1: % Draft of Apr. 22, 2001
2: % Updates since Jan. 19 draft marked %U
3: \documentstyle[epsfig,sprocl]{article}
4:
5: \font\eightrm=cmr8
6:
7: \bibliographystyle{unsrt} %for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by
8: %order of first citation.
9: \arraycolsep1.5pt
10:
11: \def \bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
12: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
13: \def \bo{B^0}
14: \def \bra#1{\langle #1 |}
15: \def \dz{D^0}
16: \def \eea{\end{eqnarray}}
17: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
18: \def \epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
19: \def \hp{\hat{p}}
20: \def \ket#1{| #1 \rangle}
21: \def \ko{K^0}
22: \def \mat#1#2{\langle #1 | #2 \rangle}
23: \def \ob{\overline{B}^0}
24: \def \od{\overline{D}^0}
25: \def \of{\overline{f}}
26: \def \ok{\overline{K}^0}
27: \def \ot{\overline{t}}
28: \def \pr{\parallel}
29: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
30: \def \st{\sqrt{3}}
31: \def \sx{\sqrt{6}}
32: \def \tl{\tilde{\lambda}}
33: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
34: %%BEGINNING OF TEXT
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36:
37: \begin{document}
38:
39: \title{CP VIOLATION IN $B$ DECAYS
40: }
41: % $^*$}
42:
43: \author{JONATHAN L. ROSNER}
44:
45: \address{Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics, University of
46: Chicago \\ 5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637 \\
47: E-mail: rosner@hep.uchicago.edu}
48:
49: \maketitle
50:
51: \abstracts{The role of $B$ decays in the study of CP violation is reviewed.
52: We treat the interactions and spectroscopy of the $b$ quark and then
53: introduce CP violation in $B$ meson decays, including time-dependences, decays
54: to CP eigenstates and non-eigenstates, and flavor tagging. Additional topics
55: include studies of strange $B$'s, decays to pairs of light pseudoscalar
56: mesons, and the roles of gluonic and electroweak penguin diagrams, and
57: final-state interactions.}
58:
59: \section{Introduction}
60:
61: Discrete symmetries such as time reversal (T), charge conjugation
62: (C), and space inversion or parity (P) have provided both clues and puzzles
63: in our understanding of the fundamental interactions. The realization that
64: the charge-changing weak interactions violated P and C maximally was central to
65: their formulation in the $V-A$ theory. The
66: theory was constructed in 1957 to conserve the product CP, but within seven
67: years the discovery of decay of the long-lived neutral kaon to two pions
68: \cite{CCFT} showed that even CP was not conserved. Nearly twenty years later,
69: Kobayashi and Maskawa (KM) \cite{KM} proposed that CP violation in the neutral
70: kaon system could be explained in a model with three families of quarks, at a
71: time (1973) when no evidence for the third family and not even all evidence
72: for the second had been found. The quarks of the third family, now denoted by
73: $b$ for bottom and $t$ for top, were subsequently discovered in 1977
74: \cite{ups} and 1994, \cite{top} respectively.
75:
76: Decays of hadrons containing $b$ quarks now appear to be particularly
77: fruitful ground for testing the KM hypothesis and for
78: displaying evidence for any new physics beyond this ``standard model'' of
79: CP violation. A meson containing a $\bar b$ quark will be known generically
80: as a $B$ meson, in the same way as a $K$ meson contains an (anti-) strange
81: quark $\bar s$. The present lectures are devoted to some tests of CP
82: violation utilizing $B$ meson decays. (Baryons containing $b$ quarks also
83: may display CP violation but we will not discuss them here.)
84:
85: We first deal with the spectroscopy and interactions
86: of the $b$ quark. In Section 2 we describe the discovery of the charmed quark,
87: the tau lepton, the $b$ quark, and $B$ mesons. Section 3 is devoted to the
88: spectroscopy of hadrons containing the $b$ quark, while Section 4 treats its
89: weak interactions. Neutral mesons containing the $b$ quark can mix with
90: their antiparticles (Section 5), providing important information on the weak
91: interactions of $b$ quarks.
92:
93: We then introduce CP violation in $B$ meson decays.
94: After general remarks and a discussion of decays to CP eigenstates
95: (Section 6) we turn to decays to CP-noneigenstates (Section 7) and describe
96: various methods of tagging the flavor of an initially-produced $B$ meson
97: (Section 8). Some specialized topics
98: include strange $B$'s (Section 9), decays to pairs of light mesons (Section
99: 10), and the roles of penguin diagrams (Section 11), and final-state
100: interactions (Section 12).
101:
102: Topics not covered in detail in the lectures but worthy of mention in this
103: review are noted briefly in Section 13. The possibility that the Standard
104: Model of CP violation might fail at some future time to describe all the
105: observed phenomena is discussed in Section 14, while Section 15 concludes.
106: Other contemporary reviews of the subject \cite{YN,RF} may be consulted.
107:
108: \section{Discovery of the $b$ quark}
109:
110: \subsection{Prelude: The charmed quark}
111:
112: During the 1960's and 1970's, when the electromagnetic and weak interactions
113: were being unified by Glashow, Weinberg, and Salam,\cite{GWS} it was
114: realized \cite{CQ} that a consistent theory of hadrons required a parallel
115: \cite{qu} between the then-known two pairs of weak isodoublets of leptons,
116: $(\nu_e,e^-),~(\nu_\mu,\mu^-)$,
117: and a corresponding multiplet structure for quarks,
118: $(u,d),~(c,s)$.
119: The known quarks at that time consisted of one with charge 2/3, the up
120: quark $u$, and two with charge $-1/3$, the down quark $d$ and the
121: strange quark $s$. The charmed quark $c$ was a second quark with charge 2/3
122: and a proposed mass of about 1.5 to 2 GeV/$c^2$.\cite{GIM,GLR}
123:
124: The parallel between leptons and quarks
125: was further motivated by the cancellation of anomalies \cite{CQ,BIM}
126: in the electroweak theory. These are associated with triangle graphs
127: involving fermion loops and three electroweak currents.
128: It is sufficient to consider the anomaly for the product $I_{3L} Q^2$, where
129: $I_{3L}$ is the third component of left-handed isospin and $Q$ is the
130: electric charge. The sum $\sum_i (I_{3L})_i Q_i^2$ over all fermions $i$
131: must vanish. If a family of quarks and leptons consists of one weak
132: isodoublet of quarks and one of leptons, this cancellation can be implemented
133: within a family, as illustrated in Table \ref{tab:anom}.
134:
135: \begin{table}[t]
136: \caption{Anomaly cancellation in the electroweak theory. \label{tab:anom}}
137: \vspace{0.2cm}
138: \begin{center}
139: \footnotesize
140: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|} \hline
141: Family & 1 & 2 & 3 & Contribution per family \\ \hline
142: Neutrino & $\nu_e$ & $\nu_\mu$ & $\nu_\tau$ & $(1/2)(0)^2 = 0$ \\
143: Charged lepton & $e^-$ & $\mu^-$ & $\tau^-$ & $(-1/2)(-1)^2 = -1/2$ \\
144: $Q=2/3$ quark & $u$ & $c$ & $t$ & $3(1/2)(2/3)^2 = 2/3$ \\
145: $Q=-1/3$ quark & $d$ & $s$ & $b$ & $3(-1/2)(-1/3)^2 = -1/6$ \\
146: \hline
147: \end{tabular}
148: \end{center}
149: \end{table}
150:
151: The first hints of charm arose in nuclear emulsions \cite{Niu} and were
152: recognized as such by Kobayashi and Maskawa.\cite{KM} However, more
153: definitive evidence appeared in November, 1974, in the form of the $^3S_1$
154: $c \bar c$ ground state discovered simultaneously on the East \cite{J}
155: and West \cite{psi} Coasts of the U.\ S.\ and named, respectively,
156: $J$ and $\psi$. The East Coast experiment utilized the reaction $p +
157: {\rm Be} \to e^+ e^- + \ldots$ and observed the $J$ as a peak at 3.1 GeV$/c^2$
158: in the effective $e^+ e^-$ mass. The West Coast experiment studied $e^+
159: e^-$ collisions in the SPEAR storage ring and saw a peak in the cross section
160: for production of $e^+ e^-$, $\mu^+ \mu^-$, and hadrons at a center-of-mass
161: energy of 3.1 GeV. Since the discovery of the $J/\psi$ the charmonium level
162: structure has blossomed into a richer set of levels than has been observed
163: for the original ``onium'' system, the $e^+ e^-$ positronium bound states.
164:
165: The lowest charmonium levels are narrow because they are kinematically
166: unable to decay to pairs of charmed mesons (each containing a single charmed
167: quark). The threshold for this decay is at a mass of about 3.73 GeV$/c^2$.
168: Above this mass, the charmonium levels gradually become broader. The charmed
169: mesons, discovered in 1976 and subsequently, include $D^+ = c \bar d$
170: (mass 1.869 GeV/$c^2$), $D^0 = c \bar u$ (mass 1.865 GeV/$c^2$), and $D_s = c
171: \bar s$ (mass 1.969 GeV/$c^2$). These mesons were initially hard to find
172: because the large variety of their possible decays made any one mode
173: elusive. For example, the two-body decay $D^0 \to K^- \pi^+$ has a branching
174: ratio of only about 3.8\%; \cite{PDG} higher-multiplicity decays are somewhat
175: favored.
176:
177: \subsection{Prelude: The $\tau$ lepton}
178:
179: About the same time as the discovery of charm, another signal was showing
180: up in $e^+ e^-$ collisions at SPEAR, corresponding to the production of
181: a pair of new leptons: $e^+ e^- \to \gamma^* \to \tau^+ \tau^-$.\cite{tau}
182: The $\tau$ signal had a number of features opposite to those of charm:
183: lower- rather than higher-multiplicity decays and fewer rather than more
184: kaons in its decay products, for example, so separating the two contributions
185: took some time.\cite{HH}
186:
187: The mass of the $\tau$ is 1.777 GeV/$c^2$. Its favored decay products are
188: a tau neutrino, $\nu_\tau$, and whatever the charged weak current can
189: produce, including $e \bar \nu_e$, $\mu \bar \nu_\mu$, $\pi$, $\rho$, etc.
190: It thus contributes somewhat less than one unit to
191: \beq
192: R \equiv \sum_i Q_i^2 = \frac{\sigma(e^+ e^- \to {\rm hadrons})}
193: {\sigma(e^+ e^- \to \mu^+ \mu^-)}~~~,
194: \eeq
195: which would have risen from the value of 2 for $u,d,s$ quarks below
196: charm threshold to 10/3 above charm threshold if charm alone were being
197: produced, but was seen to rise considerably higher.
198:
199: One problem with accepting the $\tau$ as a companion of the charmed quark
200: was that the neat anomaly cancellation provided by the charmed quark,
201: mentioned above, was immediately upset. The anomaly contributed by the
202: $\tau$ lepton would have to be cancelled by further particles, such as a pair
203: of new quarks $(t,b)$ with charge 2/3 and $-1/3$. Such quarks had indeed
204: already been utilized two years before the $\tau$ was established, in 1973
205: by Kobayashi and Maskawa \cite{KM} in their theory of CP violation. The
206: names ``top'' and ``bottom'' were coined by Harari in 1975,\cite{HHS} in
207: analogy with ``up'' and ``down.''
208:
209: \subsection{Dilepton spectroscopy}
210:
211: One reason for the experiment which discovered the $J$ particle \cite{J}
212: was an earlier study, also at Brookhaven National Laboratory, by L. Lederman
213: and his collaborators, of $\mu^+ \mu^-$
214: pairs produced in proton-uranium collisions.\cite{LLJ} The $m(\mu^+ \mu^-)$
215: spectrum in this experiment displayed a shoulder around 3.5 GeV$/c^2$. It
216: was not recognized as a resonant peak and was displaced in mass from the true
217: $J/\psi$ value because of the poor mass resolution of the experiment.
218:
219: After the discovery of the $J/\psi$, Lederman's group continued to pursue
220: dilepton spectroscopy. In 1977 a search with greater
221: sensitivity and better mass resolution turned up evidence for peaks at
222: 9.4, 10.0, and possibly 10.35 GeV$/c^2$.\cite{ups} These were candidates
223: for the 1S, 2S, and 3S $^3S_1$ levels of a new $Q \bar Q$ system. Several
224: pieces of evidence identified the heavy quark $Q$ as a $b$ quark.
225:
226: (1) The $\Upsilon$(1S) and $\Upsilon'$(2S) were produced in 1978 by the
227: electron-positron collider DORIS at DESY and their partial widths to
228: $e^+ e^-$ pairs were measured.\cite{DORIS} It was shown \cite{QRQ} that if the
229: $Q \bar Q$ system was bound by the same quantum
230: chromodynamic force as as the $c \bar c$ (charmonium) system, one could use
231: the $c \bar c$ states to gain some idea about the details of the $Q \bar Q$
232: binding. Since $\Gamma(Q \bar Q) \propto e_Q^2$, where $e_Q$ is the charge
233: of the quark $Q$, it was possible to conclude from the data that $|e_Q|=1/3$
234: was favored over $|e_Q| = 2/3$.
235:
236: (2) The Cornell $e^+ e^-$ ring CESR began operating in 1979,\cite{CESR}
237: reaching a fourth $\Upsilon$(4S) peak and finding it broader than the
238: first three. This indicated that the meson pair threshold lay below
239: $M[\Upsilon$(4S)]$ = 10.58$ GeV/$c^2$. Farther above this threshold, wiggles
240: in the total cross section for hadron production averaged out to indicate
241: a step in $R$ of 1/3, confirming that $|e_Q| = 1/3$.
242:
243: (3) The possibility that $Q$ was an isosinglet quark of charge $-1/3$, and
244: thus not the partner of some quark $t$ with charge 2/3, was
245: ruled out by the absence of significant flavor-changing neutral current
246: decays such as $b \to s \mu^+ \mu^-$.\cite{KP,CESRNC}
247:
248: The structure of the $\Upsilon$ levels
249: is remarkably similar to that of the charmonium levels except for having
250: more levels below flavor threshold. For example, the fact that the 3S level
251: is below flavor threshold allows it to decay to the 2P levels via electric
252: dipole transitions with appreciable branching ratios; the transitions between
253: the S and P levels are well described in potential models which reproduce other
254: aspects of the spectra. Several reviews treat the fascinating
255: regularities of the spectroscopy of these levels.\cite{specrevs}
256:
257: \subsection{Discovery of $B$ mesons}
258:
259: The lightest meson containing a $b$ quark and each flavor of light antiquark
260: is expected to decay weakly. The allowed decays of $b$ are $(c~{\rm or}~u)~+$
261: (virtual $W^-$), with the $c$ giving rise to lots of strange particles while
262: the $u$ gives few strange particles. The virtual $W^-$ can decay to $\bar u
263: d$, $\bar c s$, $e^- \bar \nu_e$, $\mu^- \bar \nu_\mu$, and $\tau^- \bar
264: \nu_\tau$.
265:
266: In $e^+ e^-$ collisions above $B \bar B$ threshold, several signals of $B$
267: meson production were observed by the CLEO Collaboration starting around
268: 1980: \cite{ET}
269:
270: \begin{itemize}
271:
272: \item Prompt leptons (signals of semileptonic decay)
273:
274: \item An abundance of kaons (a signal that $b \to c + W^-_{\rm virt}$ is
275: preferred over $b \to u + W^-_{\rm virt}$)
276:
277: \item ``Daughter'' (lower-momentum) leptons from $c$ semileptonic decays.
278:
279: \end{itemize}
280:
281: These indirect signals were followed by reconstruction of
282: $B^+$ and $\bo$ decays,\cite{Brecon} e.g.,
283: \beq
284: B^+ = \bar b u \to \bar c u \bar d u \to \bar D^0 \pi^+~~,~~~
285: \bo = \bar b d \to \bar c u \bar d d = D^- \pi^+~~~.
286: \eeq
287: Typical branching ratios for these final states \cite{PDG} are $(5.3 \pm 0.5)
288: \times 10^{-3}$ for $\bar D^0 \pi^+$ and $(3.0 \pm 0.4) \times 10^{-3}$ for
289: $D^- \pi^+$. $\bo \to \bar D^0 \pi^0$ is also allowed but
290: not yet observed. These small branching
291: ratios mean that reconstruction of exclusive final states is even harder
292: for $B$ mesons than for charmed particles.
293:
294: \section{The known $B$ hadrons}
295:
296: \subsection{$B$ mesons}
297:
298: \begin{table}
299: \caption{Ground-state heavy-light $(Q \bar q)$ pseudoscalar mesons and the
300: corresponding vector mesons.
301: Here the spectroscopic notation $^{2L+1}L_J$ is used to denote the spin,
302: orbital, and total angular momenta of the $Q \bar q$ state.
303: \label{tab:Bmes}}
304: \begin{center}
305: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
306: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Pseudoscalar ($^1S_0$) meson|} &
307: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Vector ($^3S_1$) meson|} \\ \hline
308: Quark content & Name & Mass (GeV/$c^2$) & Name & Mass (GeV/$c^2$) \\ \hline
309: $c \bar u$ & $D^0$ & $ 1864.5 \pm 0.5$ & $D^{*0}$ & $ 2006.7 \pm 0.5$ \\
310: $c \bar d$ & $D^+$ & $ 1869.3 \pm 0.5$ & $B^{*+}$ & $ 2010.0 \pm 0.5$ \\
311: $c \bar s$ & $D_s$ & $ 1968.6 \pm 0.6$ & $D_s^*$ & $ 2112.4 \pm 0.7$ \\ \hline
312: $\bar b u$ & $B^+$ & $5279.0 \pm 0.5$ & $B^{*+}$ & $5325.0 \pm 0.6$ \\
313: $\bar b d$ & $B^0$ & $5279.4 \pm 0.5$ & $B^{*0}$ & $5325.0 \pm 0.6$ \\
314: $\bar b s$ & $B_s$ & $5369.6 \pm 2.4$ & $B_s^*$ & $\simeq 5416$ \\ \hline
315: \end{tabular}
316: \end{center}
317: \end{table}
318:
319: The nonstrange ground-state $B$ (pseudoscalar) and $B^*$ (vector) mesons
320: are compared with the corresponding charmed mesons in Table \ref{tab:Bmes}.
321: Evidence for the $B_s^*$ exists in the form of a photon signal for the
322: decay $B_s^* \to B_s \gamma$.\cite{CUSBBs} The photon energy, 46 MeV, is
323: expected to be the same as that seen in $B^{*0} \to B^0 \gamma$.\cite{RW}
324:
325: Since the $B^*$ and $B$ states are separated by only 46 MeV, a $B^*$
326: should always decay to a $B$ of the same flavor and a photon.
327: This is in contrast to the case of the $D^*$ and $D$ states, whose separation
328: is just about a pion mass. The electromagnetic mass splittings are such that
329: $D^{*+} \to D^0 \pi^+$, $D^{*+} \to D^+ \pi^0$, and $D^{*0} \to D^0 \pi^0$
330: are just barely allowed, while $D^{*0} \to D^+ \pi^-$ is forbidden. The
331: low-momentum $\pi^+$ in $D^{*+} \to D^0 \pi^+$ acts as a ``tag,'' useful
332: both for signalling the production of a charmed meson \cite{Nus} and, by its
333: charge, distinguishing the $D^0$ from a $\bar D^0$. Since $B^*$ decays are
334: not useful for this type of ``flavor'' tag, one must resort to the decays of
335: heavier excited $b \bar q$ states (Section 8).
336:
337: The hyperfine splitting of $B$ mesons is smaller than that in charmed mesons
338: because the chromomagnetic moments of the heavy quarks scale as the
339: inverse of their masses:
340: \beq
341: \frac{m_{B^*} - m_B}{m_{D^*} - m_D} \simeq \frac{1/m_b}{1/m_c} =
342: \frac{m_c}{m_b} \simeq \frac{1}{3}~~~.
343: \eeq
344:
345: \subsection{The $\Lambda_b$ baryon}
346:
347: The lightest baryon containing a $b$ quark is the $\Lambda_b = b[ud]_{I=0}$.
348: Its mass is $5624 \pm 9$ MeV$/c^2$.\cite{PDG} The $ud$ system must be in a
349: color $3^*$ (antisymmetric) state, since the $b$ is a color triplet and the
350: $\Lambda_b$ is a color singlet. The spin-zero state of $ud$ is favored over
351: the spin-one state by the chromodynamic hyperfine interaction. By Fermi
352: statistics, the $ud$ pair must then be in an (antisymmetric) isospin-zero
353: state. For similar reasons, the $I=0$ state of a strange quark and two
354: nonstrange quarks, the $\Lambda = s[ud]_{I=0}$ with mass 1116 MeV$/c^2$, is
355: lighter than the $\Sigma = s(uu,ud,dd)_{I=1}$ states with average mass
356: 1193 MeV$/c^2$.
357:
358: The charmed analogue of the $\Lambda_b$ is the $\Lambda_c = c[ud]_{I=0}$ with
359: mass $2284.9 \pm 0.6$ MeV/$c^2$. The difference in mass of the two particles is
360: $M(\Lambda_b) - M(\Lambda_c) = 3339 \pm 9$ MeV$/c^2$. This provides
361: an estimate of $m_b - m_c$ since there are no hyperfine terms involving
362: the heavy quark; the light-quark system has zero spin in both baryons. There
363: will be a correction of order $m_c^{-1} - m_b^{-1}$ due to possible differences
364: in kinetic energies.
365:
366: One can perform a similar estimate for $Q \bar q$ mesons by eliminating the
367: hyperfine energy, performing a suitable average over vector ($^3S_1$) and
368: pseudoscalar ($^1S_0$) meson masses. The expectation value of the relevant
369: interaction
370: term is $\langle \sigma_Q \cdot \sigma_{\bar q} \rangle = (1,-3)$ for
371: $(^3S_1,^1S_0)$ states. Thus the hyperfine energy is absent in the combination
372: $[3M(^3S_1) + M(^1S_0)]/4$. Since $(3M_{D^*} + M_D)/4
373: = 1973$ MeV/$c^2$ and $(3M_{B^*} + M_B)/4 = 5313$ MeV/$c^2$ (taking isospin
374: averages), we estimate from the mesons that $m_b - m_c = 3340$ MeV$/c^2$,
375: identical to the estimate from the baryons. (Again, kinetic energies could
376: provide a correction to this result.) The spectroscopic assignment of the
377: $\Lambda_b$ is thus likely to be the correct one.
378:
379: Known decay modes of the $\Lambda_b$ include
380: $\Lambda_c^+ \ell^- \bar \nu_\ell$ and
381: $J/\psi \Lambda$. The fact that the corresponding quark subprocesses
382: $b \to c \ell^- \bar \nu_\ell$ and $b \to c \bar c s$ conserve isospin leads
383: to the requirement that the final states have zero isospin in both cases,
384: restricting the number of additional pions that can be produced.
385:
386: \section{Interactions of the $b$ quark}
387:
388: In this Section we shall discuss the way in which the interactions of the
389: $b$ quark provide information on the pattern of charge-changing weak
390: interactions of quarks parametrized by the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM)
391: matrix $V$.\cite{KM,Cab} More details on determination of the CKM matrix are
392: included in the lectures by Buchalla,\cite{Buch} DeGrand,\cite{DeG}
393: Falk,\cite{Falk}, Neubert,\cite{NeuTASI} and Wolfenstein,\cite{Wolf}
394:
395: \subsection{The $b$ lifetime: indication of small $|V_{cb}|$}
396:
397: The long $b$ quark lifetime ($> 1$ ps) indicated that the CKM element $V_{cb}$
398: was considerably smaller than $|V_{us}| \simeq |V_{cd}| \simeq 0.22$. One
399: can estimate $V_{cb}$ using a free-quark method.
400:
401: The subprocess $b \to c W^{*-} \to c \ell^- \bar \nu_\ell$ has a rate
402: \beq
403: \Gamma(b \to c \ell^- \bar \nu_\ell) = \frac{G_F^2}{192 \pi^3} m_b^5
404: |V_{cb}|^2 f(m_b,m_c,m_\ell)~~~,
405: \eeq
406: where $G_F = 1.16637(2) \times 10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-2}$ is the Fermi coupling
407: constant. In the limit in which
408: the lepton mass can be neglected, $f(m_b,m_c,m_\ell) = f(m_c^2/m_b^2)$, with
409: $f(x) = 1 - 8x + 8x^3 - x^4 - 12 x^2 \ln x$. The uncertainty in the prediction
410: for $\Gamma(b \to c \ell^- \bar \nu_\ell)$ due to that in $m_b$ is
411: mitigated by the constraint noted above on $m_b - m_c \simeq 3.34$ GeV/$c^2$.
412:
413: Taking a nominal range of quark masses around $m_b = 4.7$ GeV/$c^2$
414: (and hence a range around $m_c = 1.36$ GeV/$c^2$, $f(m_c^2/m_b^2)
415: = 0.54$), $\tau_b = 1.6 \times 10^{-6}$ s,\cite{PDG} and the branching ratio
416: ${\cal B}(b \to c \ell \nu_\ell) \simeq 10.2\%$, one finds
417: \beq
418: |V_{cb} \simeq 0.0384 - 0.0008 \left( \frac{m_b - 4.7~{\rm GeV}/c^2}{0.1
419: ~{\rm GeV}/c^2} \right)~~~.
420: \eeq
421: Thus if $m_b$ is uncertain by 0.3 GeV/$c^2$ (my guess), $|V_{cb}|$ is
422: uncertain by $\pm 0.0024$. Recent averages \cite{PDG,Falk} give rise to
423: values of $|V_{cb}|$ somewhat above 0.040 with errors of $\pm 0.002$ to
424: $\pm 0.003$.
425:
426: A new report by the CLEO Collaboration \cite{CLEOVcb} finds
427: $|V_{cb}| = 0.0462 \pm 0.0036$ based on the exclusive decay
428: process $B^0 \to D^{*-} \ell^+ \nu_\ell$. This new determination bears
429: watching as it would affect many conclusions regarding
430: predictions for CP-violating asymmetries in $B$ decays.
431: We shall take $|V_{cb}| = 0.041 \pm 0.003$ as representing a
432: conservative range of present values.
433:
434: \subsection{Charmless $b$ decays: indication of smaller $|V_{ub}|$}
435:
436: Although the $u$ quark is lighter than the $c$ quark, its production in
437: $b$ decays is disfavored, with $\Gamma(b \to u \ell \nu)/\Gamma(b \to c
438: \ell \nu)$ only about 2\%. Since the phase-space factor $f(m_u^2/m_b^2)$
439: is very close to 1, while $f(m_c^2/m_b^2) \simeq 1/2$, this means that
440: $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|^2 \simeq 1\%$, or $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}| \simeq 0.1$. The
441: error on this quantity is dominated by theoretical uncertainty \cite{Falk};
442: detailed studies \cite{Flg} indicate $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}| = 0.090 \pm 0.025$.
443:
444: \subsection{Pattern of charge-changing weak quark transitions}
445:
446: The relative strengths of charge-changing weak quark transitions are
447: illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:trans}. {\it Why} the pattern looks like this is
448: a mystery, one of the questions (along with the values of the quark masses)
449: to be answered at a deeper level.
450:
451: The interactions in Fig.\ \ref{fig:trans} may be parametrized by a
452: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix of the form \cite{WP}
453: \beq
454: V_{\rm CKM} = \left[ \begin{array}{c c c}
455: 1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2} & \lambda & A \lambda^3 (\rho - i \eta) \\
456: - \lambda & 1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2} & A \lambda^2 \\
457: A \lambda^3 (1 - \rho - i \eta) & - A \lambda^2 & 1 \end{array}
458: \right]~~~.
459: \eeq
460: The columns refer to $d,s,b$ and the rows to $u,c,t$. The parameter
461: $\lambda = 0.22$ represents $\sin \theta_c$, where $\theta_c$ is the
462: Gell-Mann--L\'evy--Cabibbo \cite{Cab,GL} angle. The value $|V_{cb}| =
463: 0.041 \pm 0.003$ indicates $A = 0.85 \pm 0.06$, while $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}| = 0.090
464: \pm 0.025$ implies $(\rho^2 + \eta^2)^{1/2} = 0.41 \pm 0.11$.
465:
466: Further information may be obtained by assuming that box diagrams involving
467: internal quarks $u,c,t$ with charge 2/3 are responsible for both the
468: CP-violating contribution to $K^0$--$\bar K^0$ mixing and to mixing between
469: neutral $B$ mesons and their antiparticles. The parameter $|\epsilon_K|
470: = (2.27 \pm 0.02) \times 10^{-3}$ (see Buchalla's lectures \cite{Buch}) then
471: implies a constraint \cite{JRCKM}
472: \beq
473: \eta(1 - \rho + 0.39) = 0.35 \pm 0.12~~~,
474: \eeq
475: where the $1 - \rho$ term in parentheses arises from box diagrams with two
476: internal top quarks, while the correction 0.39 is due to diagrams with one
477: charmed and one top quark. The error on the right-hand side is due primarily
478: to uncertainty in the Wolfenstein parameter $A = |V_{cb}|/\lambda^2$, which
479: enters to the fourth power in the $t \bar t$ contribution to $\epsilon_K$.
480: A lesser source of error is uncertainty in the parameter $B_K$ describing the
481: quark box diagram's matrix element between a $K^0$ and a $\bar K^0$. We have
482: chosen \cite{Lubicz} $B_K = 0.87 \pm 0.13$.
483:
484: % This is Figure 1
485: \begin{figure}
486: \centerline{\epsfysize=3in \epsffile{trans.ps}}
487: \caption{Pattern of charge-changing weak transitions among quarks. Solid
488: lines: relative strength 1; dashed lines: relative strength 0.22;
489: dot-dashed lines: relative strength 0.04; dotted lines: relative strength
490: $\le 0.01$. Breadths of lines denote estimated errors. \label{fig:trans}}
491: \end{figure}
492:
493: Present information on $\bo$--$\ob$ mixing, interpreted in terms of
494: box diagrams with two quarks of charge 2/3, leads to a constraint on
495: $|V_{td}|^2$ which implies \cite{JRCKM} $|1- \rho - i \eta| =0.87 \pm 0.21$ for
496: the parameter range $f_B \sqrt{B_B} = 230 \pm 40$ MeV describing the matrix
497: element of the short-distance 4-quark operator taking $\bar b d$ into $\bar d
498: b$ between $\bo$ and $\ob$ states. The best lower limit on
499: $B_s^0$--$\overline{B_s}^0$ mixing,\cite{Bslim} $\Delta M_s > 15$ ps$^{-1}$,
500: when compared with the corresponding value for $\bo$--$\ob$ mixing,
501: $\Delta m_d = 0.487 \pm 0.014$ ps$^{-1}$, leads to the bound
502: \beq
503: \frac{f_{B_s}^2 B_{B_s}}{f_B^2 B_B} \left| \frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}} \right|^2 > 29
504: ~~~.
505: \eeq
506: This may be combined with the estimate \cite{JRFM} $f_{B_s} \sqrt{B_{B_s}} \le
507: 1.25 f_B \sqrt{B_B}$ based on quark models. (Lattice gauge theories \cite{DeG}
508: estimate this coefficent more precisely, generally giving values between
509: 1.1 and 1.2.) One finds $|V_{ts}/V_{td}| \ge 4.4$ or $|1 - \rho - i \eta| <
510: 1.01$. The constraints may be combined to yield the
511: allowed range in $(\rho,\eta)$ space illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:re}.
512: Smaller regions are quoted in other reviews \cite{CKMrevs} which
513: view the theoretical sources of error differently.
514:
515: % This is Figure 2
516: \begin{figure}
517: \centerline{\epsfysize=2.5in \epsffile{re.ps}}
518: \caption{Region of $(\rho,\eta)$ specified by $\pm 1 \sigma$ constraints on
519: CKM matrix parameters. Solid semicircles denote limits
520: based on $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}| = 0.090 \pm 0.025$; dashed arcs denote limits
521: $|1 - \rho - i \eta|$ based on $\bo$--$\ob$ mixing; dot-dashed arc
522: denotes limit $|1 - \rho - i \eta| < 1.01$ based on $B_s$--$\overline{B_s}$
523: mixing; dotted lines denote limits $\eta (1 - \rho + 0.39) = 0.35 \pm 0.12$
524: based on CP-violating $\ko$--$\ok$ mixing. Rays: $\pm 1 \sigma$ limits
525: on $\sin 2 \beta$ (see Sec.\ 6.4). The plotted point at $(\rho,\eta)
526: %U |
527: \simeq (0.20,0.26)$ lies roughly in the middle of the allowed
528: region. \label{fig:re}}
529: \end{figure}
530:
531: \subsection{Unitarity triangle}
532:
533: The unitarity of the CKM matrix implies that to the order we are considering,
534: $V^*_{ub} + V_{td} = A \lambda^3$. If this equation is divided by
535: $A \lambda^3$, one obtains a triangle in the $(\rho,\eta)$ complex plane
536: whose vertices are at $(0,0)$ (internal angle $\gamma$), $(\rho,\eta)$
537: (internal angle $\alpha$), and $(1,0)$ (internal angle $\beta$).
538:
539: CP-violating asymmetries in certain $B$ decays can measure such quantities as
540: $\sin 2 \alpha$ and $\sin 2 \beta$. The former, measured in $\bo \to \pi^+
541: \pi^-$ with some corrections due to ``penguin'' diagrams, may occupy a wide
542: range, as illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:re}. The latter, measured in the
543: ``golden mode'' $\bo \to J/\psi K_S$ with few uncertainties, is more
544: constrained by other observables.
545:
546: The goal of measurements of CP violation and other quantities in $B$ decays
547: will be to test the consistency of this picture and to either restrict the
548: parameter space further, thus providing a reliable target for future theories
549: of these parameters, or to expose inconsistencies that will point to new
550: physics. Hence part of the program will be to overconstrain the unitarity
551: triangle, measuring both sides and angles in several different types of
552: processes. While we discuss such measurements based on $B$ mesons,
553: Buchalla \cite{Buch} describes how, for example, $K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar
554: \nu$ constrains the combination $|1 - \rho - i \eta + 0.44|$, where the
555: last term is a charmed quark correction to the dominant top quark contribution,
556: and the purely CP-violating process $K_L \to \pi^0 \nu \bar \nu$ constrains
557: $\eta$.
558:
559: \section{Mixing of neutral $B$ mesons}
560:
561: \subsection{Mass matrix formalism}
562:
563: We shall work in a two-component basis utilizing the states $(\bo, \ob)$.
564: [It is also sometimes useful to consider a basis \cite{Wolf} $(B_+,B_-)$, where
565: $B_\pm = (\bo \pm \ob)/\s$.] The time-dependence of these states is
566: described via a {\it mass matrix} ${\cal M} = M - i \Gamma/2$, where $M$ and
567: $\Gamma$ are Hermitian by definition:
568: \beq
569: i \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left[ \begin{array}{c} \bo \\ \ob \end{array}
570: \right] = {\cal M} \left[ \begin{array}{c} \bo \\ \ob \end{array} \right]~~~.
571: \eeq
572: The requirement of CPT invariance, which we shall assume henceforth,
573: implies ${\cal M}_{11} = {\cal M}_{22}$, or equal transition amplitudes for
574: $\ko \to \ko$ and $\ok \to \ok$. {\it Exercise: (a) Show this. Remember time
575: reversal is an antiunitary operator. (b) Show that a similar argument applied
576: to ${\cal M}_{12}$ or ${\cal M}_{21}$ leads to no constraint. (c) Relate the
577: result in (a) to the result quoted by Wolfenstein \cite{Wolf} for the
578: $(\bo \pm \ob)/\s$ basis.}
579:
580: [Answer to Part (a): Insert the unit operator $(CPT)^{-1} CPT$ before and
581: after ${\cal M}$ in ${\cal M}_{11} = \mat{\bo}{{\cal M} | \bo}$.
582: Note that $CPT(M - i \Gamma/2)(CPT)^{-1} = M + i \Gamma/2$. Then
583: $$
584: {\cal M}_{11} = \langle CPT \bo | M + \frac{i \Gamma}{2} | CPT \bo \rangle^*
585: $$
586: \beq
587: = \langle \ob | M + \frac{i \Gamma}{2} | \ob \rangle^*
588: = \langle \ob | M - \frac{i \Gamma}{2} | \ob \rangle = {\cal M}_{22}~~~,
589: \eeq
590: where the antiunitarity of T has been used in the first step. For a
591: discussion of antiunitary operators see, e.g., Sakurai's book on
592: quantum mechanics.\cite{JJS}]
593:
594: The eigenstates of ${\cal M}$ may be denoted by $B_H$ (``heavy'') and $B_L$
595: (``light''):
596: \beq
597: |B_{H,L} \rangle = p_{H,L} | \bo \rangle + q_{H,L} | \ob \rangle~~~.
598: \eeq
599: The corresponding eigenvalues $\mu_{H,L} = m_{H,L} - \frac{i}{2}\Gamma_{H,L}$
600: satisfy
601: \beq
602: {\cal M} \left[ \begin{array}{c} p_i \\ q_i \end{array} \right]
603: = \mu_i \left[ \begin{array}{c} p_i \\ q_i \end{array} \right]~~~(i=H,L)~~~,
604: \eeq
605: specifically,
606: \beq
607: {\cal M}_{11} + {\cal M}_{12} \frac{q_i}{p_i} = {\cal M}_{21} \frac{p_i}{q_i}
608: + {\cal M}_{11} = \mu_i~~~,
609: \eeq
610: so that ${\cal M}_{12}(q_i/p_i) = {\cal M}_{21}(p_i/q_i)$, or $(p_i/q_i)^2
611: = {\cal M}_{12}/{\cal M}_{21}$.
612:
613: For $\bo$--$\ob$ mixing, in contrast to the situation for neutral kaons,
614: the scarcity of intermediate states accessible to both $\bo$ and $\ob$ and
615: the presence of a large top-quark contribution to $M_{12}$ means that
616: $|\Gamma_{12}| \ll |M_{12}|$, so that
617: \beq \label{eqn:pq}
618: \frac{p_i}{q_i} = \pm \sqrt{\frac{M_{12}}{M_{21}}}~~~.
619: \eeq
620: We may choose $p_L = p_H = p$, $q_L = - q_H = q$. Normalizing $|p|^2 + |q|^2
621: =1$, we then write
622: \beq
623: |B_L \rangle = p | \bo \rangle + q | \ob \rangle~~,~~~
624: |B_H \rangle = p | \bo \rangle - q | \ob \rangle~~~.
625: \eeq
626:
627: The sign ambiguity in (\ref{eqn:pq}) may be resolved as follows. Since
628: \beq
629: \mu_L = {\cal M}_{11} + {\cal M}_{12} \frac{q}{p} = {\cal M}_{11} +
630: {\cal M}_{21} \frac{p}{q}~~~,
631: \eeq
632: \beq
633: \mu_H = {\cal M}_{11} - {\cal M}_{12} \frac{q}{p} = {\cal M}_{11} -
634: {\cal M}_{21} \frac{p}{q}~~~,
635: \eeq
636: then $\mu_H - \mu_L = - 2 {\cal M}_{12}(q/p)$, which in the limit
637: $|\Gamma_{12}| \ll |M_{12}|$ is $\mu_H - \mu_L = (-,+) \sqrt{M_{12}M_{21}}$
638: for the choice of (+,--) in (\ref{eqn:pq}). Since $M_{21} = M_{12}^*$
639: ($M$ is Hermitian), we must take the -- sign in (\ref{eqn:pq}) in order that
640: the ``heavy'' mass $m_H$ be greater than the ``light'' mass $m_L$. Then
641: \beq
642: \frac{p_i}{q_i} = - \sqrt{\frac{M_{12}}{M_{21}}}~~~.
643: \eeq
644:
645: Neglecting $\Gamma_{12}$ in comparison with $|M_{12}|$, we then find
646: \beq
647: \Delta m \equiv m_{H} - m_{L} = 2 |M_{12}|~~,~~~
648: \Delta \Gamma \equiv \Gamma_H - \Gamma_L \simeq 0~~~.
649: \eeq
650: If one keeps $\Gamma_{12}$ to lowest order, one can show \cite{BaBarbk} that
651: \beq
652: \frac{q}{p} = - \frac{M_{12}^*}{|M_{12}|} \left[ 1 - \frac{1}{2} {\rm Im}
653: \left( \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{M_{12}} \right) \right]~~~.
654: \eeq
655: In the limit that $\Gamma_{12}$ is negligible and $\Delta \Gamma = 0$,
656: $q/p$ is a pure phase, determined by the phase of $M_{12}$.
657:
658: Now, $M_{12}$ takes $\ob = b \bar d$ into $\bo = d \bar b$, so its phase
659: is that of $(V_{tb} V^*_{td})^2$, or $e^{2 i \beta}$. Thus in this limit
660: we find $q/p \simeq e^{- 2 i \beta}$. More specifically, in the phase
661: convention in which $(CP)|\bo \rangle = + | \ob \rangle$, we find
662: \beq
663: M_{12} = - \frac{G_F^2}{12 \pi^2} (V_{tb} V^*_{td})^2 M_W^2 m_B f_B^2 B_B
664: \eta_B S \left( \frac{m_t}{M_W} \right)~~~.
665: \eeq
666: Here $f_B$ is the $B$ meson decay constant, $B_B$ is the vacuum saturation
667: factor, $\eta_B = 0.55$ is a QCD correction factor,\cite{BJW} and \cite{IL}
668: \beq \label{eqn:S}
669: S(x) \equiv \frac{x}{4} \left[ 1 + \frac{3 - 9x}{(x-1)^2} + \frac{6 x^2 \ln
670: x}{(x-1)^3} \right]~~~.
671: \eeq
672: The appropriate top quark mass for this calculation \cite{BurasB} is
673: $m_t(m_t) \simeq 165$ GeV/$c^2$. The BaBar Physics Book \cite{BaBarbk} may
674: be consulted for further conventions and details.
675:
676: \subsection{Time dependences}
677:
678: We would like to know how states which are initially $\bo$ or $\ob$ evolve in
679: time. The mass eigenstates evolve as $B_i \to B_i e^{-i \mu_i t}~(i = L,H)$.
680: The flavor eigenstates are expressed in terms of them as
681: \beq
682: t=0:~~ \ket{\bo} = \frac{\ket{B_L} + \ket{B_H}}{2p}~~,~~~
683: \ket{\ob} = \frac{\ket{B_L} - \ket{B_H}}{2q}~~~,
684: \eeq
685: \bea
686: t>0:~~
687: \ket{\bo(t)} & = & (\ket{B_L} e^{-i \mu_L t} + \ket{B_H} e^{-i \mu_H t})
688: /2p~~, \\
689: \ket{\ob(t)} & = & (\ket{B_L} e^{-i \mu_L t} - \ket{B_H} e^{-i \mu_H t})
690: /2q~~~.
691: \eea
692: Now substitute back for $B_{L,H}$:
693: \bea
694: \ket{\bo(t)} & = & \ket{\bo} f_+(t) + \frac{q}{p}f_-(t) \ket{\ob}~~~, \\
695: \ket{\ob(t)} & = & \ket{\ob} f_+(t) + \frac{p}{q}f_-(t) \ket{\bo}~~~,
696: \eea
697: \bea
698: f_+(t) & \equiv & e^{- i m t} e^{- \Gamma t/2} \cos(\Delta \mu t/2)~~~, \\
699: f_-(t) & \equiv & e^{- i m t} e^{- \Gamma t/2} i \sin(\Delta \mu t/2)~~~,
700: \eea
701: $\Delta \mu \equiv \mu_H - \mu_L = \Delta m - i (\Delta \Gamma/2)$,
702: $\Delta m \equiv m_H - m_L$, $\Delta \Gamma \equiv \Gamma_H - \Gamma_L$,
703: $m \equiv (m_H + m_L)/2$, $\Gamma \equiv(\Gamma_H + \Gamma_L)/2$.
704:
705: Again, for simplicity, we shall neglect $\Delta \Gamma$ in comparison with
706: $\Delta m$. A lowest-order quark model calculation (for which QCD
707: corrections change the answer) gives \cite{dg}
708: \beq \label{eqn:bgm}
709: \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{M_{12}} = -\frac{3 \pi}{2} \frac{m_t^2/M_W^2}{S(m_t^2/M_W^2)}
710: \frac{m_b^2}{m_t^2} \left( 1 + \frac{8}{3} \frac{m_c^2}{m_b^2}
711: \frac{V_{cb}V^*_{cd}}{V_{tb}V_{td}^*} \right) \simeq - \frac{1}{180}~~~,
712: \eeq
713: where $S(x)$ was defined in Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:S}).
714: The intermediate states dominating the loop calculation of $\Gamma_{12}$
715: have typical mass scales $m_b$, whereas loop momenta of order $m_t$ give rise
716: to the main contributions to $M_{12}$.
717:
718: Neglecting $\Delta \Gamma$ and performing time integrals, one finds
719: \beq
720: \Gamma \int_0^\infty \! dt |f_+(t)|^2 = \frac{2 + x_d^2}{2 (1 + x_d^2)}
721: ~~,~~~ \Gamma \int_0^\infty \! dt |f_-(t)|^2 = \frac{x_d^2}
722: {2 (1 + x_d^2)}~~~,\eeq
723: where $x_d \equiv \Delta m_{B_d}/\Gamma_{B_d}$, and $B_d$ is another name
724: for $\bo = \bar b d$ to distinguish it from $B_s = \bar b s$. The sum of the
725: two terms is 1. The first term is 1 for $x_d = 0$, approaches 1/2 for $x_d
726: \to \infty$, and is about 0.82 for the actual value $x_d = 0.754 \pm 0.027$.
727: The second term is 0 for $x_d = 0$, approaches 1/2 for $x_d \to \infty$, and is
728: about 0.18 in actuality. Thus a neutral non-strange $B$ of a given flavor
729: ($\bo$ or $\ob$) has about 18\% probability of decaying as the opposite
730: flavor.
731:
732: \section{CP violation}
733:
734: \subsection{Asymmetry: general remarks}
735:
736: We wish to compare $\mat{f}{\bo_{t=0}(t)}$ and $\mat{\of}{\ob_{t=0}(t)}$,
737: where $f$ is a final state and $\of \equiv (CP)f$. Now define
738: \beq
739: x \equiv \frac{\mat{f}{\ob}}{\mat{f}{\bo}}~~,~~~
740: \bar x \equiv \frac{\mat{\of}{\bo}}{\mat{\of}{\ob}}~~,~~~
741: \lambda_0 \equiv \frac{q}{p}x~~,~~~
742: \bar \lambda_0 \equiv \frac{p}{q}\bar x~~~.
743: \eeq
744: Using the time evolution derived earlier for $\bo_{t=0}$ and $\ob_{t=0}$,
745: one then finds
746: \bea \label{eqn:td}
747: \mat{f}{\bo_{t=0}(t)} & = & \mat{f}{\bo} \left[ f_+(t) + \lambda_0(t) f_-(t)
748: \right]~~~,\\
749: \mat{\of}{\ob_{t=0}(t)} & = & \mat{\of}{\ob} \left[ f_+(t) + \bar
750: \lambda_0(t) f_-(t) \right]~~~.
751: \eea
752: This result can be simplified under several circumstances. (a) If
753: there is a single strong eigenchannel, final-state strong interaction phases
754: in $x$ or $\bar x$ cancel, since the numerator and denominator refer to the
755: same final state. Then $\bar x = x^*$, since weak phases flip sign under CP.
756: (b) Recall that $|q/p|$ is nearly 1 for $B$ mesons. (For non-strange $B$'s,
757: we found $q/p \simeq e^{- 2 i \beta}$.) Combining (a) and (b), we find
758: $\bar \lambda_0 = \lambda_0^*$ for these cases.
759:
760: \subsection{Time-dependent asymmetry}
761:
762: According to Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:td}), the rates for a $(\bo,\ob)$ produced at $t=0$
763: to evolve to the respective final states $(f,\of)$ at a time $t$ are
764: \bea
765: d \Gamma(\bo_{t=0} \to f)/dt & \sim & |f_+(t) + \lambda_0 f_-(t)|^2~~~,\\
766: d \Gamma(\ob_{t=0} \to \of)/dt & \sim & |f_+(t) + \bar \lambda_0
767: f_-(t)|^2~~~,
768: \eea
769: with the coefficients of proportionality identical if there is a single strong
770: eigenchannel. Now consider the case of a CP-eigenstate $f$ such that $\of
771: = \pm f$. Then we have not only $\bar x = x^*$ (see above), but also
772: $\bar x = x^{-1}$, so $|x| = 1$. In that case, when $|q/p| = 1$ as is the
773: case for neutral $B$'s, we have $|\lambda_0| = 1$ and $\bar \lambda_0 =
774: \lambda_0^*$. Then
775: \bea \label{eqn:rat}
776: |f_+ + \lambda_0 f_-|^2 & = & e^{-\Gamma t} \left|\cos \frac{\Delta m t}{2} +
777: i \lambda_0 \sin \frac{\Delta m t}{2} \right|^2 \\
778: & = & e^{-\Gamma t} \left[ 1 - {\rm Im} \lambda_0 \sin \Delta m t
779: \right]~~~,
780: \eea
781: \bea \label{eqn:tdm}
782: d \Gamma(\bo_{t=0} \to f)/dt & \sim & e^{-\Gamma t} \left[ 1 - {\rm Im}
783: \lambda_0 \sin \Delta m t \right]~~~, \nonumber \\
784: d \Gamma(\ob_{t=0} \to \of)/dt & \sim & e^{-\Gamma t} \left[ 1 + {\rm Im}
785: \lambda_0 \sin \Delta m t \right]~~~.
786: \eea
787: The second term in each of these equations consists of an exponential decay
788: modulated by a sinusoidal oscillation. The time-dependent asymmetry is then
789: \beq
790: {\cal A}_f \equiv
791: \frac{d \Gamma(\bo_{t=0} \to f)/dt - d \Gamma(\ob_{t=0} \to \of)/dt}
792: {d \Gamma(\bo_{t=0} \to f)/dt + d \Gamma(\ob_{t=0} \to \of)/dt}
793: = - {\rm Im} \lambda_0 \sin \Delta m t~~~.
794: \eeq
795: When $\Delta m/\Gamma \gg1$, the wiggles in Eqs.\ (\ref{eqn:tdm})
796: average out, and not much time-integrated asymmetry is possible,
797: while when $\Delta m/\Gamma \ll 1$, the decay occurs before there is time
798: for oscillations. The maximal time-integrated asymmetry occurs when
799: $\Delta m/\Gamma = 1$.
800:
801: When more than one eigenchannel is present, the condition $|\lambda_0| = 1$
802: need not be satisfied, so that the terms $\cos^2(\Delta m t/2)$ and $\sin^2
803: (\Delta m t/2)$ in (\ref{eqn:rat}) need not have the same coefficients, and a
804: $\cos \Delta m t$
805: term is generated in the rates. This is the signal of ``direct'' CP violation,
806: as will be discussed below. Its presence for $B \to \pi \pi$ was
807: pointed out by London and Peccei \cite{LPcos} and by Gronau.\cite{MGcos}
808:
809: \subsection{Time-integrated asymmetry}
810:
811: If one integrates the rates for $\bo_{t=0} \to f$ and $\ob_{t=0} \to \of$,
812: one can form the time-integrated asymmetry \cite{DR}
813: \beq
814: C_f \equiv
815: \frac{\Gamma(\bo_{t=0} \to f) - \Gamma(\ob_{t=0} \to \of)}
816: {\Gamma(\bo_{t=0} \to f) + \Gamma(\ob_{t=0} \to \of)}~~~.
817: \eeq
818: If we consider the cases (as above) in which $|\mat{f}{\bo}| = |\mat{\of}
819: {\ob}|$, we just need the integral
820: \beq
821: \int_0^\infty \! dt \sin (\Delta m t) e^{- \Gamma t} = \frac{1}{\Gamma}
822: \frac{x_d}{1 + x_d^2}~~~,
823: \eeq
824: and we then find
825: \beq
826: C_f = - \frac{x_d}{1 + x_d^2} {\rm Im} \lambda_0
827: \eeq
828: when $|x| = 1$. This is indeed maximal when $x_d = 1$; the
829: coefficient of $-{\rm Im} \lambda_0$ is 1/2. For the actual value of
830: $x_d \simeq 0.75$, the coefficient is 0.48 instead, very close to its
831: maximal value.
832:
833: \subsection{Specific examples in decays to CP eigenstates}
834:
835: When $f$ is a CP eigenstate, a CP-violating difference between the rates for
836: $\bo \to f$ and $\ob \to \of$ arises as a result of interference between
837: the direct decays and those proceeding via mixing (i.e., $\bo \to \ob \to f$
838: and $\ob \to \bo \to \of$). The second term in Eqs.\ (\ref{eqn:tdm})
839: is the result of this mixing. As mentioned, the rate asymmetry goes to
840: zero when $x_d \to 0$ or $x_d \to \infty$. We now illustrate the calculation
841: for two specific examples, $\bo \to J/\psi K_S$ and $\bo \to \pi \pi$.
842: \medskip
843:
844: \leftline{\underline{The ``golden mode'': $J/\psi K_S$}}
845:
846: The quark subprocess governing $\bo \to J/\psi K_S$ is $\bar b \to \bar c c
847: \bar s$, whose CKM factor is $V^*_{cb} V_{cs}$. The $K_S$ is produced through
848: its $\ko$ component. The corresponding decay $\ob \to J/\psi K_S$ proceeds
849: via $b \to c \bar c s$ and involves the $\ok$ component of $K_S$.
850:
851: For a CP-eigenstate, we defined $x \equiv \mat{f}{\ob}/\mat{f}{\bo}$ and
852: $\lambda_0 = (q/p)x$, but what we actually calculate is $\mat{\of}{\ob}/
853: \mat{f}{\bo}$ where $\of = \eta^f_{CP} f$ with $\eta^f_{CP} = \pm 1$.
854: For $f = J/\psi K_S$, $\eta^f_{CP} = -1$. To show this, note that
855: $CP \ket{K_S} = \ket{K_S}$ and $CP \ket{J/\psi} = \ket{J/\psi}$ (since
856: $J/\psi$ has odd C and P). The decay of the spin-zero $\bo$ to the spin-one
857: $J/\psi$ and the spin-zero $K_S$ produces the final particles in a state of
858: orbital angular momentum $\ell = 1$ and hence odd parity, introducing an
859: additional factor of $-1$. Then
860: \beq
861: x = - \frac{\mat{K_S}{\ok}\mat{\ok}{\ob}}
862: {\mat{K_S}{\ko}\mat{\ko}{\bo}}~~~.
863: \eeq
864: (A good discussion of the sign is given by Bigi and Sanda.\cite{BSsgn})
865: Now $\ket{K_S} = p_K \ket{\ko} + q_K \ket{\ok}$, so that $\mat{K_S}{\ok} =
866: q^*_K$ and $\mat{K_S}{\ko} = p^*_K$. These numbers are very close to
867: $1/\s$. If the loop calculation of $M_{12}$ for $\ko$--$\ok$ mixing
868: is dominated by the charmed quark, then $(q_K/p_K) \simeq (V_{cd} V^*_{cs})
869: /(V^*_{cd}V_{cs})$, and
870: \beq
871: \lambda_0 = - \frac{V^*_{cd}V_{cs}}{V_{cd}V^*_{cs}}
872: \frac{V_{cb}V^*_{cs}}{V^*_{cb}V_{cs}}
873: \frac{V_{td}V^*_{tb}}{V^*_{td}V_{tb}}~~~.
874: \eeq
875: We assumed a specific quark to dominate the calculation of
876: $M_{12}$ to illustrate the self-consistency of the expression
877: for $\lambda_0$ with with respect to redefinition of quark phases. Note
878: first of all that the denominator is the complex conjugate of the numerator.
879: Then note that each quark is represented by the same number of $V$'s and
880: $V^*$'s in the numerator: 2 for the charmed quark and 1 each for $d,s,b$,
881: and $t$. Thus any phase rotation of a quark field leaves the expression
882: invariant. (Bjorken and Dunietz have introduced a nice representation
883: of this invariance.\cite{BD}) The same cancellation would have occurred if
884: we were to say another quark dominated $\ko$--$\ok$ mixing.
885:
886: For the final state $f= J/\psi K_S$ we thus find $\lambda_0 = - e^{- 2 i
887: \beta}$ and Im $\lambda_0 = \sin 2 \beta$, leading to the time-integrated
888: rate asymmetry $C_{J/\psi K_S} = -x_d \sin 2 \beta/(1+x_d^2)$. In practice
889: the experiments often select events occurring for a proper time $t \ge t_0
890: > 0$ in order to enhance the signal/noise ratio, so that analyses are usually
891: based on the time-dependent asymmetry mentioned earlier.
892:
893: %U |||||||||
894: Some recent results on $\sin 2 \beta~^{58-62}$ are quoted in Table
895: \ref{tab:s2b}, and $\pm 1 \sigma$ limits from the average are plotted in Fig.\
896: \ref{fig:re}. While the central value is somewhat below that favored by
897: %U
898: other observables, there is no significant discrepancy.
899: \medskip
900:
901: \leftline{\underline{The $\pi^+ \pi^-$ mode and its complications}}
902:
903: The main subprocess in $\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ is the ``tree''
904: diagram in which $\bar b \to \pi^+ \bar u$, with the spectator $d$ combining
905: with the $\bar u$ to make a $\pi^-$. Let us temporarily assume this is
906: the only important process and compute the CP-violating rate asymmetry. We
907: shall return in Section 11 to the important role of ``penguin'' diagrams.
908:
909: \begin{table}
910: \caption{Values of $\sin 2 \beta$ implied by recent measurements of the
911: CP-violating asymmetry in $\bo \to J/\psi K_S$. \label{tab:s2b}}
912: \begin{center}
913: \begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
914: \protect
915: Experiment & Value \\ \hline
916: OPAL \cite{OPs2b} & $3.2^{+1.8}_{-2.0} \pm 0.5$ \\
917: CDF \cite{CDFs2b} & $0.79^{+0.41}_{-0.44}$ \\
918: ALEPH \cite{ALs2b} & $0.84^{+0.82}_{-1.04} \pm 0.16$ \\
919: Belle \cite{Bes2b} & $0.58^{+0.32+0.09}_{-0.34-0.10}$ \\
920: BaBar \cite{Bas2b} & $0.34 \pm 0.20 \pm 0.05$ \\ \hline
921: %U | ||
922: Average & $0.48 \pm 0.16$ \\
923: \hline
924: \end{tabular}
925: \end{center}
926: \end{table}
927:
928: Since the (spin-zero) $\pi^+ \pi^-$ system in $\bo$ decay has even CP, we find
929: \bea
930: x & \equiv & \frac{\mat{\pi^+ \pi^-}{\ob}}{\mat{\pi^+ \pi^-}{\bo}}
931: = \frac{V_{ub}V^*_{ud}}{V^*_{ub}V_{ud}}~~~,\\
932: \lambda_0 = \frac{q}{p} x & = & \frac{V_{td}V^*_{tb}}{V^*_{td}V_{tb}}
933: \frac{V_{ub}V^*_{ud}}{V^*_{ub}V_{ud}} = e^{-2 i \beta} e^{-2 i \gamma}~~~.
934: \eea
935: {\it Exercise: Check the invariance of this expression under redefinitions
936: of quark phases.}
937:
938: Since $\beta + \gamma = \pi - \alpha$, we have $\lambda_0 = e^{2 i \alpha}$,
939: Im($\lambda_0) = \sin 2 \alpha$, and $C_{\pi^+ \pi^-} = - x_d \sin 2 \alpha
940: /(1+x_d^2)$. [Remember that our asymmetries are defined in terms of
941: $(\bo - \ob)/(\bo + \ob)$.]
942: This result is limited in its usefulness for several reasons.
943:
944: (a) Our neglect of penguin diagrams will turn out to make a big difference.
945:
946: (b) The range of $\sin \alpha$ is large enough that early asymmetry
947: measurements are unlikely to expose contradictions with the standard
948: prediction.
949:
950: (c) An even larger range of negative $\sin 2 \alpha$ turns out to be allowed
951: if $V_{cb}$ is larger than assumed in Sec.\ 4.
952:
953: An interesting exercise (whose result would, of course, be modified by
954: penguin contributions) is to suppose that the asymmetries in $\bo \to
955: J/\psi K_S$ and $\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ are due {\it entirely} to mixing
956: (i.e., to a ``superweak'') interaction.\cite{WSW} In this case, since
957: $J/\psi K_S$ and $\pi^+ \pi^-$ have opposite CP eigenvalues, one has
958: $C_{\pi^+ \pi^-} = - C_{J/\psi K_S}$. What range of parameters in the
959: standard CKM picture would imitate this relation? In other words, for
960: what $\rho$ and $\eta$ would one have $\sin 2 \alpha = - \sin 2 \beta$?
961: [The answer is $\eta = (1 - \rho)\sqrt{\rho/(2 - \rho)}$.]
962:
963: \section{Decays to CP-noneigenstates}
964:
965: If the final state $f$ is not a CP eigenstate, i.e. if $f \ne \pm \of$,
966: as in the case $f = K^+ \pi^-$, $\of = K^- \pi^+$, then a CP-violating
967: rate asymmetry requires two interfering decay channels with different weak
968: and strong phases:
969: \bea
970: A(B \to f) & = & A_1 e^{i \phi_1} e^{i \delta_1}
971: + A_2 e^{i \phi_2} e^{i \delta_2}~~~,\\
972: A(\bar B \to \of) & = & A_1 e^{-i \phi_1} e^{i \delta_1}
973: + A_2 e^{-i \phi_2} e^{i \delta_2}~~~.
974: \eea
975: Here the weak phases $\phi_i$ change sign under CP conjugation, while the
976: strong phases $\delta_i$ do not. Define $\Delta \phi = \phi_1 - \phi_2$,
977: $\Delta \delta = \delta_1 - \delta_2$, and
978: \beq
979: {\cal A}(f) \equiv \frac{|A(B\to f)|^2 - |A(\bar B \to \of)|^2}
980: {|A(B\to f)|^2 + |A(\bar B \to \of)|^2}~~~.
981: \eeq
982: Then
983: \beq \label{eqn:as}
984: {\cal A}(f) = \frac{- 2 A_1 A_2 \sin \Delta \phi \sin \Delta \delta}
985: {A_1^2 + A_2^2 + 2 A_1 A_2 \cos \Delta \phi \cos \Delta \delta}~~~.
986: \eeq
987:
988: \subsection{Examples of interesting channels}
989:
990: \medskip
991: \leftline{\underline{$\bo \to K^+ \pi^-$ vs.\ $\ob \to K^- \pi^+$}}
992:
993: We illustrate two types of contribution to $\bo \to K^+ \pi^-$ in
994: Fig.\ \ref{fig:kpi1}. The ``tree'' contribution, which in this case is
995: color-favored since the color-singlet current can produce a quark pair
996: of any color, has weak phase $\gamma = {\rm Arg}(V^*_{ub}V_{us})$ and strong
997: phase $\delta_T$, while the ``penguin'' contribution has weak phase
998: $\pi = {\rm Arg}(V^*_{tb}V_{ts})$ and strong phase $\delta_P$.
999:
1000: % This is Figure 3
1001: \begin{figure}
1002: \centerline{\epsfysize=1.55in \epsffile{kpi1.ps}}
1003: \caption{Contributions to $\bo \to K^+ \pi^-$. (a) Color-favored
1004: ``tree'' amplitude
1005: $\sim V^*_{ub}V_{us}$; (b) ``penguin'' amplitude $\sim V^*_{tb}V_{ts}$.}
1006: \label{fig:kpi1}
1007: \end{figure}
1008:
1009: Even though $\delta_T - \delta_P$ is unknown, and may be small so that
1010: little CP-violating asymmetry is present in $B \to K^\pm \pi^\mp$, it will turn
1011: out that one can use rate information for several processes, with the help of
1012: flavor SU(3) (which can be tested) to learn weak phases such as $\gamma$.
1013: \medskip
1014:
1015: \leftline{\underline{$B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$ vs.\ $B^- \to K^- \pi^0$}}
1016:
1017: {\it Exercise: Identify the main amplitudes which contribute. What are the
1018: differences with respect to $B \to K^\pm \pi^\mp$?}
1019:
1020: Answer: There are {\it two} ``tree'' amplitudes, one color-favored [as in
1021: Fig.\ 3(a)] and one
1022: color-suppressed (Fig.\ \ref{fig:kpi2}). Both have weak phases
1023: $\gamma = {\rm Arg}(V^*_{ub}V_{us})$. There is a penguin amplitude [as in
1024: Fig.\ 3(b)] with
1025: weak phase $\pi = {\rm Arg}(V^*_{tb}V_{ts})$. Since $\pi^0 = (d \bar d
1026: - u \bar u)/\s$ in a phase convention in which $\pi^+ = u \bar d$, the
1027: color-favored tree and penguin amplitudes are the same as that in
1028: $\bo \to K^+ \pi^-$, but divided by $\s$. Thus the overall rate for
1029: $B^\pm \to K^\pm \pi^0$ is expected to be 1/2 that for $B \to K^\pm \pi^\mp$
1030: if the penguin amplitude dominates or if the color-suppressed amplitude is
1031: negligible. In that case one expects similar CP-violating asymmetries
1032: for $\bo \to K^+ \pi^-$ and $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$. \cite{GRcomb,MNKpi}
1033: \medskip
1034:
1035: % This is Figure 4
1036: \begin{figure}
1037: \centerline{\epsfysize=1.6in \epsffile{kpi2.ps}}
1038: \caption{Color-suppressed tree diagram contributing to $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$.}
1039: \label{fig:kpi2}
1040: \end{figure}
1041:
1042: \medskip
1043: \leftline{\underline{$B^+ \to \ko \pi^+$ vs.\ $B^- \to \ok \pi^-$}}
1044:
1045: {\it Exercise: Show that there is no tree amplitude and hence no CP-violating
1046: asymmetry expected.} This process is expected to be dominated by the
1047: penguin amplitude and thus provides a reference for comparison with other
1048: processes in which tree amplitudes participate.
1049: \medskip
1050:
1051: Small contributions to $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$ and $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$ are
1052: possible from the process in which the $\bar b u$ pair annihilates into a
1053: weak current which then produces $\bar s u$. A $q \bar q$ pair is produced
1054: in hadronization, giving $K^+ \pi^0$ if $q = u$ and $K^0 \pi^+$ if $q = d$.
1055: These contributions are expected to be suppressed by a factor of $f_B/m_B$
1056: if the graphs describing them can be taken literally. However, they can also
1057: be generated by rescattering from other contributions, e.g., $(B^+ \to K^+
1058: \pi^0)_{\rm tree} \to K^0 \pi^+$. We shall mention tests for such
1059: effects in Sec.~12.
1060:
1061: \subsection{Pocket guide to direct CP asymmetries}
1062:
1063: We now indicate a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the
1064: observability of direct CP asymmetries based on the interference of two
1065: amplitudes, one weaker than the other. The result is that one must
1066: be able to detect processes at the level of the {\it absolute square of the
1067: weaker amplitude.}\cite{EGR} This guides the choice of processes in which one
1068: might hope to see direct CP-violating rate asymmetries.
1069:
1070: Suppose the weak phase difference $\Delta \phi$ and the strong phase difference
1071: $\Delta \delta$ are both near $\pm \pi/2$ (the most favorable case for
1072: detection of an asymmetry). Then the asymmetry ${\cal A}$ in Eq.\
1073: (\ref{eqn:as}) has magnitude
1074: \beq
1075: |{\cal A}| = {\cal O} \left( \frac{2 A_1 A_2}{A_1^2 + A_2^2} \right) \simeq
1076: \frac{2 A_2}{A_1}~~~{\rm for}~A_2 \ll A_1~~~.
1077: \eeq
1078: Imagine a rate based on the square of each amplitude: $N_i = {\rm const.}~
1079: |A_i|^2$. Then $|{\cal A}| \simeq 2 \sqrt{N_2/N_1}$.
1080:
1081: The statistical error in ${\cal A}$ is based on the total number of events.
1082: For $A_2 \ll A_1$, one has $\delta {\cal A} \simeq 1/\sqrt{N_1}$. Then the
1083: significance of the asymmetry (in number of standard deviations) is
1084: \beq
1085: \frac{{\cal A}}{\delta{\cal A}} \sim {\cal O}(2 \sqrt{N_2})~~~.
1086: \eeq
1087: Thus (aside from the factor of 2) one must be able to see the {\it square of
1088: the weaker amplitude} at a significant level in order to see a significant
1089: asymmetry due to $A_1$--$A_2$ interference.
1090:
1091: \subsection{Interesting levels for charmless $B$ decays}
1092:
1093: Typical branching ratios for the dominant $B$ decays to pairs of light
1094: pseudoscalar mesons are in the range of 1 to 2 parts in $10^5$.
1095: Some recent data are summarized in Table \ref{tab:PP}.
1096: Here the average between a process and its charge conjugate is quoted.
1097: %U Updated references
1098: These data are based on results by CLEO,\cite{CLEOkpi,CLetap,CL2K} [including
1099: a value for ${\cal B}(B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0)$ extracted from an earlier CLEO
1100: report \cite{GRVP}], Belle,\cite{BePP} and BaBar.\cite{BaPP} The averages
1101: are my own.
1102:
1103: %U Updated table
1104: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
1105: \begin{table}[h]
1106: \caption{Branching ratios, in units of $10^{-6}$ for $\bo$ or $B^+$ decays
1107: to pairs of light pseudoscalar mesons. \label{tab:PP}}
1108: \begin{center}
1109: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
1110: Mode & CLEO \cite{CLEOkpi,CLetap,CL2K,GRVP}
1111: & Belle \cite{BePP}
1112: & BaBar \cite{BaPP}
1113: & Average \\
1114: $\pi^+ \pi^-$ & $4.3^{+1.6}_{-1.4} \pm 0.5$
1115: & $5.6^{+2.3}_{-2.0} \pm 0.4$
1116: & $4.1 \pm 1.0 \pm 0.7$
1117: & $4.4 \pm 0.9$ \\
1118: $\pi^+ \pi^0$ & $5.4 \pm 2.6$
1119: & $7.8^{+3.8+0.8}_{-3.2-1.2}$
1120: & $5.1^{+2.0}_{-1.8} \pm 0.8$
1121: & $5.6 \pm 1.5$ \\
1122: $K^+ \pi^-$ & $17.2^{+2.5}_{-2.4} \pm 1.2$
1123: & $19.3^{+3.4+1.5}_{-3.2-0.6}$
1124: & $16.7 \pm 1.6^{+1.2}_{-1.7}$
1125: & $17.4 \pm 1.5$ \\
1126: $\ko \pi^+$ & $18.2^{+4.6}_{-4.0} \pm 1.6$
1127: & $13.7^{+5.7+1.9}_{-4.8-1.8}$
1128: & $18.2^{+3.3+1.6}_{-3.0-2.0}$
1129: & $17.3 \pm 2.4$ \\
1130: $K^+ \pi^0$ & $11.6^{+3.0+1.4}_{-2.7-1.3}$
1131: & $16.3^{+3.5+1.6}_{-3.3-1.8}$
1132: & $10.8^{+2.1+1.0}_{-1.9-1.2}$
1133: & $12.2 \pm 1.7$ \\
1134: $\ko \pi^0$ & $14.6^{+5.9+2.4}_{-5.1-3.3}$
1135: & $16.0^{+7.2+2.5}_{-5.9-2.7}$
1136: & $8.2^{+3.1+1.1}_{-2.7-1.2}$
1137: & $10.4 \pm 2.6$ \\
1138: $K^+ \eta'$ & $80^{+10}_{-9} \pm 7$ & & $62 \pm 18 \pm 8$ & $75 \pm 10$ \\
1139: $\ko \eta'$ & $89^{+18}_{-16} \pm 9$ & & & $78 \pm 9$ (a) \\ \hline
1140: \end{tabular}
1141: \end{center}
1142: \leftline{(a) Average for $K^+ \eta'$ and $K^0 \eta'$ modes.}
1143: \end{table}
1144:
1145: The relative $K \pi$ rates are compatible with dominance by the penguin
1146: amplitude, which predicts the rates involving a neutral pion to be half those
1147: with a charged pion.
1148: This conclusion is supported by an estimate of the tree contribution via
1149: the decay $B \to \pi \ell \nu$ and factorization. One then needs some idea
1150: of the form factor at $m(\ell \nu) = m_\pi$ or $m_K$. The result is that
1151: one estimates ${\cal B}_{\rm tree}(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-) \simeq 10^{-5}$, or
1152: \beq
1153: {\cal B}_{\rm tree}(\bo \to K^+ \pi^-) \simeq \left( \frac{f_K}{f_\pi}
1154: \right)^2 \left| \frac{V_{us}}{V_{ud}} \right|^2 \times 10^{-5}~~~.
1155: \eeq
1156: With $f_K = 161$ MeV, $f_\pi = 132$ MeV, $f_K/f_\pi = 1.22$, $V_{us}/V_{ud}
1157: = \tan \theta_c = 0.22/0.975 = 0.226$, the coefficient of $10^{-5}$ on the
1158: right-hand side is 0.076. Thus in order to see a significant CP-violating
1159: rate asymmetry in $B \to K \pi$ one needs at least 13 times the sensitivity
1160: that was needed in order to see all the $B \to K \pi$ modes. This would
1161: correspond to about 100 fb$^{-1}$ at $e^+ e^-$ colliders, or samples of about
1162: $10^8$ identified $B$'s at hadron machines. In other words, one needs to be
1163: able to see branching ratios of a few parts in $10^7$ with good statistical
1164: significance. This is within the capabilities of experiments just now
1165: getting under way.
1166:
1167: \section{Flavor tagging}
1168:
1169: \subsection{States of $B \bar B$ with definite charge-conjugation}
1170:
1171: The process $e^+ e^- \to B \bar B$ is typically studied at the mass of the
1172: $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance, $E_{\rm c.m.} = 10.58$ GeV, above the threshold of
1173: $2 M_B = 10.56$ GeV for $B \bar B$ production but below the threshold for
1174: production of one or two $B^*$'s: $M_B + M_{B^*} = 10.605$ GeV, $2 M_{B^*}
1175: = 10.65$ GeV. Now, the $\Upsilon(4S)$ has $C = -1$. It
1176: is produced via a virtual photon $\gamma^*$ (which has odd $C$).
1177: It is a $^3S_1$ $b \bar b$ state, where the superscript $2 S_{b \bar b} +
1178: 1$ denotes the total spin $S_{b \bar b} = 1$. The $b \bar b$ pair has orbital
1179: angular momentum $L = 0$ and total angular momentum $J=1$. A $Q \bar Q$ state
1180: $^{2S+1}L_J$ in general has $C = (-1)^{L+S}$.
1181:
1182: The $B \bar B$ pair produced at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ thus has a definite
1183: eigenvalue of charge-conjugation, $C(B \bar B) = -1$, correlating the flavor
1184: flavor of the neutral $B$ whose decay (e.g., to $J/\psi K_S$) is being studied
1185: with the flavor of the other $B$ used to ``tag'' the decay, e.g., via a
1186: semileptonic decay $b \to c \ell^- \bar \nu_\ell$ or $\bar b \to \bar c \ell^+
1187: \nu_\ell$.
1188:
1189: Let $\bo \ob$ be in an eigenstate of C with eigenvalue $\eta_C = \pm 1$. (To
1190: get a state with $\eta_C = +1$ it is sufficient to utilize the reaction
1191: $e^+ e^- \to {\bo}^* \ob~{\rm or}~\bo {\ob}^* \to \bo \ob \gamma$ just above
1192: threshold.) In the $\bo \ob$ center-of-mass system, the wave function of the
1193: pair,
1194: \beq
1195: \Psi_C \equiv \frac{1}{\s} \left[ \bo(\hp) \ob(-\hp) + \eta_C \ob(\hp)
1196: \bo(-\hp) \right]
1197: \eeq
1198: may be expressed in terms of the mass eigenstates $B_{L,H}$ in order to
1199: study its time evolution. Since
1200: \beq
1201: \bo = \frac{1}{p \s} \left[ B_L + B_H \right]~~,~~~
1202: \ob = \frac{1}{q \s} \left[ B_L - B_H \right]~~~,
1203: \eeq
1204: we have
1205: $$
1206: \Psi_C \equiv \frac{1}{\s} \frac{1}{2 p q}
1207: \left\{ [B_L(\hp) + B_H(\hp)][B_L(-\hp) - B_H(-\hp)] \right.
1208: $$
1209: \beq
1210: \left. + \eta_C [B_L(\hp) -B_H(\hp)][B_L(-\hp) + B_H(-\hp)] \right\}~~~.
1211: \eeq
1212:
1213: For $\eta_C = -1$ the $LL$ and $HH$ terms cancel (this is also a consequence
1214: of Bose statistics) and one has
1215: \beq \label{eqn:ecm}
1216: \Psi_C(\eta_C = -1) = \frac{1}{\s p q}
1217: \left[ B_H(\hp) B_L(-\hp) - B_L(\hp) B_H(-\hp) \right]~~~.
1218: \eeq
1219: For $\eta_C = + 1$ the $HL$ and $LH$ terms cancel and one has
1220: \beq \label{eqn:ecp}
1221: \Psi_C(\eta_C = +1) = \frac{1}{\s p q}
1222: \left[ B_L(\hp) B_L(-\hp) - B_H(\hp) B_H(-\hp) \right]~~~.
1223: \eeq
1224: Define $t$ and $\ot$ to be the proper times with which the states $\hp$
1225: and $-\hp$ evolve, respectively:
1226: \beq
1227: B_{L,H}(\hp) \to B_{L,H}(\hp)e^{-i \mu_{L,H} t}~~,~~~
1228: B_{L,H}(-\hp) \to B_{L,H}(-\hp)e^{-i \mu_{L,H} \ot}~~~.
1229: \eeq
1230: Project the state with $\hp$ into the desired decay mode (e.g., $J/\psi K_S$)
1231: and the state with $-\hp$ into the tagging mode (which signifies $\bo$ or
1232: $\ob$ at time $\ot$, e.g., $\ell^- \leftrightarrow \ob,~\ell^+ \leftrightarrow
1233: \bo$). Then, for a CP-eigenstate, it is left as an {\it Exercise} to show
1234: in the limit $\Delta \Gamma = 0$ that
1235: \bea \label{eqn:ttb}
1236: \left. \frac{d^2 \Gamma[f(t),\ell^-(\ot)]}{d t~ d \ot} \right|_{\eta_C = \mp 1}
1237: & \sim & e^{- \Gamma(t + \ot)} [ 1 - \sin \Delta m (t \mp \ot) {\rm Im}
1238: \lambda]~~,\\
1239: \left. \frac{d^2 \Gamma[f(t),\ell^+(\ot)]}{d t~ d \ot} \right|_{\eta_C = \mp 1}
1240: & \sim & e^{- \Gamma(t + \ot)} [ 1 + \sin \Delta m (t \mp \ot) {\rm Im}
1241: \lambda]~~~.
1242: \eea
1243: (Hints: Recall that $\lambda = (q/p)\mat{f}{\ob}/ \mat{f}{\bo}$, $\bar
1244: \lambda = (p/q)(\mat{\of}{\bo}/ \mat{\of}{\ob}$, $|\lambda| = 1$, $\bar \lambda
1245: = \lambda^*$, $\Delta m = m_H - m_L$. For $\eta_C = -1$, write
1246: the decay amplitude as a function of $t$ and $\ot$. It will have two terms,
1247: one $\sim e^{-i(m_H t + m_L \ot)}$ and the other $\sim e^{-i(m_L t + m_H
1248: \ot)}$, whose interference in the absolute square of the amplitude
1249: gives rise to the $\sin \Delta m(t - \ot)$ terms.)
1250: These results have some notable properties.
1251:
1252: (1) For either
1253: value of $\eta_C$, the sum of the $\ell^+$ and $\ell^-$ results is as if one
1254: didn't tag, and the oscillatory terms cancel one another.
1255:
1256: (2) For $\eta_C =
1257: -1$, note the {\it antisymmetry} with respect to $t - \ot$. This is a
1258: consequence of the Bose statistics and the $C = -1$ nature of the initial
1259: state. If one integrates over all times, the CP-violating asymmetry vanishes.
1260: Thus in order for the tagging method to work in a C-odd state like
1261: $\Upsilon(4S)$ one must know whether $t$ or $\ot$ was earlier. An asymmetric
1262: $B$-factory like PEP-II or KEK-B permits this by spreading out the decay using
1263: a Lorentz boost.
1264:
1265: {\it Exercise: Show for $\eta_C = -1$ that if one subdivides the $t,\ot$
1266: integrations according to $t < \ot$ or $t > \ot$, then}
1267: $$
1268: \frac{\int \! \int dt d \ot (d^2 \Gamma/d t d \ot) [(\ell^-, t > \ot)
1269: - (\ell^-, t < \ot) - (\ell^+, t > \ot) + (\ell^+, t < \ot)]}
1270: {\int \! \int dt d \ot (d^2 \Gamma/d t d \ot) [(\ell^-, t > \ot)
1271: + (\ell^-, t < \ot) + (\ell^+, t > \ot) + (\ell^+, t < \ot)]}
1272: $$
1273: \beq
1274: = - \frac{x_d}{1 + x_d^2} {\rm Im} \lambda~~~.
1275: \eeq
1276: In practice the BaBar and Belle analyses will probably fit the time
1277: distributions rather than simply subdividing them, since background rejection
1278: and signal/noise ratio are functions of $t-\ot$.
1279:
1280: (3) For $\eta_C = +1$ the oscillatory term behaves as $\sim \Delta m (t +
1281: \ot)$, so it is not necessary to know whether $t$ or $\ot$ was earlier,
1282: and the asymmetric collision geometry is not needed. However, as shown above,
1283: in order to produce a $\bo \ob$ state with $\eta_C = +1$ in $e^+ e^-$
1284: collisions one must work at or above $B \bar B^*$ threshold, thereby losing
1285: the cross section advantage of the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance.
1286:
1287: \subsection{Uncorrelated $B \bar B$ pairs}
1288:
1289: Pairs of $B$'s produced in a hadronic environment are likely to arise
1290: from independent fragmentation of $b$ and $\bar b$ quarks, so that it is
1291: unlikely that they are produced in a state of definite $\eta_C$. (The
1292: interesting case of partially-correlated $B$-$\bar B$ pairs can be
1293: attacked by density-matrix methods.\cite{GRdens}) Thus, one must resort
1294: to either the fact that a $b$ is always produced in association with a $\bar
1295: b$ by the strong interactions (``opposite-side tagging''), or the fact that
1296: the fragmentation of a $b$ into a $\ob$ favors one particular sign of charged
1297: pion close to the $\ob$ in phase space (``same-side tagging'').
1298: \medskip
1299:
1300: \leftline{\underline{``Opposite-side'' methods}}
1301:
1302: The strong interactions $q \bar q \to b \bar b$ or $g g \to b \bar b$
1303: ($g = $ gluon) conserve beauty, so that a $b$ can be identified if it is
1304: found to be produced in association with a $\bar b$. The opposite-side
1305: $\bar b$ can be identified in several ways.
1306:
1307: (1) The {\it jet-charge} method makes use of the fact that a jet tends to
1308: carry the charge of its leading quark \cite{FF}, since the average charge
1309: of the fragmentation products is zero in the flavor-SU(3) limit.
1310: (There is some delicacy if strange
1311: quark production is suppressed, since $Q(u) \ne - Q(d)$.\cite{FR})
1312:
1313: (2) The {\it lepton-tag} method uses the charge of the lepton in the
1314: semileptonic decays $b \to c \ell^- \bar \nu_\ell$ and $\bar b \to \bar c
1315: \ell^+ \nu_\ell$ to signify the flavor of the decaying opposite-side $b$
1316: quark. The signal is diluted since semileptonic decays occur after the $b$
1317: quark has been incorporated into a meson. Sometimes this meson is a
1318: neutral $B$, in which case information on its flavor is nearly completely
1319: lost if it is a strange $B$ and partially lost if it is a nonstrange $B$.
1320: An initial $\overline{B}_s$ will decay half the time as a $B_s$, while
1321: an initial $\ob$ will decay about 18\% of the time as a $\bo$. (See Section
1322: 5.2.)
1323:
1324: (3) The {\it kaon-tag} method uses the fact that the signs of kaons
1325: produced in $b$ decays are correlated with the flavor of the decaying
1326: $b$. A $b$ gives rise to $c$, whose products have more $K^-$ than $K^+$.
1327: This method is subject to the same dilution as the lepton-tag method.
1328:
1329: In order to utilize the above methods, one needs the relative
1330: probabilities of production of $B^0$, $B^+$, $B_s$, and $\Lambda_b$,
1331: The CDF Collaboration \cite{CDFbpr} has measured these in high-energy hadron
1332: collisions to be in the ratios 0.375:0.375:0.16:0.09, while LEP Collaborations
1333: find 0.40:0.40:0.097:0.104 for $Z^0 \to b \bar b$ decays.\cite{LEPbpr}
1334: Taking account of $P(\bo \to \ob) \simeq
1335: 18\%$ and $P(B_s \to \overline{B}_s) \simeq 1/2$, the probability of a
1336: ``wrong'' tag is $(3/8)(0.18) + (0.16)(1/2) \simeq 0.15$, which dilutes the
1337: efficacy of the tag by a factor (right -- wrong)/(right + wrong) $\simeq 0.70$.
1338:
1339: For an extensive study of the first two tagging methods, see recent papers by
1340: the CDF Collaboration.\cite{CDFtags} These methods were a key ingredient in
1341: obtaining the CP-violating asymmetry in $\bo \to J/\psi K_S$ mentioned in
1342: Sec.~6.4.
1343: \medskip
1344:
1345: \leftline{\underline{``Same-side'' methods: Fragmentation and $B^{**}$
1346: resonances}}
1347:
1348: The fragmentation of a $b$ quark into a neutral $B$ meson
1349: is not charge-symmetric.
1350: This was noted quite some time ago in the context of strange $B$'s.\cite{Bstag}
1351: A $B_s$ contains a $\bar b$ and an $s$. This $s$ must have been produced in
1352: association with a $\bar s$. If that $\bar s$ is incorporated into a charged
1353: kaon, the kaon must be a $K^+ = u \bar s$.
1354:
1355: A similar argument applies to non-strange neutral $B$'s and charged
1356: pions.\cite{GNR} A $\bo$ is then found to be associated more frequently with a
1357: $\pi^+$ nearby in phase space, while a $\ob$ tends to be associated with a
1358: $\pi^-$. This correlation is the same as that found in resonance decays:
1359: $\bo$ resonates with $\pi^+$ but not $\pi^-$, while $\ob$ resonates with
1360: $\pi^-$ but not $\pi^+$.
1361: \medskip
1362:
1363: The fragmentation of a $\bar b$ or $b$ quark is illustrated in Fig.\
1364: \ref{fig:frag}. If one cuts the diagrams to the left of the pion emission,
1365: one finds either a $\bar b u$ or a $b \bar u$ state. Thus, a positively
1366: charged resonance can decay to $\bo \pi^+$, while a negatively charged one
1367: can decay to $\ob \pi^-$.
1368:
1369: % This is Figure 5
1370: \begin{figure}
1371: \centerline{\epsfysize=1.5in \epsffile{frag.ps}}
1372: \caption{Fragmentation of a $\bar b$ or $b$ quark into a $\bo$ or $\ob$.}
1373: \label{fig:frag}
1374: \end{figure}
1375:
1376: Recall the case of $D^{*+} \to \pi^+ D^0$ mentioned in Sec.~3.1. The soft
1377: pion in that decay may be used to tag the flavor of the neutral $D$ at the
1378: time of its production, which is useful if one wants to study $\dz$--$\od$
1379: mixing or Cabibbo-disfavored decays. The difference between $M(D^{*+})$ and
1380: $M(\pi^+) + M(\dz)$ (the ``$Q$-value'') is only about 5 MeV, so the pion is
1381: nearly at rest in the $D^{*+}$ c.m.s., and hence kinematically very
1382: distinctive. In the case of $B$'s, however, the lowest vector meson $B^{*+}$
1383: cannot decay to $\pi^+ \bo$ since the $B^*$--$B$ mass difference is only
1384: about 46 MeV. One must then utilize the decays of higher-mass $B^*$'s,
1385: collectively known as $B^{**}$'s. The lightest such states consist of
1386: a $b$ quark and a light quark ($u,d,s$) in a P-wave.
1387:
1388: Many key features of the spectroscopy of a heavy quark and a light one were
1389: first pointed out in the case of charm,\cite{DGG,JRPW} and codified using
1390: heavy-quark symmetry.\cite{HQSPW} The heavy quark spin degrees of freedom
1391: nearly decouple from the light-quark and gluon dynamics, so it makes sense
1392: to first couple the relative angular momentum $L = 1$ and the light-quark
1393: spin $s_q = 1/2$ to states of total light-quark angular momentum $j_q =
1394: 1/2$ or 3/2 and then to couple $j_q$ with the heavy quark spin $S_{\bar Q} =
1395: 1/2$ to form total angular momentum $J$. For $j_q = 1/2$ one then gets
1396: states with $J=0,1$, while for $j_q = 3/2$ one gets states with $J=1,2$.
1397: The $j_q = 1/2$ states decay to $B \pi$ or $B^* \pi$ only via S-waves, while
1398: the $j_q = 3/2$ states decay to $B \pi$ or $B^* \pi$ only via D-waves. These
1399: properties are summarized in Table \ref{tab:PWB}.
1400:
1401: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
1402: \begin{table}
1403: \caption{Quantum numbers of $B^{**}$ resonances (P-wave resonances between
1404: a $\bar b$ quark and a light quark $q$). \label{tab:PWB}}
1405: \begin{center}
1406: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
1407: $j_q$ & $J$ & Decay prods. & Part.\ wave & Width \\ \hline
1408: 1/2 & 0 & $B \pi$ & S wave & Broad \\
1409: 1/2 & 1 & $B^* \pi$ & S wave & Broad \\
1410: 3/2 & 1 & $B^* \pi$ & D wave & Narrow \\
1411: 3/2 & 2 & $B \pi$, $B^* \pi$ & D wave & Narrow \\ \hline
1412: \end{tabular}
1413: \end{center}
1414: \end{table}
1415:
1416: The $j_q=3/2$ resonances, decaying via D-waves,
1417: have been seen, with typical widths of tens of MeV and masses somewhere
1418: between 5.7 and 5.8 GeV/$c^2$ in all analyses.\cite{CDFB**,LEPB**} The $j_q =
1419: 1/2$ resonances are expected to be considerably broader. There is no
1420: unanimity on their properties, but evidence exists for at least one of their
1421: charmed counterparts.\cite{CLEOD**} More information on $B^{**}$'s
1422: would enhance their usefulness in same-side tagging of neutral $B$ mesons.
1423:
1424: \section{The strange $B$}
1425:
1426: \subsection{$B_s$--$\overline{B}_s$ mixing}
1427:
1428: The limit \cite{Bslim} $\Delta m_s > 15$ ps$^{-1}$ mentioned in Sec.\ 4.4 was
1429: a significant source of constraint on the $(\rho,\eta)$ plot. What range of
1430: mixing is actually expected? One may place an upper bound by noting that
1431: \beq
1432: \frac{\Delta m_s}{\Delta m_d} = \left| \frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}} \right|^2
1433: \frac{B_{B_s}}{B_B} \left( \frac{f_{B_s}}{f_B} \right)^2~~~.
1434: \eeq
1435: Let us review the estimate \cite{JRFM} $f_{B_s}/f_B \le 1.25$. The upper
1436: limit (larger than the lattice range \cite{DeG}) comes from the nonrelativistic
1437: quark model, which implies \cite{NRFM}
1438: $|f_M|^2 = 12 |\Psi(0)|^2/M_M$ for the decay constant $f_M$ of
1439: a meson $M$ of mass $M_M$ composed of a quark-antiquark pair with relative
1440: wave function $\Psi(\vec{r})$. One estimates the ratios of $|\Psi(0)|^2$
1441: in $D$ and $D_s$ systems from strong hyperfine splittings. Since $M(D^{*+})
1442: - M(D^+) \simeq M(D_s^{*+}) - M(D_s^+)$, one expects $|\Psi(0)|_{Q \bar d}^2
1443: /m_d \simeq |\Psi(0)|_{Q \bar s}^2/m_s$ for mesons containing a heavy quark
1444: $Q$. In constituent-quark models \cite{GasR} $m_d/m_s \simeq
1445: 0.64$, so $f_{Q \bar d}/f_{Q \bar s} \simeq \sqrt{0.64} = 0.8$.
1446: An upper limit on $|V_{ts}/V_{td}|$ (see Sec.\ 4.3) is then $\le
1447: [\lambda (0.66)]^{-1} = 6.9$, implying $\Delta m_s/\Delta m_d \le 74$ or
1448: $\Delta m_s \le 36$ ps$^{-1}$. A recent prediction \cite{BecR} based on
1449: lattice estimates for decay constants is $\Delta m_s = 16.2 \pm 2.1 \pm
1450: 3.4$ ps$^{-1}$; there is a hint of a signal at $\sim 17$ ps$^{-1}$.\cite{Bslim}
1451:
1452: \subsection{$B_s$ lifetime}
1453:
1454: The mass eigenstates of the strange $B$ are expected to be nearly CP
1455: eigenstates. Their mass splitting is expected to be correlated with their
1456: mixing; large values of $\Delta m_s$ imply
1457: large values of $\Delta \Gamma_s$. (In the calculation of $\Delta \Gamma/\
1458: \Delta m$, the values of $|f_M|^2$ cancel.)
1459:
1460: The value of $\Delta \Gamma_s$
1461: is much greater than that of $\Delta \Gamma_d$ because of the shared
1462: intermediate states in the transition $\overline{B}_s = b \bar s \to
1463: s \bar c c \bar s \to s \bar b = B_s$ illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:bsmix}.
1464: Specific calculations \cite{dbs} imply that this quark subprocess may be
1465: dominated by $CP = +$ intermediate states, implying a shorter lifetime for
1466: the even-CP eigenstate of the $\overline{B}_s$--$B_s$ system by ${\cal O}
1467: (10\%)$.
1468:
1469: % This is Figure 6
1470: \begin{figure}
1471: \centerline{\epsfysize=1.4in \epsffile{bsmix.ps}}
1472: \caption{Mixing of $\overline{B}_s$ and $B_s$ as a result of shared
1473: $s \bar c c \bar s$ intermediate states.}
1474: \label{fig:bsmix}
1475: \end{figure}
1476:
1477: The imaginary part of the diagram in Fig.\ \ref{fig:bsmix}
1478: is due to on-shell states, which do not include those involving
1479: the top quark. This is the reason for the factor of $(m_b^2/m_W^2)/
1480: S(m_t^2/M_W^2)$ in Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:bgm}). The lowest-order ratio,
1481: $\Delta \Gamma_s/\Delta m_s \simeq -1/180$, implies that if $|\Delta m_s/
1482: \Gamma_s| = (20 {\rm~ps}^{-1})(1.6 {\rm~ps}) = 32$ (a reasonable value), then
1483: $|\Delta \Gamma_s / \Gamma_s| \simeq 1/6$. Recent calculations predict
1484: $\Delta \Gamma_s / \Gamma_s = (9.3^{+3.4}_{-4.6})\%$ \cite{BeLe} or
1485: $(4.7 \pm 1.5 \pm 1.6)\%$ \cite{bec}. The latter group \cite{beclat} also finds
1486: $f_{B_d} \sqrt{B_{B_d}} = 206(28)(7)$ MeV, $f_{B_s} \sqrt{B_{B_s}}/(f_B
1487: \sqrt{B_B}) = 1.16(7)$, $f_{B_s} \sqrt{B_{B_s}} = 237(18)(8)$ MeV.
1488:
1489: \subsection{Measuring $\Delta \Gamma_s/ \Gamma_s$}
1490:
1491: The average decay rate of the two mass eigenstates $B_H$ and $B_L$ can be
1492: measured by observing a flavor-specific decay, e.g.,
1493: \beq
1494: B_s (= \bar b s) \to D_s^-(= \bar c s) \ell^+ \nu_\ell~~{\rm or}~~
1495: B_s \to D_s^- \pi^+~~,~~~D_s^- \to \phi \pi^-~~~.
1496: \eeq
1497: The flavor of $D_s$ labels the flavor of the $B_s$ and then we note that
1498: \beq
1499: \ket{B_s} \simeq \frac{1}{\s} \left( \ket{B_L} + \ket{B_H} \right)~~~.
1500: \eeq
1501: Such a flavor-specific decay then gives a rate $\bar \Gamma = (\Gamma_L
1502: + \Gamma_H)/2$.
1503:
1504: One can also look for a decay in which the CP of the final state can be
1505: easily identified.\cite{DDLR} $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$ is such a final state;
1506: one can perform a helicity analysis to learn its CP eigenvalue (or whether
1507: it is a mixture). Since $J(J/\psi) = J(\phi) = 1$ and $J(B_s) = 0$, the final
1508: state can have orbital angular momenta $\ell = 0, 1$, and 2. {\it Exercise:
1509: Show that $\ell = 0,2$ corresponds to even, and $\ell = 1$ to odd CP.}
1510:
1511: \subsection{Helicity analyses of $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$ and $B \to J/\psi
1512: K^{*}$}
1513:
1514: It is convenient to re-express the three partial wave amplitudes for
1515: decay of a spin-zero mesons into two massive spin-1 mesons in terms of {\it
1516: transversity} amplitudes.\cite{transv} These are most easily visualized by
1517: analogy with the method originally used to determine the parity of the
1518: neutral pion through its decay to two photons.
1519:
1520: A spinless meson $M$ can decay to two photons with two possible linear
1521: polarization states: parallel and perpendicular to each other. If they have
1522: parallel polarizations, the interaction Lagrangian is ${\cal L}_{\rm int} \sim
1523: M F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} \sim M({\bf E}^2 - {\bf B}^2)$, while if they
1524: have perpendicular polarizations, ${\cal L}_{\rm int} \sim M F_{\mu \nu}
1525: \tilde{F}^{\mu \nu} \sim M({\bf E} \cdot {\bf B})$. Now, ${\bf E}^2 -
1526: {\bf B}$ is CP-even, while ${\bf E} \cdot {\bf B}$ is CP-odd. The observation
1527: that the two photons emitted by the $\pi^0$ had perpendicular polarizations
1528: then was used to infer that the pion had odd CP and hence (since its C was
1529: even as a result of its coupling to two photons) odd P.
1530:
1531: One can then identify two of the decay amplitudes for a spinless meson
1532: decaying to two {\it massive} vector mesons as $A_\pr$ (parallel linear
1533: polarizations, even CP) and $A_\perp$ (perpendicular linear polarizations,
1534: odd CP). A third decay amplitude is peculiar to the massive vector meson
1535: case: Both vector mesons can have longitudinal polarizations (impossible
1536: for photons). Since there must be {\it two} independent CP-even decay
1537: amplitudes by the partial-wave exercise given above, this amplitude,
1538: which we call $A_0$, must be CP-even.
1539:
1540: There are two recent experimental studies of decays of strange $B$'s to
1541: pairs of vector mesons. (1) The CDF Collaboration \cite{CDFBs} finds the
1542: results quoted in Table \ref{tab:Bhel}. The decays $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$
1543: and $\bo \to J/\psi K^{*0}$ are related to one another by flavor SU(3) (the
1544: interchange $s \leftrightarrow d$ for the spectator quark) and thus should
1545: have similar amplitude structure. We have adopted a normalization in
1546: which $|A_0|^2 + |A_\pr|^2 + |A_\perp|^2 = 1$. The CDF result says that
1547: $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$ is dominantly CP-even. No significant $\Delta \Gamma
1548: /\Gamma$ has been detected, but the sensitivity is not yet adequate to reach
1549: predicted levels. These conclusions are supported by results from CLEO
1550: \cite{CLhel} ($|A_0|^2 = 0.52 \pm 0.08,~|A_\perp|^2 = 0.09 \pm 0.08$) and
1551: BaBar \cite{Bahel} ($|A_0|^2 = 0.60 \pm 0.06 \pm 0.04,~|A_\perp|^2 = 0.13
1552: \pm 0.06 \pm 0.02$).
1553:
1554: \begin{table}[h]
1555: \caption{Amplitudes in the decays $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$ and $\bo \to J/\psi
1556: K^{*0}$. \label{tab:Bhel}}
1557: \begin{center}
1558: \begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
1559: Amplitudes & $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$ & $\bo \to J/\psi K^{*0}$ \\ \hline
1560: $|A_0|$ & $0.78 \pm 0.09 \pm 0.01$ & $0.77 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.01$ \\
1561: $|A_\pr|$ & $0.41 \pm 0.23 \pm 0.05$ & $0.53 \pm 0.11 \pm 0.04$ \\
1562: Arg($A_\pr/A_0$) & $1.1 \pm 1.3 \pm 0.2$ & $2.2 \pm 0.5 \pm 0.1$ \\
1563: $|A_\perp|$ & $0.48 \pm 0.20 \pm 0.04$ & $0.36 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.08$ \\
1564: Arg($A_\perp/A_0$) & & $-0.6 \pm 0.5 \pm 0.1$ \\ \hline
1565: $\Gamma_L/\Gamma = |A_0|^2$ & $0.61 \pm 0.14 \pm 0.02$ & $0.59 \pm 0.06
1566: \pm 0.01$ \\
1567: $\Gamma_\perp/\Gamma = |A_\perp|^2$ & $0.23 \pm 0.19 \pm 0.04$ &
1568: $0.13^{+0.12}_{-0.09} \pm 0.06$ \\ \hline
1569: \end{tabular}
1570: \end{center}
1571: \end{table}
1572:
1573: (2) A recent ALEPH analysis \cite{ALBs} of the decays $B_s \to D_s^{(*)+}
1574: D_s^{(*)-}$ finds that the decay to pairs of vector mesons occurs in
1575: mostly even partial waves, so that the lifetime in this mode probes
1576: that of the CP-even mass eigenstate, which turns out to be $B_L \simeq (B_s +
1577: \overline{B}_s)/\s$, giving $\tau_L = 1.27 \pm 0.33 \pm 0.07$ ps. A similar
1578: study of the flavor eigenstate finds $\tau(B_s) = 1.54 \pm 0.07$ ps. Comparing
1579: the two values, one finds $\Delta \Gamma/\Gamma = (25^{+21}_{-14})\%$.
1580: This is just one facet of a combined analysis of results from
1581: CDF, LEP, and SLD \cite{combBs} that concludes
1582: $\Delta \Gamma/\Gamma = (16^{+8}_{-9})\%$, or $\Delta \Gamma/\Gamma < 31\%$
1583: at 95\% c.l.
1584:
1585: \section{$B$ decays to pairs of light mesons}
1586:
1587: We have already noted in Table \ref{tab:PP} some branching ratios for $B$
1588: decays to pairs of light pseudoscalar mesons. Here we discuss these and
1589: related processes involving one or two light vector mesons in more detail.
1590:
1591: \subsection{Dominant processes in $B \to \pi \pi$ and $B \to K \pi$}
1592:
1593: The decays $B \to \pi \pi$ and $B \to K \pi$ are rich in possibilities for
1594: determining fundamental CKM parameters. The process $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$
1595: could yield the angle $\alpha$ in the absence of penguin amplitudes, whose
1596: contribution must therefore be taken into account. The process $B^0 \to K^+
1597: \pi^-$ and related decays can provide information on the weak phase $\gamma$.
1598:
1599: In order to discuss such decays in a unified way, we shall employ a
1600: flavor-SU(3) description using a graphical representation.\cite{Chau,GHLR}
1601: This language is equivalent to tensorial methods.\cite{Zepp,SW} The
1602: graphs are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:gph}. They constitute an over-complete
1603: set; all processes of the form $B \to PP$, where $P$ is a light pseudoscalar
1604: meson belonging to a flavor octet, are described by only 5 independent
1605: linear combinations of these.
1606:
1607: The graphical technique allows one to check a result
1608: for $B \to \pi \pi$ which can be obtained using isospin invariance.
1609: The subprocess $\bar b \to \bar u u \bar d$ can change isospin by 1/2 or 3/2
1610: units. The $J=0$ $\pi \pi$ final state, by virtue of Bose statistics, must
1611: have even isospin: $I=0,2$. Thus there are only two invariant amplitudes
1612: in the problem, one with $\Delta I = 1/2$ leading to $I_{\pi \pi} = 0$ and
1613: one with $\Delta I = 3/2$ leading to $I_{\pi \pi} = 2$. Hence the amplitudes
1614: for the three decays $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$, $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$, and
1615: $B^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0$ obey one linear relation. In the graphical
1616: representation they are
1617: \bea
1618: A(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-) & = & - (T+P)~~, \\
1619: A(B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0) & = & -(T+C)/\s~~,\\
1620: A(B^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0) & = & (P-C)/\s~~,
1621: \eea
1622: leading to the relation $A(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = \s A(B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0)
1623: - \s A(B^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0)$. Measurement of the rates for these processes
1624: and their charge-conjugates allows one to separate the penguin and tree
1625: contributions from one another and to obtain information on the CKM phase
1626: $\alpha$. The only potential drawback of this method is that the branching
1627: ratio for $A(B^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0)$ is expected to be small: of order $10^{-6}$.
1628:
1629: % This is Figure 7
1630: \begin{figure}
1631: \centerline{\epsfysize=2.5in \epsffile{gph.ps}}
1632: \caption{Graphs describing flavor-SU(3) invariant amplitudes for the decays of
1633: $B$ mesons to pairs of light flavor-octet pseudoscalar mesons. (a) ``Tree''
1634: ($T$); (b) ``Color-suppressed'' ($C$); (c) ``Penguin'' ($P$); (d) ``Exchange
1635: ($E$); (e) ``Annihilation'' ($A$); (f) ``Penguin annihilation'' ($PA$).}
1636: \label{fig:gph}
1637: \end{figure}
1638:
1639: One can use $B \to K \pi$ and flavor SU(3) to evaluate the penguin
1640: contribution to $B \to \pi \pi$.\cite{SilWo} The decay $B \to \pi \pi$
1641: appears to be dominated by the tree amplitude while $B \to K \pi$ appears to
1642: be dominated by the penguin:
1643: \beq
1644: \left| \frac{({\rm Tree})_{K \pi}}{({\rm Tree})_{\pi \pi}} \right|
1645: \simeq \left| \frac{f_K V_{us}}{f_\pi V_{ud}} \right| \simeq \left|
1646: \frac{({\rm Pen})_{\pi \pi}}{({\rm Pen})_{K \pi}} \right| \simeq
1647: \left| \frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}} \right| \simeq \frac{1}{4}~~~.
1648: \eeq
1649: Many other applications of flavor SU(3) to $B \to K \pi$ decays have been
1650: made subsequently.\cite{Kpi} We shall discuss the results of one relatively
1651: recent example.\cite{Bskpi}
1652:
1653: \subsection{Measuring $\gamma$ with $B \to K \pi$ decays}
1654:
1655: The Fermilab Tevatron and the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will produce
1656: large numbers of $\pi^+ \pi^-$, $\pi^\pm K^\mp$, and $K^+ K^-$ pairs from
1657: neutral non-strange and strange $B$ mesons. Each set of decays has its
1658: own distinguishing features.
1659:
1660: The processes $B^0 \to K^+ K^-$ and $B_s \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ involve only
1661: the spectator-quark amplitudes $E$ and $PA$, and thus should be suppressed.
1662: They are related to one another by a flavor SU(3) ``U-spin'' reflection $s
1663: \leftrightarrow d$ \cite{MGU} and thus the ratio of their rates should be the
1664: ratio of the corresponding squares of CKM elements.
1665:
1666: The decays $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $B_s \to K^+ K^-$ also are related to
1667: each other by a U-spin reflection. Time-dependent studies of both processes
1668: allow one to separate strong interaction and weak interaction information
1669: from one another and to measure the angle $\gamma$.\cite{DuFl} This appears
1670: to be a promising method for Run II at the Fermilab Tevatron.\cite{Wurt}
1671:
1672: The decays of non-strange and strange neutral $B$ mesons to $K^\pm \pi^\mp$
1673: provide another source of information on $\gamma$ \cite{Bskpi} when combined
1674: with information on $B^+ \to \ko \pi^+$. The rate for this process is predicted
1675: to be the same as that for $B^- \to \ok \pi^-$, providing a consistency check.
1676: We consider the amplitudes $T$ and $P$ with relative weak phase $\gamma$
1677: and relative strong phase $\delta$, neglecting the amplitudes $E$, $A$, and
1678: $PA$ which are expected to be suppressed relative to $T$ and $P$ by factors
1679: of $f_B/m_B$. Then we find (letting $T$ and $P$ stand for magnitudes)
1680: \bea
1681: A(\bo \to K^+ \pi^-) & = & - [P + T e^{i(\gamma + \delta)} ]~~, \\
1682: A(B^+ \to \ko \pi^+) & = & P~~, \\
1683: A(B_s \to \pi^+ K^-) & = & \tl P - \frac{1}{\tl} T e^{i(\gamma+\delta)}~~, \\
1684: \eea
1685: with amplitudes for the charge-conjugate processes given by $\gamma \to
1686: - \gamma$. Here $\tl \equiv |V_{us}/V_{ud}| = |V_{cd}/V_{cs}| = \tan
1687: \theta_c \simeq 0.226$. In the penguin amplitude the top quark has been
1688: integrated out and unitarity used to replace $V^*_{tb} V_{tq}$ by $-V^*_{cb}
1689: V_{cq} - V^*_{ub} V_{uq}$. The term $-V^*_{cb}V_{cq}$ is the dominant
1690: contribution to $P$, while $- V^*_{ub} V_{uq}$ is incorporated into $T$.
1691:
1692: We define the charge-averaged ratios:
1693: \beq
1694: R \equiv \frac{\Gamma(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-) + \Gamma(\bar B^0 \to K^- \pi^+)}
1695: {\Gamma(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+) + \Gamma(B^- \to \bar K^0 \pi^-)}~~~,
1696: \eeq
1697: \beq
1698: R_s \equiv \frac{\Gamma(B_s \to K^- \pi^+) + \Gamma(\bar B_s \to K^+ \pi^-)}
1699: {\Gamma(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+) + \Gamma(B^- \to \bar K^0 \pi^-)}~~~,
1700: \eeq
1701: and CP-violating rate (pseudo-)asymmetries:
1702: \beq
1703: A_0 \equiv \frac{\Gamma(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-) -\Gamma(\bar B^0 \to K^- \pi^+)}
1704: {\Gamma(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+) + \Gamma(B^- \to \bar K^0 \pi^-)}~~~,
1705: \eeq
1706: \beq
1707: A_s \equiv \frac{\Gamma(B_s \to K^- \pi^+) - \Gamma(\bar B_s \to K^+ \pi^-)}
1708: {\Gamma(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+) + \Gamma(B^- \to \bar K^0 \pi^-)}~~~.
1709: \eeq
1710: and let $r \equiv T/P$. We find
1711: \beq \label{eqn:R}
1712: R = 1 + r^2 + 2 r \cos \delta \cos \gamma~~~,
1713: \eeq
1714: \beq \label{eqn:Rs}
1715: R_s = \tl^2 + (r/\tl)^2 - 2 r \cos \delta \cos \gamma~~~,
1716: \eeq
1717: \beq \label{eqn:asym}
1718: A_0 = - A_s = -2r \sin \gamma \sin \delta~~~.
1719: \eeq
1720: The relation $A_0 = -A_s$ may be used to test the assumption of flavor
1721: SU(3) symmetry, while the remaining three equations may be solved for the
1722: three unknowns $r$, $\gamma$, and $\delta$. An error of $10^\circ$
1723: on $\gamma$ seems feasible. (A small correction associated with the
1724: above approximation to the penguin graph also may be applied.\cite{CW})
1725:
1726: \subsection{Decays with $\eta$ and $\eta'$ in the final state}
1727:
1728: The physical $\eta$ and $\eta'$ are mixtures of the flavor octet state
1729: $\eta_8 \equiv (2 s \bar s - u \bar u - d \bar d)/\sx$ and the flavor
1730: singlet $\eta_1 \equiv (u \bar u + d \bar d + s \bar s)/\st$. This mixing
1731: is tested in many decays, such as $(\eta,\eta') \to \gamma \gamma$, $(\rho,
1732: \omega, \phi) \to \eta \gamma$, $\eta' \to (\rho,\omega) \gamma$, etc. The
1733: result \cite{etamix} is that the $\eta$ is mostly an octet and the $\eta'$
1734: mostly a singlet, with one frequently-employed approximation \cite{Chau,etapx}
1735: corresponding to an octet-singlet mixing angle of $19^\circ$:
1736: \beq
1737: \eta \simeq \frac{1}{\st}(s \bar s - u \bar u - d \bar d)~~,~~~
1738: \eta' \simeq \frac{1}{\sx}(u \bar u + d \bar d + 2 s \bar s)~~~,
1739: \eeq
1740: (A single mixing angle may not adequately describe the $\eta$--$\eta'$
1741: system.\cite{Feld})
1742: For a meson with a flavor singlet component, an amplitude in addition
1743: to those depicted in Fig.\ \ref{fig:gph} corresponds to the ``singlet''
1744: penguin diagram \cite{etapx} shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:sp}.
1745:
1746: % This is Figure 8
1747: \begin{figure}
1748: \centerline{\epsfysize=1.5in \epsffile{sp.ps}}
1749: \caption{Singlet penguin diagram, important for $B \to PP$ processes in
1750: which one of the pseudoscalar mesons $P$ is $\eta$ or $\eta'$.}
1751: \label{fig:sp}
1752: \end{figure}
1753:
1754: The CLEO Collaboration's large branching ratios for
1755: $B \to \eta' K$: \cite{CLetap}
1756: \beq
1757: {\cal B}(B^+ \to \eta' K^+) = (80^{+10}_{-9} \pm 7) \times 10^{-6}~~,
1758: ~~~{\cal B}(\bo \to \eta' \ko) = (89^{+18}_{-16} \pm 9) \times 10^{-6}~~~,
1759: \eeq
1760: with only upper limits for $K \eta$ production,
1761: indicate the presence of a substantial ``singlet'' penguin contribution,
1762: and constructive interference between nonstrange and strange quark
1763: contributions of $\eta'$ to the {\it ordinary} penguin amplitude $P$, as
1764: suggested by Lipkin.\cite{HJLeta}
1765: The corresponding decays to nonstrange final states, $B^+ \to \pi^+ \eta$ and
1766: $B^+ \to \pi^+ \eta'$, are expected to have large CP-violating asymmetries,
1767: since several weak amplitudes in these processes are of comparable
1768: magnitude.\cite{etapx} Moreover, CLEO sees
1769: \bea
1770: {\cal B}(B^+ \to \eta K^{*+}) & = & (26.4^{+9.6}_{-8.2} \pm 3.3)
1771: \times 10^{-6}~~~, \\
1772: {\cal B}(\bo \to \eta K^{*0}) & = & (13.8^{+5.5}_{-4.6} \pm 1.6)
1773: \times 10^{-6}~~~,
1774: \eea
1775: with only upper limits for $K^* \eta'$ production. These results favor the
1776: {\it opposite} signs for nonstrange and strange components of the $\eta$,
1777: again in accord with predictions.\cite{HJLeta}
1778:
1779: Much theoretical effort has been expended on attempts to understand the
1780: magnitude of the ``singlet'' penguin diagrams,\cite{spth} but they appear
1781: to be more important than one would estimate using pertubative QCD.
1782:
1783: \subsection{One vector meson and one pseudoscalar}
1784:
1785: The decays $B \to VP$, where $V$ is a vector meson and $P$ a pseudoscalar,
1786: are characterized by twice as many invariant amplitudes of flavor SU(3)
1787: as the decays $B \to PP$, since either the vector meson or the pseudoscalar
1788: can contain the spectator quark. We can label the corresponding amplitudes
1789: by a subscript $V$ or $P$ to denote the type of meson containing the
1790: spectator. A recent analysis within the graphical framework uses data to
1791: specify amplitudes.\cite{GRVP} Alternatively, one can incorporate models for
1792: form factors into calculations based on factorization.\cite{Hou,He} An
1793: interesting possibility suggested in both these approaches is that the large
1794: branching ratio ${\cal B}(\bo \to K^{*+} \pi^-)$ may suggest constructive
1795: tree-penguin interference, implying $\gamma \ge 90^\circ$.
1796:
1797: The tree amplitude in $\bo \to K^{*+} \pi^-$ is proportional to $V^*_{ub}
1798: V_{us}$, with weak phase $\gamma$, while the penguin amplitude is proportional
1799: to $V^*_{tb} V_{ts}$, with weak phase $\pi$. The relative weak phase between
1800: these two amplitudes is then $\gamma - \pi$, which leads to constructive
1801: interference if the strong phase difference between the tree and penguin
1802: amplitudes is small and if $\Gamma > \pi/2$. This could help explain why
1803: ${\cal B}(\bo \to K^{*+} \pi^-)$ seems to exceed $2 \times 10^{-5}$
1804: while the pure penguin process $B \to \phi K$ corresponds to a branching
1805: ratio of only $(6.2^{+2.0+0.7}_{-1.8-1.7}) \times 10^{-6}$.\cite{CL2K,CLVP}
1806:
1807: A similar tree-penguin interference can occur in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$. The
1808: tree amplitude is proportional to $V^*_{ub} V_{ud}$, with weak phase $\gamma$,
1809: while the penguin is proportional to $V^*_{tb} V_{td}$, with weak phase
1810: $- \beta$. The relative weak phase is then $\gamma + \beta = \pi - \alpha$.
1811: One expects destructive interference if the final strong phase difference is
1812: small and $\alpha < \pi/2$. This could help explain why $B(\bo \to \pi^+
1813: %U | | | |
1814: \pi^-)$ is $(4.4 \pm 0.9) \times 10^{-6}$ while the tree contribution alone,
1815: estimated (for example) from $B \to \pi \ell \nu$,\cite{GR98} would lead
1816: to a branching ratio around $10^{-5}$.
1817:
1818: A global fit of $B \to PP$ and $B\to VP$ data \cite{Hou} based on factorization
1819: and models for form factors leads to $\gamma = (114^{+25}_{-23})^{\circ}$,
1820: which just barely clips the corner of the allowed $(\rho,\eta)$ region. If
1821: valid, this result implies that we should see $\Delta m_s$ near its present
1822: lower bound.
1823:
1824: \subsection{Two vector mesons}
1825:
1826: No modes with pairs of light vector mesons have been identified conclusively
1827: yet. The existence of three partial waves (S, P, D) for such processes as $\bo
1828: \to \phi K^{*0}$ means that helicity analyses can in principle detect the
1829: presence of final-state interactions (as in the case of $B \to J/\psi K^*$).
1830: It is not clear, however, whether such final-state phases are
1831: relevant to the case of greatest interest, in which two different channels
1832: are ``fed'' by different {\it weak} processes such as $T$ and $P$ amplitudes.
1833: Some further information obtainable from angular distributions in $B
1834: \to VV$ decays has been noted.\cite{Chiang}
1835:
1836: \subsection{Testing flavor SU(3)}
1837:
1838: The asymmetry prediction $A_s = - A_0$ for $B_s \to \bar K \pi$ vs.
1839: $B \to K \pi$, mentioned above, is just one of a number of U-spin relations
1840: \cite{MGU} testable via
1841: $B_s$ decays, which will first be studied in detail at hadron colliders.
1842: One expects the assumption of flavor SU(3), and in particular the equality of
1843: final-state phases for non-strange and strange $B$ final states, to be more
1844: valid for $B$ decays than for charm decays, where resonances still are
1845: expected to play a major role.
1846:
1847: \section{The role of penguins}
1848:
1849: \subsection{Estimates of magnitudes}
1850:
1851: Perturbative calculations of penguin contributions to processes such as
1852: $B \to K \pi$, where they seem to be dominant, fall short of actual
1853: measurements.\cite{Ciu} Phenomenological fits indicate no
1854: suppression by a factor of $\alpha_s/4 \pi$ despite the presence of a loop and
1855: a gluon. One possible explanation is the
1856: presence of a $c \bar c$ loop with substantial enhancement from on-shell
1857: states, equivalent to strong rescattering from such states as
1858: $D_s \bar D$ to charmless meson pairs. If this is indeed the case,
1859: penguin amplitudes could have different final-state phases from tree
1860: amplitudes, enhancing the possibility of observing direct CP violation.
1861:
1862: \subsection{Electroweak penguins}
1863:
1864: % This is Figure 9
1865: \begin{figure}
1866: \centerline{\epsfysize=1.5in \epsffile{ewp.ps}}
1867: \caption{Electroweak penguin (EWP) diagrams. (a) Color-favored ($P_{EW}$);
1868: (b) Color-suppressed ($P^c_{EW}$).}
1869: \label{fig:ewp}
1870: \end{figure}
1871:
1872: When the gluon in a penguin diagram is replaced by a (real or virtual) photon
1873: or a virtual $Z$ which couples to a final $q \bar q$ pair,
1874: the process $\bar b \to (\bar d~{\rm or}~\bar s) q \bar q$
1875: is no longer independent of the flavor ($u,d,s$) of $q$.
1876: Instead, one has contributions in which the $u \bar u$ pair is treated
1877: differently from the $d \bar d$ or $s \bar s$ pair. A {\it color-favored}
1878: electroweak penguin amplitude $P_{EW}$ [Fig.\ \ref{fig:ewp}(a)]
1879: involves the pair appearing in the same neutral meson (e.g., $\pi^0$), while a
1880: {\it color-suppressed} amplitude $P^c_{EW}$ [Fig.\ \ref{fig:ewp}(b)]
1881: involves each member of the pair appearing in a different meson.
1882:
1883: One may parametrize electroweak penguin (EWP) amplitudes
1884: by contributions proportional to the quark charge, sweeping other terms into
1885: the gluonic penguin contributions. One then finds that the EWP
1886: terms in a flavor-SU(3) description may be combined as follows with
1887: the terms $T$, $C$, $P$, and $S$ (the ``singlet'') penguin: \cite{GHLRP}
1888: \bea
1889: T \to t & \equiv & T + P^c_{EW}~~,~~P \to p \equiv P - \frac{1}{3}P^c_{EW}~~,\\
1890: C \to c & \equiv & C + P_{EW}~~,~~S \to s \equiv S - \frac{1}{3}P_{EW}~~.
1891: \eea
1892: The flavor-SU(3) description holds as before, but weak phases now can differ
1893: from their previous values as a result of the EWP contributions.
1894:
1895: One early application of flavor SU(3) which turns out to be significantly
1896: affected by EWP contributions is the attempt to learn the weak phase $\gamma$
1897: from information on the decays $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$, $B^+ \to \ko \pi^+$,
1898: $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$, and the corresponding charge-conjugate
1899: decays.\cite{GLRPRL} The amplitude construction is illustrated in Fig.\
1900: \ref{fig:gam}. The primes on the amplitudes refer to the fact that they
1901: describe strangeness-changing ($|\Delta S| = 1$) transitions. The corresponding
1902: $\Delta S = 0$ amplitudes are unprimed.
1903:
1904: % This is Figure 10
1905: \begin{figure}
1906: \centerline{\epsfysize=2in \epsffile{gam.ps}}
1907: \caption{Amplitude triangles for determining the weak phase $\gamma$. These
1908: are affected by electroweak penguin contributions, as described in the text.}
1909: \label{fig:gam}
1910: \end{figure}
1911:
1912: The amplitudes in Fig.\ \ref{fig:gam} form two triangles, whose sides
1913: labeled $C' + T'$ and $\bar C' + \bar T'$ form an angle $2 \gamma$ with
1914: respect to one another. (There will be a discrete ambiguity corresponding
1915: to flipping one of the triangles about its base.) One estimates the
1916: lengths of these two sides using flavor SU(3) from the amplitudes
1917: $A(B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0) = (C + T)/\s$ and $A(B^- \to \pi^- \pi^0) = (\bar C
1918: + \bar T)/\s$.
1919:
1920: In the presence of electroweak penguin contributions this simple analysis
1921: must be modified, since there are important additional contributions when
1922: we replace $C'+T' \to c'+t'$ and $\bar C' + \bar T' \to \bar c' + \bar
1923: t'$.\cite{DH} The culprit is the $C'$ amplitude, which is associated with a
1924: color-favored electroweak penguin. It was noted subsequently \cite{NR}
1925: that since the $C'+T'$ amplitude corresponds to isospin $I(K \pi) = 3/2$
1926: for the final state, the strong-interaction phase of its EWP contribution is
1927: the same as that of the rest of the $C'+T'$ amplitude, permitting the
1928: calculation of the EWP correction. The result is that
1929: \beq
1930: A[I(K \pi) = 3/2] \sim {\rm const} \times (e^{i \gamma} - \delta_{EW})~~~,
1931: \eeq
1932: where the phase in the first term is Arg($V^*_{ub}V_{us})$ and the second term
1933: is estimated to be $\delta_{EW} = 0.64 \pm 0.15$ when SU(3)-breaking effects
1934: are included.
1935:
1936: Any deviation of the ratio $2 \Gamma(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)/\Gamma(B^+ \to \ko
1937: \pi^+)$ from 1 can signify interference of the $C'+T'$ amplitude with the
1938: dominant $P'$ amplitude and hence can provide information on $\gamma$. The
1939: present value for this ratio, based on the branching ratios in Table
1940: \ref{tab:PP}, is $1.27 \pm 0.47$, compatible with 1.
1941:
1942: The triangle construction (with its generalization to include
1943: EWP contributions) avoids the need to evaluate strong phases. Other studies of
1944: calculable electroweak penguin effects have been made.\cite{GP} Good use of
1945: these results will require 100 fb$^{-1}$ at an $e^+ e^-$ collider or
1946: $10^8$ produced $B \bar B$ pairs.
1947:
1948: \section{Final-state interactions}
1949:
1950: It is crucial to understand final-state strong phases in
1951: order to anticipate direct CP-violating rate asymmetries and to check whether
1952: assumptions about the smallness of amplitudes involving the spectator quark
1953: are correct. The decay $B^+ \to \ko \pi^+$
1954: in the na\"{\i}ve diagrammatic approach is expected to be dominated by the
1955: penguin diagram with no tree contribution. The penguin weak phase would be
1956: Arg($V^*_{tb}V_{ts}) = \pi$. The phase of the annihilation amplitude $A$, which
1957: is expected to be suppressed by a factor of $\lambda^2 f_B/m_B$ and hence
1958: should be unimportant, should be Arg($V^*_{ub}V_{us}) = \gamma$. This
1959: implies a very small CP-violating rate asymmetry between $B^+ \to \ko \pi^+$
1960: and $B^- \to \ok \pi^-$, much smaller than in cases where $T$ and $P$
1961: amplitudes can interfere such as $\bo \to K^+ \pi^-$.
1962:
1963: \begin{table}[h]
1964: \caption{CP-violating rate asymmetries for several $B \to K \pi$
1965: processes. \label{tab:asy}}
1966: \begin{center}
1967: \begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
1968: Mode & Signal events & ${\cal A}_{CP}$ \\ \hline
1969: $K^+ \pi^-$ & $80^{+12}_{-11}$ & $-0.04 \pm 0.16$ \\
1970: $K^+ \pi^0$ & $42.1^{+10.9}_{-9.9}$ & $-0.29 \pm 0.23$ \\
1971: $K_S \pi^+$ & $25.2^{+6.4}_{-5.6}$ & $0.18 \pm 0.24$ \\
1972: $K^+ \eta'$ & $100^{+13}_{-12}$ & $0.03 \pm 0.12$ \\
1973: $\omega \pi^+$ & $28.5^{+8.2}_{-7.3}$ & $-0.34 \pm 0.25$ \\ \hline
1974: \end{tabular}
1975: \end{center}
1976: \end{table}
1977:
1978: The current data do not exhibit significant CP asymmetries in any
1979: modes.\cite{Chen} In Table
1980: \ref{tab:asy} we summarize some recently report CP asymmetries, defined as
1981: \beq
1982: {\cal A}_{CP} \equiv \frac{\Gamma(\bar B \to \bar f) - \Gamma(B \to f)}
1983: {\Gamma(\bar B \to \bar f) + \Gamma(B \to f)}~~~.
1984: \eeq
1985: The asymmetry in the mode $K_S \pi^\pm$ is no more or less significant than
1986: in other modes where ${\cal A}_{CP} \ne 0$ could be expected. How could we
1987: tell whether the amplitude $A$ is suppressed by as much as we expect in the
1988: na\"{\i}ve approach?
1989:
1990: \subsection{Rescattering}
1991:
1992: Rescattering from tree processes (such as those in Fig.\ \ref{fig:kpi1} or
1993: Fig.\ \ref{fig:kpi2} contributing to $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$) could amplify
1994: the effective $A$ amplitude in $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$, removing the suppression
1995: factor of $f_B/m_B$.
1996: The tree amplitude for
1997: $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$ should be proportional to $V^*_{ub} V_{us}$ (as in the
1998: $A$ amplitude), but the magnitude of the rescattering amplitude for $K^+ \pi^0
1999: \to \ko \pi^+$ (in an S-wave) is unknown at the center-of-mass energy of
2000: $m_B c^2 = 5.28$ GeV.
2001:
2002: \subsection{A useful SU(3) relation}
2003:
2004: A sensitive test for the presence of an enhanced $A$ amplitude has been
2005: proposed, \cite{FalkU} utilizing the U-spin symmetry $d \leftrightarrow s$
2006: of flavor SU(3). Under this transformation, the $\bar b \to \bar s$ penguin
2007: diagram contributing to $B^+ \to \ko \pi^+$ is transformed into the $\bar b \to
2008: \bar d$ penguin contributing to $B^+ \to \ok K^+$, suppressed by a relative
2009: factor of $|V^*_{tb} V_{td}/V^*_{tb} V_{ts}| \simeq \lambda$, while the
2010: annihilation diagram contributing to $B^+ \to \ko \pi^+$ is transformed into
2011: that contributing to $B^+ \to \ok K^+$, {\it enhanced} by a relative factor of
2012: $|V^*_{ub} V_{ud}/V^*_{ub} V_{us}| \simeq 1/\lambda$. Thus the relative
2013: effects of the ``annihilation'' amplitude should be stronger by a factor of
2014: $1/\lambda^2$ in $B^+ \to \ok K^+$ than in $B^+ \to \ko \pi^+$. Even if these
2015: effects are not large enough to significantly influence the decay rate, they
2016: could well influence the predicted decay asymmetry.
2017:
2018: \subsection{The process $\bo \to K^+ K^-$}
2019:
2020: A process which should be {\it dominated} by interactions involving the
2021: spectator quark is $\bo \to K^+ K^-$.\cite{GRres}
2022: Only the exchange ($E$) and penguin annihilation ($PA$) graphs in Fig.\
2023: \ref{fig:gph} contribute to this decay.
2024:
2025: The exchange ($E$) amplitude should be proportional to $(f_B/m_B)V^*_{ub}
2026: V_{ud}$, and the penguin annihilation amplitude should be suppressed by
2027: further powers of $\alpha_s$, in a na\"{\i}ve approach. The expected
2028: branching ratio if the $E$ amplitude dominates should be less than $10^{-7}$.
2029: However, if rescattering is important, the $K^+ K^-$ final state could be
2030: ``fed'' by the process $\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-$, whose amplitude is proportional
2031: to $T+P$. Present experimental limits place only the 90\% c.l. upper bound
2032: ${\cal B}(\bo \to K^+ K^-) < 1.9 \times 10^{-6}$.\cite{CLEOkpi}
2033:
2034: \subsection{Critical remarks}
2035:
2036: Some estimates of rescattering are based on Regge pole methods.\cite{RP}
2037: These may not apply to low partial waves at energies of $m_b c^2 = 5.28$
2038: GeV. Regge poles have proven phenomenologically successful primarily
2039: for ``peripheral'' partial waves $\ell \sim k_{\rm c.m.} \times (R \sim 1
2040: {\rm~fm})$.\cite{HHPW}
2041:
2042: \section{Topics not covered in detail}
2043:
2044: \subsection{Measurement of $\gamma$ using $B^\pm \to D K$ decays}
2045:
2046: The self-tagging decays $B^\pm \to D^0 K^\pm$, $B\pm \to \od K^\pm$, and
2047: $B^\pm \to D_{CP} K^\pm$, where $D_{CP}$ is a CP eigenstate, permit one
2048: to perform a triangle construction very similar to that in Fig.\ \ref{fig:gam}
2049: to extract the weak phase $\gamma$.\cite{GW} However, the interference
2050: of the Cabibbo-favored decay $D^0 \to K^- \pi^+$ and the
2051: doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed decay $D^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ introduces an important
2052: subtlety in this method, which has been addressed.\cite{but}
2053:
2054: \subsection{Dalitz plot analyses}
2055:
2056: The likely scarcity of the decay $B^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0$ (see Sec.\ 10) may
2057: be an important limitation in the method proposed \cite{GrL} to extract
2058: the weak phase $\alpha$ from $B \to \pi \pi$ decays using an isospin analysis.
2059: It has been suggested \cite{SQ} that one study instead the isospin structure of
2060: the decays $B \to \rho \pi$, since at least some of these processes occur with
2061: greater branching ratios than the corresponding $B \to \pi \pi$ decays.
2062: One must thus measure time-dependences and total rates for the processes
2063: $(\bo~{\rm or}~\ob) \to (\rho^\pm \pi^\mp, \rho \pi^0)$. A good deal of useful
2064: information, in fact, can be learned just from the time-integrated
2065: rates.\cite{QS}
2066:
2067: \subsection{CP violation in $\bo$--$\ob$ mixing}
2068:
2069: The standard model of CP violation predicts that the number of same-sign
2070: dilepton pairs due to $\bo$--$\ob$ mixing should be nearly the same for
2071: $\ell^+ \ell^+$ and $\ell^- \ell^-$. By studying such pairs it is possible
2072: to test not only this prediction, but also the validity of CPT invariance.
2073: The OPAL Collaboration \cite{OPCPT} parametrizes neutral non-strange $B$ mass
2074: eigenstates as
2075: \bea
2076: \ket{B_1} & = & \frac{(1 + \epsilon_B + \delta_B) \ket{\bo}
2077: + (1 - \epsilon_B - \delta_B) \ket{\ob}}
2078: {\sqrt{2(1 + |\epsilon_B + \delta_B|^2)}}~~,\\
2079: \ket{B_2} & = & \frac{(1 + \epsilon_B - \delta_B) \ket{\bo}
2080: - (1 - \epsilon_B + \delta_B) \ket{\ob}}
2081: {\sqrt{2(1 + |\epsilon_B - \delta_B|^2)}}~~~
2082: \eea
2083: and finds (allowing for CPT
2084: violation) Im($\delta_B) = -0.020 \pm 0.016 \pm 0.006$, Re($\epsilon_B) =
2085: -0.006 \pm 0.010 \pm 0.006$. Enforcing CPT invariance, they find
2086: Re($\epsilon_B) = 0.002 \pm 0.007 \pm 0.003$. A recent CLEO study
2087: \cite{CLEOeb} finds Re($\epsilon_B)/(1 + |\epsilon_B|^2) = 0.0035 \pm
2088: 0.0103 \pm 0.0015$ under similar assumptions. The standard model predicts
2089: $|p/q| \simeq 1$ and hence Re($\epsilon_B) \simeq 0$.
2090:
2091: \section{What if the CKM picture doesn't work?}
2092:
2093: \subsection{Likely accuracy of future measurements}
2094:
2095: It's useful to anticipate how our knowledge of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa
2096: matrix might evolve over the next few years.\cite{JRlat,fut} With $\sin(2
2097: \beta)$
2098: measured in $\bo \to J/\psi K_S$ decays to an accuracy of $\pm 0.06$ (the
2099: BaBar goal with 30 fb$^{-1}$ \cite{BaBarbk}), errors on $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$
2100: reduced to 10\%, strange-$B$ mixing bounded by $x_s = \Delta m_s/\Gamma_s
2101: > 20$ (the present bound is already better than this!), and ${\cal B}(B^+ \to
2102: \tau^+ \nu_\tau)$ measured to $\pm 20\%$ (giving $f_B|V_{ub}$, or $|V_{ub}/\
2103: V_{td}|$ when combined with $\bo$--$\ob$ mixing), one finds the result
2104: shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:fut}.
2105:
2106: The anticipated $(\rho,\eta)$ region is quite restricted, leading to the
2107: likelihood that if physics beyond the standard model is present, it will
2108: show up in such a plot as a contradiction among various measurements. What
2109: could be some sources of new physics?
2110:
2111: % This is Figure 11
2112: \begin{figure}
2113: \centerline{\epsfysize=2.5in \epsffile{fut.ps}}
2114: \caption{Plot in the $(\rho,\eta)$ plane of anticipated $\pm 1 \sigma$
2115: constraints on CKM
2116: parameters in the year 2003. Solid curves: $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$; dashed lines:
2117: constraint on $|V_{ub}/V_{td}|$ by combining measurement of ${\cal B}(B^+ \to
2118: \tau^+ \nu_\tau)$ with $\bo$--$\ob$ mixing; dotted lines: constraint due to
2119: $\epsilon_K$ (CP-violating $\ko$--$\ok$ mixing); dash-dotted line: limit
2120: due to $x_s$; solid rays: measurement of $\sin 2 \beta$ to $\pm 0.06$.}
2121: \label{fig:fut}
2122: \end{figure}
2123:
2124: \subsection{Possible extensions}
2125:
2126: Some sources of effects beyond the standard model which could show up first
2127: in studies of $B$ mesons include:
2128:
2129: \begin{itemize}
2130:
2131: \item Supersymmetry (nearly everyone's guess) (see Murayama's
2132: lectures \cite{Mura});
2133:
2134: \item Flavor-changing effects from extended models of dynamical electroweak
2135: symmetry breaking (mentioned, e.g., by Chivukula \cite{Chiv});
2136:
2137: \item Mixing of ordinary quarks with exotic ones, as in certain versions of
2138: grand unified theories.\cite{NS}
2139:
2140: \end{itemize}
2141:
2142: Typical effects show up most prominently in mixing (particularly $\ko$--$\ok$
2143: and $\bo$--$\ob$),\cite{mix} but also could appear in penguin processes
2144: such as $B \to \phi K$.\cite{GrWo}
2145:
2146: \section{Summary}
2147:
2148: We are entering an exciting era of precision $B$ physics. With experimental
2149: and theoretical advances occurring on many fronts, we have good reason to
2150: hope for surprises in the next few years. If, however, the present picture
2151: survives such stringent tests, we should turn our attention to the more
2152: fundamental question of where the CKM matrix (as well as the quark masses
2153: themselves!) actually originates.
2154:
2155: \section*{Acknowledgments}
2156:
2157: I would like to thank Prof.\ K. T. Mahanthappa for his directorship of the
2158: TASI-2000 Summer School and for his gracious hospitality in Boulder. These
2159: lectures were prepared in part during visits to DESY and Cornell; I thank
2160: colleagues there for hospitality and for the chance to discuss some of the
2161: subject material with them. These lectures grew out of long-term
2162: collaborations with Amol Dighe, Isard Dunietz, and Michael Gronau. I am
2163: grateful to them and to others, including O. F. Hern\'andez, H. J. Lipkin,
2164: D. London, and M. Neubert, for many pleasant interactions on these subjects.
2165: This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy
2166: through Grant No.\ DE FG02 90ER40560.
2167:
2168: \section*{References}
2169:
2170: % Journal and other miscellaneous abbreviations for references
2171: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.\ J. Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2172: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2173: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.\ Polonica {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2174: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2175: \def \art{and references therein}
2176: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2177: \def \cn{Collaboration}
2178: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,
2179: Singapore, 1989)}
2180: \def \econf#1#2#3{Electronic Conference Proceedings {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2181: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No.\ }
2182: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2183: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and
2184: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by
2185: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
2186: Batavia, IL, 1979}
2187: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and
2188: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel
2189: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl.\ Phys.\ B, Proc.\ Suppl., vol. 3) (North-Holland,
2190: Amsterdam, 1988)}
2191: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
2192: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2193: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High
2194: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,
2195: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,
2196: IL, 1972)}
2197: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2198: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
2199: \def \jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2200: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.\ Phys.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2201: \def \lg{{\it Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on
2202: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, August 9--14, 1999,
2203: edited by J. Jaros and M. Peskin (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)}
2204: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of
2205: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --
2206: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore,
2207: 1987)}
2208: \def \kaon{{\it Kaon Physics}, edited by J. L. Rosner and B. Winstein,
2209: %U |
2210: University of Chicago Press, 2001}
2211: \def \kdvs#1#2#3{{Kong.\ Danske Vid.\ Selsk., Matt-fys.\ Medd.} {\bf #1}, No.\
2212: #2 (#3)}
2213: \def \ky{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and
2214: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.
2215: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}
2216: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2217: \def \nat#1#2#3{Nature {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2218: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2219: \def \nima#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2220: \def \np#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2221: \def \npps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2222: \def \os{XXX International Conference on High Energy Physics, Osaka, Japan,
2223: July 27 -- August 2, 2000}
2224: \def \PDG{Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom \ite, \epjc{15}{1}{2000}}
2225: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP
2226: Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}
2227: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2228: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2229: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2230: \def \pr#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2231: \def \prc#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2232: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2233: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2234: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2235: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2236: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2237: \def \rp#1{~~~~~\ldots\ldots{\rm rp~}{#1}~~~~~}
2238: \def \si90{25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore,
2239: Aug. 2-8, 1990}
2240: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of
2241: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),
2242: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}
2243: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on
2244: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.
2245: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}
2246: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary
2247: Particle Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.
2248: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}
2249: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the
2250: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass, Colorado),
2251: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}
2252: \def \tasi{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990
2253: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,
2254: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker
2255: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}
2256: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\
2257: {\bf #1}, #4 (#3)]}
2258: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\
2259: Phys.\ - JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}
2260: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2261: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
2262:
2263: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2264:
2265: % \bibitem[*]{Thanks} To be published in {\it TASI-2000: Flavor Physics for
2266: % the Millennium}, Boulder, CO, 4--30 June, 2000, edited by J. L. Rosner (World
2267: % Scientific, 2001). Preprint \efi 2000-47, hep-ph/0011355.
2268:
2269: \bibitem{CCFT} J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch, and R. Turlay,
2270: \prl{13}{138}{1964}.
2271:
2272: \bibitem{KM} M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, \ptp{49}{652}{1973}.
2273:
2274: \bibitem{ups} Fermilab E288 \cn, S. W. Herb \ite, \prl{39}{252}{1977};
2275: W. R. Innes \ite, \prl{39}{1240,1640(E)}{1977}.
2276:
2277: \bibitem{top} CDF \cn, F. Abe \ite, \prd{50}{2966}{1944}; \ibj{51}{4623}{1994};
2278: \ibj{52}{2605}{1995}; \prl{73}{225}{1994}; \ibj{74}{2626}{1995}; D0 \cn,
2279: S. Abachi \ite, \prl{72}{2138}{1994}; \ibj{74}{2422}{1995}; \ibj{74}{2632}
2280: {1995}; \prd{52}{4877}{1995}.
2281:
2282: \bibitem{YN} Y. Nir, Lectures given at 27th SLAC Summer Institute on Particle
2283: Physics: CP Violation in and Beyond the Standard Model (SSI 99), Stanford,
2284: California, 7--16 July 1999, Institute for Advanced Study report
2285: IASSNS-HEP-99-96, hep-ph/9911321.
2286:
2287: \bibitem{RF} R. Fleischer, DESY report DESY 00-170, hep-ph/0011323, invited
2288: lecture at NATO ASI Institute, Cascais, Portugal, 26 June -- 7 July, 2000.
2289:
2290: \bibitem{GWS} S. L. Glashow, \np{22}{579}{1961}; S. Weinberg, \prl{19}{1264}
2291: {1967}; A. Salam, in {\it Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions} (Proceedings
2292: of the 1968 Nobel Symposium), edited by N. Svartholm, Almqvist and Wiksells,
2293: Stockholm, 1968, p.\ 367.
2294:
2295: \bibitem{CQ} C. Quigg, this volume.
2296:
2297: \bibitem{qu} J. D. Bjorken and S. L. Glashow, \pl{11}{255}{1964};
2298: Y. Hara, \pr{134}{B701}{1964};
2299: Z. Maki and Y. Ohnuki, \ptp{32}{144}{1964}.
2300:
2301: \bibitem{GIM} S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani, \prd{2}{1285}{1970}.
2302:
2303: \bibitem{GLR} M. K. Gaillard, B. W. Lee, and J. L. Rosner, \rmp{47}{277}{1975}.
2304:
2305: \bibitem{BIM} C. Bouchiat, J. Iliopoulos, and Ph.~Meyer, \pl{38B}{519}{1972}.
2306:
2307: \bibitem{Niu} K. Niu, E. Mikumo, and Y. Maeda, \ptp{46}{1644}{1971}.
2308:
2309: \bibitem{J} J. J. Aubert \ite, \prl{33}{1404}{1974}.
2310:
2311: \bibitem{psi} J.-E. Augustin \ite, \prl{33}{1406}{1974}.
2312:
2313: \bibitem{PDG} \PDG.
2314:
2315: \bibitem{tau} M. L. Perl \ite, \prl{35}{1489}{1975}; \pl{63B}{466}{1976};
2316: \pl{70B}{487}{1977}.
2317:
2318: \bibitem{HH} H. Harari, in Proceedings of the 20th Annual SLAC Summer Institute
2319: on Particle Physics: {\it The Third Family and the Physics of Flavor},
2320: %U |||||||||||||||
2321: July 13--24, 1992,
2322: edited by L. Vassilian, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center report SLAC-412,
2323: %U ||||||
2324: May, 1993, p.~647.
2325:
2326: \bibitem{HHS} H. Harari, in {\it Proc.\ 1975 Int.\ Symp.\ on Lepton and Photon
2327: Interactions (Stanford University, August 21--27, 1975)}, edited by W. T. Kirk
2328: (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford, CA, 1976), p.~317.
2329:
2330: \bibitem{LLJ} J. H. Christenson \ite, \prl{25}{1523}{1970}.
2331:
2332: \bibitem{DORIS} C. W. Darden \ite, \pl{76B}{246}{1978}; \ibj{78B}{364}{1978}.
2333:
2334: \bibitem{QRQ} J. L. Rosner, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, \pl{74B}{350}{1978}.
2335:
2336: \bibitem{CESR} CLEO \cn, D. Andrews \ite, \prl{45}{219}{1980}.
2337:
2338: \bibitem{KP} G. L. Kane and M. E. Peskin, \np{B195}{29}{1982}.
2339:
2340: \bibitem{CESRNC} CLEO \cn, A. Chen \ite, \pl{122B}{317}{1983};
2341: P. Avery \ite, \prl{53}{1309}{1984}.
2342:
2343: \bibitem{specrevs} C. Quigg and J. L. Rosner, \prp{56}{167}{1979}; H. Grosse
2344: and A. Martin, \prp{60}{341}{1980}; W. Kwong, C. Quigg, and J. L. Rosner,
2345: \arnps{37}{325}{1987}; H. Grosse and A. Martin, {\it Particle Physics and
2346: the Schr\"odinger Equation}, Cambridge, 1998.
2347:
2348: \bibitem{ET} E. H. Thorndike, hep-ex/0003027, in Proceedings of the Conference
2349: on Probing Luminous and Dark Matter: Symposium in honor of Adrian Melissinos,
2350: Rochester, New York, 24--25 Sept.\ 1999,
2351: %U ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2352: edited by A. Das and T. Ferbel,
2353: %U |||||
2354: World Scientific, Singapore, 2000, pp.\ 127--159.
2355:
2356: \bibitem{Brecon} CLEO \cn, S. Behrends \ite, \prl{50}{881}{1983}.
2357:
2358: \bibitem{CUSBBs} CUSB \cn, J. Lee-Franzini \ite, \prl{65}{2947}{1990}.
2359:
2360: \bibitem{RW} J. L. Rosner and M. B. Wise, \prd{47}{343}{1993}.
2361:
2362: \bibitem{Nus} S. Nussinov, \prl{35}{1672}{1975}
2363:
2364: \bibitem{Cab} N. Cabibbo, \prl{10}{531}{1963}.
2365:
2366: %U Updated reference
2367: \bibitem{Buch} G. Buchalla, CERN report CERN-TH-2001-041, hep-ph/0103166,
2368: published in this volume.
2369:
2370: \bibitem{DeG} T. DeGrand, University of Colorado report COLO-HEP-447,
2371: hep-ph/0008234, published in this volume.
2372:
2373: \bibitem{Falk} A. Falk, Johns Hopkins University report JHU-TIPAC-200005,
2374: hep-ph/0007339, published in this volume.
2375:
2376: \bibitem{NeuTASI} M. Neubert, Cornell University report CLNS-00-1712,
2377: hep-ph/0012204, published in this volume.
2378:
2379: \bibitem{Wolf} L. Wolfenstein, Carnegie-Mellon University report CMU-0006,
2380: hep-ph/0011400, published in this volume.
2381:
2382: \bibitem{CLEOVcb} CLEO \cn, J. P. Alexander \ite, CLEO-CONF 00-3,
2383: presented at \os.
2384:
2385: \bibitem{Flg} A. Falk, in \lg, \econf{C990809}{174}{2000}.
2386:
2387: \bibitem{WP} L. Wolfenstein, \prl{51}{1945}{1983}.
2388:
2389: \bibitem{GL} M. Gell-Mann and M. L\'evy, \nc{16}{705}{1960}.
2390:
2391: \bibitem{JRCKM} J. L. Rosner, \efi 2000-42, hep-ph/0011184. To be published
2392: in Proceedings of Beauty 2000, Kibbutz Maagan, Israel, September 13--18,
2393: 2000, edited by S. Erhan, Y. Rozen, and P. E. Schlein, Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.\
2394: A, 2001.
2395:
2396: \bibitem{Lubicz} V. Lubicz, Invited Talk at the XX {\it Physics in Collision
2397: Conference}, June 29 -- July 1, 2000, Lisbon, Portugal, Univ.\ of Rome III
2398: report RM3-TH/00-15, hep-ph/0010171.
2399:
2400: \bibitem{Bslim} D. Abbaneo, presented at Conference on Heavy Quarks at
2401: Fixed Target, Rio de Janeiro, Oct.\ 9--19, 2000, hep-ex/0012010.
2402:
2403: \bibitem{JRFM} J. L. Rosner, \prd{42}{3732}{1990}.
2404:
2405: \bibitem{CKMrevs} F. Gilman, K. Kleinknecht, and Z. Renk, mini-review on pp.\
2406: 110-114 of \PDG; A. Ali and D. London,
2407: DESY report DESY-00-026, hep-ph/0002167, in {\it Proceedings of the
2408: 3rd Workshop on Physics and Detectors for DAPHNE}, Frascati, Italy,
2409: Nov.\ 16--19, 1999, edited by S. Bianco \ite~(INFN, 1999), pp.\ 3--23;
2410: S. Stone, Conference Summary, Beauty 2000, hep-ex/0012162, to be published in
2411: Proceedings of Beauty 2000; \cite{JRCKM} M. Ciuchini \ite, Orsay preprint LAL
2412: 00-77, hep-ex/0012308, submitted to JHEP.
2413:
2414: \bibitem{JJS} J. J. Sakurai, {\it Modern Quantum Mechanics}, Revised Edition,
2415: 1994.
2416:
2417: \bibitem{BaBarbk} {\it The BaBar Physics Book: Physics at an Asymmetric
2418: $B$ Factory}, edited by P. F. Harrison and H. R. Quinn, SLAC Report SLAC-504,
2419: 1998.
2420:
2421: \bibitem{BJW} A. J. Buras, M. Jamin, and P. H. Weisz, \np{B347}{491}{1990}.
2422:
2423: \bibitem{IL} T. Inami and C. S. Lim, \ptp{65}{297,1772(E)}{1981}.
2424:
2425: \bibitem{BurasB} A. J. Buras, A. Romanino, and L. Silvestrini, \np{B520}{3}
2426: {1998} \art; A. J. Buras and R. Fleischer, in {\it Heavy Flavors II},
2427: edited by A. J. Buras, World Scientific, Singapore, 1997, p.~65;
2428: A. J. Buras, Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen report
2429: TUM-HEP-316/98, hep-ph/9806471, in {\it Probing the Standard Model
2430: of Particle Interactions}, Les Houches, France, July 28 - Sept.\ 5, 1997,
2431: edited by R. Gupta, A. Morel, E. DeRafael, and F. David (Elsevier, 1999).
2432:
2433: \bibitem{dg} I. Dunietz, \prd{52}{3048}{1995};
2434: T. E. Browder and S. Pakvasa, \prd{52}{3123}{1995}, \art.
2435:
2436: \bibitem{LPcos} D. London and R. D. Peccei, \plb{223}{257}{1989}.
2437:
2438: \bibitem{MGcos} M. Gronau, \prl{63}{1451}{1989}.
2439:
2440: \bibitem{DR} I. Dunietz and J. L. Rosner, \prd{34}{1404}{1986}.
2441:
2442: \bibitem{BSsgn} I. Bigi and A. Sanda, \np{B281}{41}{1987}.
2443:
2444: \bibitem{BD} J. D. Bjorken and I. Dunietz, \prd{36}{2109}{1987}.
2445:
2446: \bibitem{OPs2b} OPAL \cn, K. Ackerstaff \ite, \epjc{5}{379}{1998}.
2447:
2448: \bibitem{CDFs2b} CDF \cn, T. Affolder \ite, \prd{61}{072005}{2000}.
2449:
2450: \bibitem{ALs2b} ALEPH \cn, R. Barate \ite, \plb{492}{259}{2000}.
2451:
2452: %U Next two references
2453: \bibitem{Bes2b} Belle \cn, A. Abashian \ite, \prl{86}{2509}{2001}.
2454:
2455: \bibitem{Bas2b} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite, \prl{86}{2515}{2001}.
2456:
2457: \bibitem{WSW} B. Winstein, \prl{68}{1271}{1992}.
2458:
2459: \bibitem{GRcomb} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{59}{113002}{1999}.
2460:
2461: \bibitem{MNKpi} M. Neubert, \jhep{9902}{014}{1999}.
2462:
2463: \bibitem{EGR} G. Eilam, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \prd{39}{819}{1989}.
2464:
2465: \bibitem{CLEOkpi} CLEO \cn, D. Cronin-Hennessy \ite, \prl{85}{515}{2000}.
2466:
2467: \bibitem{CLetap} CLEO \cn, S. J. Richichi \ite, \prl{85}{520}{2000}.
2468:
2469: \bibitem{CL2K} CLEO \cn, D. Cinabro, Osaka Conf.,\cite{CLEOVcb} hep-ex/0009045.
2470:
2471: %U order changed
2472: \bibitem{GRVP} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{61}{073008}{2000}.
2473:
2474: %U Next two references
2475: \bibitem{BePP} Belle \cn, KEK report 2001-11, hep-ex/0104030, submitted
2476: to Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.
2477:
2478: \bibitem{BaPP} BaBar \cn, T. Champion, Osaka Conf.,\cite{CLEOVcb}
2479: hep-ex/0011018; G. Cavoto, XXXVI Rencontres de
2480: Moriond, March 17--24, 2001 (unpublished).
2481:
2482: \bibitem{GRdens} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prl{72}{195}{1994}; \prd{49}{254}
2483: %U ||
2484: {1994}; \ibj{63}{054006}{2001}.
2485:
2486: \bibitem{FF} R. D. Field and R. P. Feynman, \np{B136}{1}{1978}.
2487:
2488: \bibitem{FR} G. R. Farrar and J. L. Rosner, \prd{7}{2747}{1973}; \ibj{10}
2489: {2226}{1974}.
2490:
2491: \bibitem{CDFbpr} CDF \cn, T. Affolder \ite, \prl{84}{1663}{2000}.
2492:
2493: \bibitem{LEPbpr} F. Palla, in Beauty 2000 Procs.\cite{JRCKM}
2494:
2495: \bibitem{CDFtags} CDF \cn, F. Abe \ite, \prd{60}{072003}{1999}; T. Affolder
2496: \ite, \prd{60}{112004}{1999}.
2497:
2498: \bibitem{Bstag} A. Ali and F. Barreiro, \zpc{30}{635}{1986}.
2499:
2500: \bibitem{GNR} M. Gronau, A. Nippe, and J. L. Rosner, \prd{47}{1988}{1993}.
2501:
2502: \bibitem{DGG} A. De R\'ujula, H. Georgi, and S. L. Glashow, \prl{37}{785}
2503: {1976}.
2504:
2505: \bibitem{JRPW} J. L. Rosner, \cmts{16}{109}{1986}.
2506:
2507: \bibitem{HQSPW} M. Lu, M. B. Wise, and N. Isgur, \prd{45}{1553}{1992}.
2508:
2509: \bibitem{CDFB**} CDF \cn, Fermilab-Pub-99/330-E, to be published in
2510: Physical Review D.
2511:
2512: \bibitem{LEPB**} OPAL \cn, G. Alexander \ite, \zpc{66}{19}{1995}; G. Abbiendi
2513: \ite, CERN report CERN-EP/2000-125, hep-ex/0010031; DELPHI \cn, P. Abreu
2514: \ite, \plb{345}{598}{1995}; ALEPH \cn, D. Buskulic \ite, \zpc{69}{393}{1996};
2515: R. Barate \ite, \plb{425}{215}{1998}; L3 \cn, M. Acciarri \ite, \plb{465}{323}
2516: {1999}.
2517:
2518: \bibitem{CLEOD**} CLEO \cn, S. Anderson \ite, \np{A663}{647}{2000};
2519: FOCUS \cn, C. Ricciardi, \np{A663}{651}{2000} and by
2520: F. L. Fabbri at Osaka Conf., \cite{CLEOVcb} hep-ex/0011044.
2521:
2522: \bibitem{NRFM} R. Van Royen and V. F. Weisskopf, \nc{A50}{617}{1967}.
2523:
2524: \bibitem{GasR} S. Gasiorowicz and J. L. Rosner, \ajp{49}{954}{1981}.
2525:
2526: %U Updated reference
2527: \bibitem{BecR} D. Becirevic, talk at 18th International
2528: Sumposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice 2000), Bangalore, India, 17--22
2529: August 2000, \npps{94}{337}{2001}.
2530:
2531: \bibitem{dbs} R. Aleksan \ite, \plb{317}{173}{1993}; \zpc{67}{251}{1995};
2532: \plb{356}{95}{1995};
2533: M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, and I. Dunietz, \plb{393}{132}{1997}.
2534:
2535: \bibitem{BeLe} M. Beneke and A. Lenz, RWTH Aachen report PITHA 00/29,
2536: hep-ph/0012222, submitted to J. Phys.\ G.
2537:
2538: \bibitem{bec} D. Becirevic \ite, \epjc{18}{157}{2000}.
2539:
2540: \bibitem{beclat} D. Becirevec \ite, hep-lat/0002025.
2541:
2542: \bibitem{DDLR} A. S. Dighe, I. Dunietz, H. J. Lipkin, and J. L. Rosner,
2543: \plb{369}{144}{1996}.
2544:
2545: \bibitem{transv} I. Dunietz, H. J. Lipkin, H. R. Quinn, and A. Snyder,
2546: \prd{43}{2193}{1991}.
2547:
2548: \bibitem{CDFBs} CDF \cn, T. Affolder \ite, \prl{85}{4668}{2000}.
2549:
2550: \bibitem{CLhel} CLEO \cn, C. P. Jessop \ite, \prl{79}{4533}{1997}.
2551:
2552: \bibitem{Bahel} BaBar \cn, SLAC report SLAC-PUB-8679, hep-ph/0010067,
2553: G. Raven, Osaka Conf. \cite{CLEOVcb}
2554:
2555: \bibitem{ALBs} ALEPH \cn, R. Barate \ite, \plb{486}{286}{2000}.
2556:
2557: \bibitem{combBs} ALEPH, CDF, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, and SLD \cn s, subgroup
2558: consisting of P. Coyle, D. Lucchesi, S. Mele, F. Parodi, and P. Spagnolo,
2559: SLAC-Pub-8492, CERN-EP-2000-096, hep-ex/0009052.
2560:
2561: \bibitem{Chau} L. L. Chau \ite, \prd{43}{2176}{1991}.
2562:
2563: \bibitem{GHLR} M. Gronau, O. F. Hern\'andez, D. London, and J. L. Rosner,
2564: \prd{50}{4529}{1994}.
2565:
2566: \bibitem{Zepp} D. Zeppenfeld, \zpc{8}{77}{1981}.
2567:
2568: \bibitem{SW} M. Savage and M. Wise, \prd{39}{3346}{1989}; \ibj{40}{3127(E)}
2569: {1989}.
2570:
2571: \bibitem{SilWo} J. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, \prd{49}{R1151}{1994}.
2572:
2573: \bibitem{Kpi} M. Gronau, J. Rosner and D. London, \prl{73}{21}{1994};
2574: R. Fleischer, \plb{365}{399}{1996}; \prd{58}{093001}{1998};
2575: M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prl{76}{1200}{1996};
2576: A. S. Dighe, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \prd{54}{3309}{1996};
2577: A. S. Dighe and J. L. Rosner, \prd{54}{4677}{1996};
2578: R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, \prd{57}{2752}{1998};
2579: M. Neubert and J. L. Rosner, \plb{441}{403}{1998}; \prl{81}{5076}{1998};
2580: A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, and T. Mannel, \np{B533}{3}{1998};
2581: R. Fleischer and A. J. Buras, \epjc{11}{93}{1999};
2582: M. Neubert, \jhep{9902}{014}{1999};
2583: M. Gronau and D. Pirjol, \prd{61}{013005}{2000};
2584: A. J. Buras and R. Flesicher, \epjc{16}{97}{2000};
2585: M. Gronau, Technion report TECHNION-PH-2000-30, hep-ph/0011392, to be
2586: published in Proceedings of Beauty 2000; \cite{JRCKM}
2587: %U ||||||||||||||||||||
2588: M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \plb{500}{247}{2001}.
2589: \bibitem{Bskpi} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \plb{482}{71}{2000}.
2590:
2591: \bibitem{MGU} M. Gronau, \plb{492}{297}{2000}.
2592:
2593: \bibitem{DuFl} R. Fleischer, \plb{459}{306}{1999};
2594: \epjc{16}{87}{2000}. See also I. Dunietz, Proceedings of
2595: the Workshop on $B$ Physics at Hadron Accelerators, Snowmass, CO, 1993, p.\ 83;
2596: D. Pirjol, \prd{60}{054020}{1999}.
2597:
2598: \bibitem{Wurt} F. W\"urthwein and R. Jesik, presented at Workshop on B
2599: Physics at the Tevatron -- Run II and Beyond, Fermilab, February 2000
2600: (unpublished).
2601:
2602: \bibitem{CW} C.-W. Chiang and L. Wolfenstein, \plb{493}{73}{2000}.
2603:
2604: \bibitem{etamix} J. L. Rosner, \prd{27}{1101}{1983}; in \ky, p.\ 448;
2605: F. J. Gilman and R. Kauffman, \prd{36}{2761}{1987}.
2606:
2607: \bibitem{etapx} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{53}{2516}{1996};
2608: A. S. Dighe, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \plb{367}{357}{1996};
2609: \ibj{377}{325}{1996}; \prl{79}{4333}{1997}; A. S. Dighe, \prd{54}{2067}{1996}.
2610:
2611: \bibitem{Feld} T. Feldmann, \ijmpa{15}{159}{2000}.
2612:
2613: \bibitem{HJLeta} H. J. Lipkin, \prl{46}{1307} {1981}; \plb{254}{247}{1991};
2614: \plb{415}{186}{1997}; \ibj{433}{117}{1998}.
2615:
2616: \bibitem{spth} I. Halperin and A. Zhitnitsky, \prd{56}{7247}{1997}; \prl{80}
2617: {438}{1998}; F. Yuan and K.-T. Chao, \prd{56}{R2495}{1997}; A. Ali and C.
2618: Greub, \prd{57}{2996}{1998}; A. Ali, J. Chay, C. Greub, and P. Ko, \plb{424}
2619: {161}{1998}; D. Atwood and A. Soni, \plb{405}{150}{1997}; \prl{79}{5206}{1997};
2620: W.-S. Hou and B. Tseng, \prl{80}{434}{1998}; H.-Y. Cheng and B. Tseng,
2621: \plb{415}{263}{1997}; A. Datta, X.-G. He, and S. Pakvasa, \plb{419}{369}{1998};
2622: A. L. Kagan and A. A. Petrov, UCHEP-27/UMHEP-443,
2623: hep-ph/9707354; H. Fritzsch, \plb{415}{83}{1997}.
2624:
2625: \bibitem{Hou} W.-S. Hou, J. G. Smith, and F. W\"urthwein, hep-ex/9910014.
2626:
2627: \bibitem{He} X.-G. He, W.-S. Hou, and K. C. Yang, \prl{83}{1100}{1999}.
2628:
2629: \bibitem{CLVP} CLEO \cn, C. P. Jessop \ite, \prl{85}{2881}{2000}.
2630:
2631: \bibitem{GR98} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{57}{6843}{1998}.
2632:
2633: \bibitem{Chiang} B. Tseng and C.-W. Chiang, hep-ph/9905338; C.-W. Chiang
2634: and L. Wolfenstein, \prd{61}{074031}{2000}; C.-W. Chiang, \prd{62}{014017}
2635: {2000}.
2636:
2637: %U Last 2 references updated
2638: \bibitem{Ciu} See, e.g., M. Ciuchini \ite, \np{B501}{271}{1997}; \ibj{B512}
2639: {3}{1998}; \ibj{B531}{656(E)}{1998}; \nima{408}{28}{1998}; hep-ph/9909530,
2640: to be published in \kaon; Y.-Y.\ Keum, H.-n.\ Li, and A. I. Sanda,
2641: \plb{504}{6}{201}; \prd{63}{054008}{2001}.
2642:
2643: \bibitem{GHLRP} M. Gronau, O. F. Hern\'andez, D. London, and J. L. Rosner,
2644: \prd{52}{6374}{1995}.
2645:
2646: \bibitem{GLRPRL} M. Gronau \ite, \prl{73}{21}{1994}.
2647:
2648: \bibitem{DH} R. Fleischer, \plb{365}{399}{1994}; N. G. Deshpande and X.-G He,
2649: \prl{74}{26,4099(E)}{1995}.
2650:
2651: \bibitem{NR} M. Neubert and J. L. Rosner, \plb{441}{403}{1998};
2652: \prl{81}{5076}{1998}; M. Neubert, \jhep{9902}{014}{1999}.
2653:
2654: \bibitem{GP} M. Gronau and D. Pirjol, \prd{60}{034021}{1999}.
2655:
2656: \bibitem{Chen} CLEO \cn, S. Chen \ite, \prl{85}{525}{2000}.
2657:
2658: \bibitem{FalkU} A. Falk \ite, \prd{57}{4290}{1998}.
2659:
2660: \bibitem{GRres} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{58}{113005}{1998}.
2661:
2662: \bibitem{RP} See, e.g., J.-M. G\'erard and J. Weyers, \epjc{7}{1}{1999};
2663: A. F. Falk, A. L. Kagan, Y. Nir and A. A. Petrov, \prd{57}{4290}{1998}.
2664:
2665: \bibitem{HHPW} H. Harari, \apny{63}{432}{1971}; H. Harari and M. Davier,
2666: \pl{35B}{239}{1971}; H. Harari and A. Schwimmer, \prd{5}{2780}{1972}.
2667:
2668: \bibitem{GW} M. Gronau and D. Wyler, \plb{265}{172}{1991}.
2669:
2670: \bibitem{but} See, e.g., D. Atwood, I. Dunietz, and A. Soni, \prl{78}{3257}
2671: {1997}; \prd{63}{036005}{2001}; M. Gronau, \prd{58}{037301}{1998}.
2672:
2673: \bibitem{GrL} M. Gronau and D. London, \prl{65}{3381}{1990}.
2674:
2675: \bibitem{SQ} A. Snyder and H. Quinn, \prd{48}{2139}{1993}.
2676:
2677: \bibitem{QS} H. Quinn and J. Silva, \prd{62}{054002}{2000}.
2678:
2679: \bibitem{OPCPT} OPAL \cn, K. Ackerstaff \ite, \zpc{76}{401, 417}{1997}.
2680: See also OPAL \cn, G. Abbiendi \ite, \epjc{12}{609}{2000} for a more
2681: recent result based on comparison of $b$ and $\bar b$ decays.
2682:
2683: \bibitem{CLEOeb} CLEO \cn, D. E. Jaffe \ite, Cornell University report
2684: CLNS 01/1717, hep-ex/0101006 (unpublished).
2685:
2686: \bibitem{JRlat} J. L. Rosner, \npps{73}{29}{1999}.
2687:
2688: \bibitem{fut} P. Burchat \ite, Report of the NSF Elementary Particle
2689: Physics Special Emphasis Panel on $B$ Physics, July, 1998 (unpublished).
2690:
2691: \bibitem{Mura} H. Murayama, this volume.
2692:
2693: \bibitem{Chiv} R. S. Chivukula, Boston University report BUHEP-00-24,
2694: hep-ph/0011264, published in this volume.
2695:
2696: \bibitem{NS} J. L. Rosner, \prd{61}{097303}{2000}, \art.
2697:
2698: \bibitem{mix} See, e.g., M. Gronau and D. London, \prd{55}{2845}{1997}.
2699:
2700: \bibitem{GrWo} Y. Grossman and M. P. Worah, \plb{395}{241}{1997};
2701: Y. Grossman, G. Isidori, and M. P. Worah, \prd{58}{057504}{1998}.
2702:
2703: \end{thebibliography}
2704:
2705: \end{document}
2706: #!/bin/csh -f
2707: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
2708: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
2709: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
2710: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., figs.uu
2711: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
2712: # then say csh figs.uu
2713: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
2714: # uudecode figs.uu ; uncompress figs.tar.Z ;
2715: # tar -xvf figs.tar
2716: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
2717: # filename in "begin" line below to figs.tar_Z , then execute
2718: # uudecode figs.uu
2719: # compress -d figs.tar_Z
2720: # tar -xvf figs.tar
2721: #
2722: uudecode $0
2723: chmod 644 figs.tar.Z
2724: zcat figs.tar.Z | tar -xvf -
2725: rm $0 figs.tar.Z
2726: exit
2727:
2728: