \bibitem{Parodi} See, e.g., F. Caravaglio, F. Parodi, P. Roudeau, and
1158: A. Stocchi, talk given at 3rd Int.\ Conf.\ on $B$ Physics and CP Violation,
1159: Taipei, Taiwan, 3--7 Dec.\ 1999, preprint hep-ph/0002171.
1160:
1161: \bibitem{JRlatt} J. L. Rosner, in {\it Lattice '98} (Proceedings of the XVIth
1162: International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, Boulder, Colorado, 13--18 July
1163: 1998), edited by T. DeGrand, C. DeTar, R. Sugar, and D. Toussaint, Nucl.\
1164: Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.) {\bf 73}, 29-42 (1999).
1165:
1166: \bibitem{BOSC} Slightly more up-to-date world averages for nonstrange
1167: and strange neutral $B$ mixing amplitudes may be found in
1168: http://www.cern.ch/LEPBOSC/.
1169:
1170: \bibitem{Blay} G. Blaylock, in \lg.
1171:
1172: \bibitem{JRFM} J. L. Rosner, \prd{42}{3732-3740}{1990}.
1173:
1174: \bibitem{Buras} A. J. Buras, M. Jamin, and M. E. Lautenbacher, \plb{389}
1175: {749-756}{1996}.
1176:
1177: \bibitem{K99} See the articles on $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ by A. J. Buras,
1178: S. Bertolini, R. Gupta, G. Martinelli, and W. A. Bardeen in {\it Kaon Physics},
1179: edited by J. L. Rosner and B. Winstein (University of Chicago Press, 2000).
1180:
1181: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, C. Caso \ite, \epjc{3}{1-794}{1998}.
1182:
1183: \bibitem{E731} Fermilab E731 \cn, L. K. Gibbons \ite, \prl{70}{1203-1206}
1184: {1993}; \prd{55}{6625-6715}{1997}.
1185:
1186: \bibitem{NA31} CERN NA31 \cn, G. D. Barr \ite, \plb{317}{233-242}{1993}.
1187:
1188: \bibitem{KTeVa} KTeV \cn, A. Alavi-Harati \ite, \prl{84}{408-411}{2000}.
1189:
1190: \bibitem{NA48a} NA48 \cn, G. D. Barr \ite, presented by S. Wronka in
1191: {\it Kaon Physics} \cite{K99}.
1192:
1193: \bibitem{BQ} KTeV \cn, G. Breese Quinn, Ph.\ D. Thesis, University of Chicago,
1194: May, 2000 (unpublished).
1195:
1196: \bibitem{BuK} G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, \np{B548}{309-327}{1999};
1197: G. Buchalla, in {\it Kaon Physics} \cite{K99}.
1198:
1199: \bibitem{E787} Brookhaven E787 \cn, S. Adler \ite, \prl{84}{3768-3770}{2000}.
1200:
1201: \bibitem{HG} H. B. Greenlee, \prd{42}{3724-3731}{1990}.
1202:
1203: \bibitem{pll} Fermilab E-799-II/KTeV \cn, A. Alavi-Harati \ite, presented by
1204: J. Whitmore at
1205: Kaon 99 Conference, Chicago, IL, June 21-26, 1999, published in {\it Kaon
1206: Physics} \cite{K99}; preprint hep-ex/0001005, and preprint in preparation.
1207:
1208: \bibitem{pnn} Fermilab E-799-II/KTeV \cn, A. Alavi-Harati \ite, \prd{61}
1209: {072006}{2000}.
1210:
1211: \bibitem{SS} A. J. S. Smith, private communication.
1212:
1213: \bibitem{BBD} M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, and I. Dunietz, \prd{54}{4419-4431}
1214: {1996}.
1215:
1216: \bibitem{GrL} M. Gronau and D. London, \prl{65}{3381-3384}{1990}.
1217:
1218: \bibitem{DR} I. Dunietz and J. L. Rosner, \prd{34}{1404-1417}{1986}.
1219:
1220: \bibitem{CDFB} CDF \cn, T. Affolder \ite, \prd{61}{072005}{2000}.
1221:
1222: \bibitem{GNR} M. Gronau, A. Nippe, and J. L. Rosner, \prd{47}{1988-1993}{1993};
1223: M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prl{72}{195-198}{1994}; \prd{49}{254-264}{1994}.
1224:
1225: \bibitem{OPALB} OPAL \cn, K. Ackerstaff \ite, \epjc{5}{379}{1998}.
1226:
1227: \bibitem{ALEPHB} ALEPH \cn, ALEPH report ALEPH 99-099, CONF 99-054, presented
1228: by R. Forty at 3rd Int.\ Conf.\ on $B$ Physics and CP Violation, Taipei,
1229: Taiwan, 3--7 December 1999.
1230:
1231: \bibitem{GR} M. Gronau, J. Rosner and D. London, \prl{73}{21-24}{1994};
1232: M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prl{76}{1200-1203}{1996}; \prd{57}{6843-6850}
1233: {1998}; A. S. Dighe, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \prd{54}{3309-3320}{1996};
1234: A. S. Dighe and J. L. Rosner, \ibj{54}{4677-4679}{1996};
1235: M. Gronau and D. Pirjol, \plb{449}{321-327}{1999}; \prd{61}{013005}{2000}.
1236:
1237: \bibitem{FM} R. Fleischer, \plb{365}{399-406}{1996}; \prd{58}{093001}{1998};
1238: R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, \prd{57}{2752-2759}{1998};
1239: A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, and T. Mannel, \np{B533}{3-24}{1998};
1240: R. Fleischer and A. J. Buras, \epjc{11}{93-109}{1999}.
1241:
1242: \bibitem{NR} M. Neubert and J. L. Rosner, \plb{441}{403-409}{1998}; \prl{81}
1243: {5076-5079}{1998}; M. Neubert, \jhep{9902}{014}{1999}.
1244:
1245: \bibitem{DH} N. G. Deshpande and X.-G. He, \prl{74}{26-29}{1995}; \ibj{74}
1246: {4099(E)}{1995}; O. F. Hern\'andez, D. London, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner,
1247: \prd{52}{6374-6382}{1995}.
1248:
1249: \bibitem{GRg} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{61}{073008}{2000}.
1250:
1251: \bibitem{Hou} X.-G. He, W.-S. Hou, and K.-C. Yang, \prl{83}{1100-1103}{1999};
1252: W.-S. Hou, J. G. Smith, and F. W\"urthwein, preprint
1253: hep-ex/9910014 (unpublished).
1254:
1255: \bibitem{CLB} CLEO \cn, D. Cronin-Hennessy \ite, Cornell University
1256: preprint CLNS 99-1650, hep-ex/0001010 (unpublished).
1257:
1258: \bibitem{WurtJesik} F. W\"urthwein and R. Jesik, talks for Working Group 1
1259: presented at Workshop on B Physics at the Tevatron -- Run II and Beyond,
1260: Fermilab, February 2000 (unpublished).
1261:
1262: \bibitem{resc} B. Blok, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \prl{78}{3999-4002}{1997};
1263: \ibj{79}{1167}{1997};
1264: A. Falk, A. L. Kagan, Y. Nir, and A. A. Petrov, \prd{57}{4290-4300}{1998};
1265: M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{57}{6843-6350}{1998}; \ibj{58}{113005}{1998};
1266: R. Fleischer, \plb{435}{221-232}{1998}; \epjc{6}{451-470}{1999}.
1267:
1268: \bibitem{RFKK} R. Fleischer, \plb{459}{306-320}{1999};
1269: DESY preprint DESY 00-014, hep-ph/0001253. See also I. Dunietz, Proceedings of
1270: the Workshop on $B$ Physics at Hadron Accelerators, Snowmass, CO, 1993, p. 83;
1271: D. Pirjol, \prd{60}{054020}{1999}.
1272:
1273: \bibitem{bskpi} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, preprint hep-ph/0003119, to be
1274: published in Phys.\ Lett.\ B.
1275:
1276: \bibitem{GHLR} M. Gronau, O. F. Hern\'andez, D. London and J. L. Rosner,
1277: \prd{50}{4529-4543}{1994}.
1278:
1279: \bibitem{CLEOCP} CLEO \cn, S. Chen \ite, Cornell University preprint
1280: CLNS 99-1651A, hep-ex/0001009.
1281:
1282: \bibitem{comb} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{59}{113002}{1999}.
1283:
1284: \bibitem{K0pio} KOPIO \cn, in {\it Rare Symmetry Violating Processes}, proposal
1285: to the National Science Foundation, October 1999, and Brookhaven National
1286: Laboratory Proposal P926 (unpublished).
1287:
1288: \bibitem{KAMI} KAMI \cn, Fermilab Proposal P804 (unpublished).
1289:
1290: \bibitem{CKM} CKM \cn, Fermilab Proposal P905.
1291:
1292: \bibitem{CLEOD} CLEO \cn, R. Godang \ite, Cornell University preprint
1293: CLNS 99-1659, hep-ex/0001060, submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.
1294:
1295: \bibitem{FOCUS} FOCUS \cn, Fermilab E831, J. M. Link \ite,
1296: FERMILAB-PUB-00-091-E, HEP-EX/0004034, submitted to Phys.\ Lett.\ B.
1297:
1298: \bibitem{ChTh} These are discussed, for example, by I. I. Bigi and N. G.
1299: Uraltsev, University of Notre Dame preprint UND-HEP-00-BIG01,
1300: hep-ph/0005089; S. Bergmann \ite, preprint hep-ph/0005181.
1301:
1302: \bibitem{SNO} R. van de Water, this Workshop.
1303:
1304: \bibitem{Bxo} See the description of this experiment at
1305: http://almime.mi.infn.it/
1306:
1307: \bibitem{Kam} M. Vagins, this Workshop.
1308:
1309: \bibitem{Fnu} J. Conrad, this Workshop; M. Shaevitz, this Workshop.
1310:
1311: \bibitem{NSF} P. Burchat \ite, Report of the NSF Elementary Particle
1312: Physics Special Emphasis Panel on $B$ Physics, July, 1998 (unpublished).
1313:
1314: \bibitem{GLmix} See, e.g., C. O. Dib, D. London, and Y. Nir, \ijmpa{6}
1315: {1253-1266}{1991}; M. Gronau and D. London, \prd{55}{2845-2861}{1997}.
1316:
1317: \bibitem{GW} Y. Grossman and M. P. Worah, \plb{395}{241-249}{1997};
1318: Y. Grossman, G. Isidori, and M. P. Worah, \prd{58}{057504}{1998}.
1319:
1320: \bibitem{Sakh} A. D. Sakharov, \pisma{5}{32-35}{1967}{24-27}.
1321:
1322: \bibitem{SSBrev} M. P. Worah, \prd{56}{2010-2018}{1997}; \prl{79}{3810-3813}
1323: {1997}; M. Carena, M. Quiros, A. Riotto, I. Vilja, and C. E. M. Wagner,
1324: \np{B503}{387-404}{1997}; M. P. Worah, in {\it Kaon Physics} \cite{K99}.
1325:
1326: \bibitem{PR} P. Ramond, this Workshop, and references therein.
1327:
1328: \bibitem{LepBar} G. 't Hooft, \prl{37}{8-11}{1976};
1329: M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, \plb{174}{45-47}{1986};
1330: M. A. Luty, \prd{45}{455-465}{1992};
1331: M. Pl\"umacher, \zpc{74}{549-559}{1997};
1332: W. Buchm\"uller and M. Plumacher, \plb{389}{73--77}{1996}; \ibj{431}{354-362}
1333: {1998}; \prp{320}{329--339}{1999}.
1334:
1335: \bibitem{DPF} J. L. Rosner, in {\it The Albuquerque Meeting} (Proceedings of
1336: the 8th Meeting, Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical
1337: Society, Aug.\ 2--6, 1994, The University of New Mexico), edited by S. Seidel
1338: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995), pp.~321-350;
1339: M. P. Worah, \prd{53}{3902-3912}{1996}.
1340:
1341: \end{thebibliography}
1342: \end{document}
1343: #!/bin/csh -f
1344: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
1345: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
1346: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
1347: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., tfigs.uu
1348: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
1349: # then say csh tfigs.uu
1350: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
1351: # uudecode tfigs.uu ; uncompress tfigs.tar.Z ;
1352: # tar -xvf tfigs.tar
1353: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
1354: # filename in "begin" line below to tfigs.tar_Z , then execute
1355: # uudecode tfigs.uu
1356: # compress -d tfigs.tar_Z
1357: # tar -xvf tfigs.tar
1358: #
1359: uudecode $0
1360: chmod 644 tfigs.tar.Z
1361: zcat tfigs.tar.Z | tar -xvf -
1362: rm $0 tfigs.tar.Z
1363: exit
1364:
1365: