1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: 

4: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-1in}

5: \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{30mm}  

6: \setlength{\textwidth}{150mm}

7: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1in}

8: \setlength{\headheight}{30mm}

9: \setlength{\headsep}{0mm}

10: \setlength{\textheight}{230mm}

11: 

12: \def\nn{\nonumber}

13: \def\sss{\scriptscriptstyle}

14: \def\roughly#1{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox

15: {$#1$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

16: \def\lsim{\roughly<}

17: \def\gsim{\roughly>}

18: %  

19: %

20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% NEWCOMMANDS (DAVID) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

21: \def\ss{\footnotesize}

22: \def\SS{\footnotesize}

23: \def\sss{\scriptscriptstyle}

24: \def\barp{{\raise.35ex\hbox{${\sss (}$}}---{\raise.35ex\hbox{${\sss )}$}}}

25: \def\bdbarp{\hbox{$B_d$\kern-1.4em\raise1.4ex\hbox{\barp}}}

26: \def\bsbarp{\hbox{$B_s$\kern-1.4em\raise1.4ex\hbox{\barp}}}

27: \def\dbarp{\hbox{$D$\kern-1.1em\raise1.4ex\hbox{\barp}}}

28: \def\dcp{D^0_{\sss CP}}

29: \def\dbar{{\overline{D^0}}}

30: \def\ks{K_{\sss S}}

31: \newcommand{\xd}{x_d}

32: \newcommand{\xs}{x_s}

33: \newcommand{\bd}{B_d^0}

34: \newcommand{\bdb}{\overline{B_d^0}}

35: \newcommand{\bs}{B_s^0}

36: \newcommand{\bsbar}{\overline{B_s^0}}

37: \newcommand{\bu}{B_u^\pm}

38: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

39: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

40: \newcommand{\absvcb}{\vert V_{cb}\vert}

41: \newcommand{\absvub}{\vert V_{ub}\vert}

42: \newcommand{\absvtd}{\vert V_{td}\vert}

43: \newcommand{\absvts}{\vert V_{ts}\vert}

44: \newcommand{\abseps}{\vert\epsilon\vert}

45: \newcommand{\epsp}{\epsilon^\prime/\epsilon}

46: \newcommand{\fbb}{f^2_{B_d}\hat{B}_{B_d}}

47: \newcommand{\fbbs}{f^2_{B_s}\hat{B}_{B_s}}

48: \newcommand{\fbd}{f_{B_d}}

49: \newcommand{\fbs}{f_{B_s}}

50: \newcommand{\fds}{f_{D_s}}

51: \def\rly#1{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$#1$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

52: \def\lsim{\rly<}

53: 

54: % Journal and other miscellaneous abbreviations for references

55: \def \zpc#1#2#3{{\rm Z.~Phys.} {\bf C#1} (19#2) #3}

56: \def \plb#1#2#3{{\rm Phys.~Lett.} {\bf B#1} (19#2) #3}

57: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~#1, (19#2) #3}

58: \def \prl#1#2#3{{\rm Phys.~Rev.~Lett.} {\bf #1} (19#2) #3}

59: \def \prd#1#2#3{{\rm Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D#1} (19#2) #3} 

60: \def \npb#1#2#3{{\rm Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B#1} (19#2) #3} 

61: \def\ijmp#1#2#3{{\rm Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.} {\bf A#1} (19#2) #3}

62: \def \stone{{\it B Decays}, edited by S. Stone (World Scientific, Singapore,

63: 1994)}

64: 

65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% EPSF MACROS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

66: % EPSF.TEX macro file:

67: % Written by Tomas Rokicki of Radical Eye Software, 29 Mar 1989.

68: % Revised by Don Knuth, 3 Jan 1990.

69: % Revised by Tomas Rokicki to accept bounding boxes with no

70: % space after the colon, 18 Jul 1990.

71: %

72: % TeX macros to include an Encapsulated PostScript graphic.

73: % Works by finding the bounding box comment,

74: % calculating the correct scale values, and inserting a vbox

75: % of the appropriate size at the current position in the TeX document.

76: %

77: % To use with the center environment of LaTeX, preface the \epsffile

78: % call with a \leavevmode. (LaTeX should probably supply this itself

79: % for the center environment.)

80: %

81: % To use, simply say

82: % \input epsf % somewhere early on in your TeX file

83: % \epsfbox{filename.ps} % where you want to insert a vbox for a figure

84: %

85: % Alternatively, you can type

86: %

87: % \epsfbox[0 0 30 50]{filename.ps} % to supply your own BB

88: %

89: % which will not read in the file, and will instead use the bounding

90: % box you specify.

91: %

92: % The effect will be to typeset the figure as a TeX box, at the

93: % point of your \epsfbox command. By default, the graphic will have its

94: % `natural' width (namely the width of its bounding box, as described

95: % in filename.ps). The TeX box will have depth zero.

96: %

97: % You can enlarge or reduce the figure by saying

98: % \epsfxsize=<dimen> \epsfbox{filename.ps}

99: % (or

100: % \epsfysize=<dimen> \epsfbox{filename.ps})

101: % instead. Then the width of the TeX box will be \epsfxsize and its

102: % height will be scaled proportionately (or the height will be

103: % \epsfysize and its width will be scaled proportionally). The

104: % width (and height) is restored to zero after each use.

105: %

106: % A more general facility for sizing is available by defining the

107: % \epsfsize macro. Normally you can redefine this macro

108: % to do almost anything. The first parameter is the natural x size of

109: % the PostScript graphic, the second parameter is the natural y size

110: % of the PostScript graphic. It must return the xsize to use, or 0 if

111: % natural scaling is to be used. Common uses include:

112: %

113: % \epsfxsize % just leave the old value alone

114: % 0pt % use the natural sizes

115: % #1 % use the natural sizes

116: % \hsize % scale to full width

117: % 0.5#1 % scale to 50% of natural size

118: % \ifnum#1>\hsize\hsize\else#1\fi % smaller of natural, hsize

119: %

120: % If you want TeX to report the size of the figure (as a message

121: % on your terminal when it processes each figure), say `\epsfverbosetrue'.

122: %

123: \newread\epsffilein % file to \read

124: \newif\ifepsffileok % continue looking for the bounding box?

125: \newif\ifepsfbbfound % success?

126: \newif\ifepsfverbose % report what you're making?

127: \newdimen\epsfxsize % horizontal size after scaling

128: \newdimen\epsfysize % vertical size after scaling

129: \newdimen\epsftsize % horizontal size before scaling

130: \newdimen\epsfrsize % vertical size before scaling

131: \newdimen\epsftmp % register for arithmetic manipulation

132: \newdimen\pspoints % conversion factor

133: %

134: \pspoints=1bp % Adobe points are `big'

135: \epsfxsize=0pt % Default value, means `use natural size'

136: \epsfysize=0pt % ditto

137: %

138: \def\epsfbox#1{\global\def\epsfllx{72}\global\def\epsflly{72}%

139:  \global\def\epsfurx{540}\global\def\epsfury{720}%

140:  \def\lbracket{[}\def\testit{#1}\ifx\testit\lbracket

141:  \let\next=\epsfgetlitbb\else\let\next=\epsfnormal\fi\next{#1}}%

142: %

143: \def\epsfgetlitbb#1#2 #3 #4 #5]#6{\epsfgrab #2 #3 #4 #5 .\\%

144:  \epsfsetgraph{#6}}%

145: %

146: \def\epsfnormal#1{\epsfgetbb{#1}\epsfsetgraph{#1}}%

147: %

148: \def\epsfgetbb#1{%

149: %

150: % The first thing we need to do is to open the

151: % PostScript file, if possible.

152: %

153: \openin\epsffilein=#1

154: \ifeof\epsffilein\errmessage{I couldn't open #1, will ignore it}\else

155: %

156: % Okay, we got it. Now we'll scan lines until we find one that doesn't

157: % start with %. We're looking for the bounding box comment.

158: %

159:  {\epsffileoktrue \chardef\other=12

160:  \def\do##1{\catcode`##1=\other}\dospecials \catcode`\ =10

161:  \loop

162:  \read\epsffilein to \epsffileline

163:  \ifeof\epsffilein\epsffileokfalse\else

164: %

165: % We check to see if the first character is a % sign;

166: % if not, we stop reading (unless the line was entirely blank);

167: % if so, we look further and stop only if the line begins with

168: % `%%BoundingBox:'.

169: %

170:  \expandafter\epsfaux\epsffileline:. \\%

171:  \fi

172:  \ifepsffileok\repeat

173:  \ifepsfbbfound\else

174:  \ifepsfverbose\message{No bounding box comment in #1; using defaults}\fi\fi

175:  }\closein\epsffilein\fi}%

176: %

177: % Now we have to calculate the scale and offset values to use.

178: % First we compute the natural sizes.

179: %

180: \def\epsfclipstring{}% do we clip or not? If so,

181: \def\epsfclipon{\def\epsfclipstring{ clip}}%

182: \def\epsfclipoff{\def\epsfclipstring{}}%

183: %

184: \def\epsfsetgraph#1{%

185:  \epsfrsize=\epsfury\pspoints

186:  \advance\epsfrsize by-\epsflly\pspoints

187:  \epsftsize=\epsfurx\pspoints

188:  \advance\epsftsize by-\epsfllx\pspoints

189: %

190: % If `epsfxsize' is 0, we default to the natural size of the picture.

191: % Otherwise we scale the graph to be \epsfxsize wide.

192: %

193:  \epsfxsize\epsfsize\epsftsize\epsfrsize

194:  \ifnum\epsfxsize=0 \ifnum\epsfysize=0

195:  \epsfxsize=\epsftsize \epsfysize=\epsfrsize

196:  \epsfrsize=0pt

197: %

198: % We have a sticky problem here: TeX doesn't do floating point arithmetic!

199: % Our goal is to compute y = rx/t. The following loop does this reasonably

200: % fast, with an error of at most about 16 sp (about 1/4000 pt).

201: %

202:  \else\epsftmp=\epsftsize \divide\epsftmp\epsfrsize

203:  \epsfxsize=\epsfysize \multiply\epsfxsize\epsftmp

204:  \multiply\epsftmp\epsfrsize \advance\epsftsize-\epsftmp

205:  \epsftmp=\epsfysize

206:  \loop \advance\epsftsize\epsftsize \divide\epsftmp 2

207:  \ifnum\epsftmp>0

208:  \ifnum\epsftsize<\epsfrsize\else

209:  \advance\epsftsize-\epsfrsize \advance\epsfxsize\epsftmp \fi

210:  \repeat

211:  \epsfrsize=0pt

212:  \fi

213:  \else \ifnum\epsfysize=0

214:  \epsftmp=\epsfrsize \divide\epsftmp\epsftsize

215:  \epsfysize=\epsfxsize \multiply\epsfysize\epsftmp

216:  \multiply\epsftmp\epsftsize \advance\epsfrsize-\epsftmp

217:  \epsftmp=\epsfxsize

218:  \loop \advance\epsfrsize\epsfrsize \divide\epsftmp 2

219:  \ifnum\epsftmp>0

220:  \ifnum\epsfrsize<\epsftsize\else

221:  \advance\epsfrsize-\epsftsize \advance\epsfysize\epsftmp \fi

222:  \repeat

223:  \epsfrsize=0pt

224:  \else

225:  \epsfrsize=\epsfysize

226:  \fi

227:  \fi

228: %

229: % Finally, we make the vbox and stick in a \special that dvips can parse.

230: %

231:  \ifepsfverbose\message{#1: width=\the\epsfxsize, height=\the\epsfysize}\fi

232:  \epsftmp=10\epsfxsize \divide\epsftmp\pspoints

233:  \vbox to\epsfysize{\vfil\hbox to\epsfxsize{%

234:  \ifnum\epsfrsize=0\relax

235:  \special{PSfile=#1 llx=\epsfllx\space lly=\epsflly\space

236:  urx=\epsfurx\space ury=\epsfury\space rwi=\number\epsftmp

237:  \epsfclipstring}%

238:  \else

239:  \epsfrsize=10\epsfysize \divide\epsfrsize\pspoints

240:  \special{PSfile=#1 llx=\epsfllx\space lly=\epsflly\space

241:  urx=\epsfurx\space ury=\epsfury\space rwi=\number\epsftmp\space

242:  rhi=\number\epsfrsize \epsfclipstring}%

243:  \fi

244:  \hfil}}%

245: \global\epsfxsize=0pt\global\epsfysize=0pt}%

246: %

247: % We still need to define the tricky \epsfaux macro. This requires

248: % a couple of magic constants for comparison purposes.

249: %

250:  {\catcode`\%=12 \global\let\epsfpercent=%\global\def\epsfbblit{%BoundingBox}}%

251: %

252: % So we're ready to check for `%BoundingBox:' and to grab the

253: % values if they are found.

254: %

255: \long\def\epsfaux#1#2:#3\\{\ifx#1\epsfpercent

256:  \def\testit{#2}\ifx\testit\epsfbblit

257:  \epsfgrab #3 . . . \\%

258:  \epsffileokfalse

259:  \global\epsfbbfoundtrue

260:  \fi\else\ifx#1\par\else\epsffileokfalse\fi\fi}%

261: %

262: % Here we grab the values and stuff them in the appropriate definitions.

263: %

264: \def\epsfempty{}%

265: \def\epsfgrab #1 #2 #3 #4 #5\\{%

266: \global\def\epsfllx{#1}\ifx\epsfllx\epsfempty

267:  \epsfgrab #2 #3 #4 #5 .\\\else

268:  \global\def\epsflly{#2}%

269:  \global\def\epsfurx{#3}\global\def\epsfury{#4}\fi}%

270: %

271: % We default the epsfsize macro.

272: %

273: \def\epsfsize#1#2{\epsfxsize}

274: %

275: % Finally, another definition for compatibility with older macros.

276: %

277: \let\epsffile=\epsfbox

278: %=======================================================================

279: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% NEWCOMMANDS (AHMED) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

280: \def\att{t \bar{t}}

281: \def\app{p \bar{p}}

282: \def\rts{\sqrt{s}}

283: \def\mt{m_t}

284: \def\mb{m_b}

285: \def\mc{m_c}

286: \newcommand{\bksgam}{\ $B \to K^*+ \gamma$}

287: \newcommand{\brogam}{\ $B \to \rho+ \gamma$}

288: \def\BDSl{B \to D^* \ell \nu_\ell}

289: \def\vdvp{v \cdot v^\prime}

290: \def\xiaoo{\xi_{A_1}(\vdvp =1 )}

291: \def\Vbc{V_{cb}}

292: \newcommand{\Tosc}{T_{osc}}

293: \newcommand{\sqrts}{\sqrt{s}}

294: \newcommand{\bg}{\beta \gamma}

295: \newcommand{\xds}{x_i}

296: \newcommand{\Ds}{D_s^\pm}

297: \newcommand{\bb}{B^0 B^0}

298: \newcommand{\barbar}{{\overline{B^0}}\thinspace{\overline{B^0}}}

299: \newcommand{\barb}{B^0 {\overline{B^0}}}

300: \newcommand{\bbar}{$B^0$--${\overline{B^0}}$}

301: \newcommand{\Deltat}{\Delta t}

302: \newcommand{\delt}{\delta t}

303: \newcommand{\delmd}{\Delta M_d}

304: \newcommand{\delms}{\Delta M_s}

305: \newcommand{\ps}{10^{-12} s}

306: \newcommand{\zbbar}{Z^0 \to b {\overline{b}}}

307: \newcommand{\eebbx}{$e^+ e^- \to B {\overline{B}} X$}

308: \newcommand{\pbpbbx}{$p{\overline{p}} \to B {\overline{B}} X$}

309: \newcommand{\kkbar}{$K^0$--${\overline{K^0}}$}

310: \newcommand{\bdbdbar}{$B_d^0$--${\overline{B_d^0}}$}

311: \newcommand{\bsbsbar}{$B_s^0$--${\overline{B_s^0}}$}

312: %\newcommand{\si}{\sigma}

313: \newcommand{\as}{\mbox{$\alpha_{\displaystyle s}$}}

314: \newcommand{\aso}{\mbox{$O(\alpha_{\displaystyle s})$}}

315: \newcommand{\ass}{\mbox{$O(\alpha_{\displaystyle s}^2)$}}

316: \newcommand{\asq}{\mbox{$\alpha_{\displaystyle s}(Q^2)$}}

317: \newcommand{\ee}{\mbox{$e^+e^-$}}

318: \newcommand{\cc}{\mbox{$c {\overline{c}}$}}

319: \newcommand{\qq}{\mbox{$q {\overline{q}}$}}

320: \newcommand{\jp}{\mbox{$J/\Psi$}}

321: \newcommand{\lqc}{\Lambda_{QCD}}

322: \newcommand{\pmi}{{\not{p}}_{\perp}}

323: \newcommand{\set}{\sum E_{\perp}}

324: \newcommand{\ptr}{p_{\perp}}

325: \newcommand{\sww}{\sin^2{\theta_W}}

326: \newcommand{\sw}{\sin{\theta_W}}

327: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

328: 

329: % Start of document

330: % -----------------

331: \pagestyle{plain}

332: 

333: \begin{document}

334: 

335: \begin{flushright}  

336: DESY 00-182 \\

337: UdeM-GPP-TH-00-80\\

338: %hep-ph/0010zzz\\

339: December 2000\\

340: \end{flushright}

341: 

342: \begin{center} 

343: 

344: {\large \bf

345: \centerline{What if the Mass Difference $\Delta M_s$ is around 18

346: Inverse Picoseconds?}}

347: \vspace*{1.5cm}

348: %\vskip1cm

349: {\large A.~Ali} \vskip0.2cm

350: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron DESY, Hamburg \\

351: \vspace*{0.3cm} \centerline{ and} \vspace*{0.3cm} {\large D.~London}

352: \vskip0.2cm Laboratoire Ren\'e J.-A. L\'evesque, Universit\'e de

353: Montr\'eal, \\

354: C.P. 6128, succ.\ centre-ville, Montr\'eal, QC, Canada H3C 3J7 \\

355: \vskip0.5cm

356: %

357: \vskip0.5cm

358: {\Large Abstract\\}

359: \vskip3truemm

360: %

361: 

362: \parbox[t]{\textwidth} {Present experiments in pursuit of the mass

363:   difference in the $B_s^0$-$\overline{B_s^0}$ system have put a lower

364:   bound on this quantity of $\Delta M_s > 14.9 ~{\rm ps}^{-1}$ (at

365:   95\% C.L.). The same experiments also yield a local minimum in the

366:   log-likelihood function around $\Delta M_s = 17.7 ~{\rm ps}^{-1}$,

367:   which is $2.5\sigma$ away from being zero. Motivated by these

368:   observations, we investigate the consequences of a possible

369:   measurement of $\Delta M_s = 17.7 \pm 1.4~{\rm ps}^{-1}$, in the

370:   context of both the standard model and supersymmetric models with

371:   minimal flavor violation. We perform a fit of the quark mixing

372:   parameters in these theories and estimate the expected ranges of the

373:   CP asymmetries in $B$ decays, characterized by $\alpha$, $\beta$ and

374:   $\gamma$, the interior angles of the CKM-unitarity triangle. Based

375:   on this study, we argue that, if indeed $\Delta M_s$ turns out to be

376:   in its currently-favored range, this would disfavor a large class of

377:   supersymmetric models. Indeed, of all the models examined here, the

378:   best fit to the data occurs for the standard model.}

379: 

380: %%

381: %\vskip2cm

382: \end{center}

383: \thispagestyle{empty}

384: \newpage

385: \setcounter{page}{1}

386: % Decrease texheight (for preprint numbers) again

387: \textheight 23.0 true cm

388: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

389: 

390: 

391: %

392: \baselineskip=14pt

393: %\pagenumber{1}

394: %

395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

396: 

397: \section{Introduction}

398: 

399: One of the principal aims of flavor physics is to measure the

400: parameters of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix \cite{CKM},

401: which encodes the manner in which quark mixing takes place within the

402: Standard Model (SM). There are many measurements which contribute to

403: this goal. For example, the matrix element $V_{ud}$ can be probed

404: through the study of neutron $\beta$ decay, while the $\bd$--$\bdb$

405: mass difference $\delmd$ can be used to determine the matrix element

406: $V_{td}$. Our present knowledge of the CKM matrix is usually displayed

407: in terms of the allowed region of the so-called unitarity triangle

408: \cite{PDG00}. Ongoing experiments studying $B$-hadron physics will be

409: able to test the CKM matrix by measuring the sides and the

410: (CP-violating) angles of the unitarity triangle. If physics beyond the

411: SM is present, inconsistencies in the various unitarity tests will

412: appear. If this occurs, then it will be necessary to perform an

413: overall fit of the CKM matrix elements in various competing theories

414: in order to establish the right framework for flavor physics.

415: 

416: One appealing candidate theory which may induce such ``unitarity

417: inconsistencies'' is supersymmetry (SUSY). In its minimal

418: flavor-violating form, the couplings of SUSY particles to ordinary

419: matter are proportional to CKM matrix elements. Thus, the weak phases

420: of supersymmetric contributions to loop-induced transitions are the

421: same as in the SM. These loop-level processes include $\bd$--$\bdb$

422: and $\bs$--$\bsbar$ mixing, as well as the flavor-changing

423: neutral-current decays $b \to s \gamma$ and $b \to s \ell^+ \ell^-$.

424: The presence of such additional SUSY contributions has the effect that

425: the extracted values of the matrix elements $\vert V_{td}\vert$ and

426: $\vert V_{ts}\vert$ will be modified from their SM values. Conversely,

427: precise measurements of the CKM matrix elements may put severe bounds

428: on new physics, including SUSY. In Ref.~\cite{AL99}, we demonstrated

429: this quantitatively: we worked out the profile of the CKM unitarity

430: triangle in the SM and in several variants of minimal flavor-violating

431: supersymmetric models. We also examined the correlations among the

432: CP-violating phases $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ in these models.

433: Although, at the present time, all models give reasonable fits to the

434: data, in the future, with more precise data, one will be able to

435: distinguish among the various candidate models.

436: 

437: If one compares the allowed region of the unitarity triangle of today

438: with that of the early 1990's \cite{oldAL} it is clear that the

439: current region is considerably smaller. Although the errors on

440: virtually all measurements have decreased since the early 1990's, the

441: single most important improvement has been the measurement of $\Delta

442: M_s$ in $\bs$--$\bsbar$ mixing. As the lower limit on $\Delta M_s$ has

443: increased over the years, more and more of the earlier-allowed region

444: has been cut away. Indeed, this lower limit continues to increase:

445: although the lower limit in 1999 was $\delms > 12.4~{\rm ps}^{-1}$, it

446: now stands at $\delms > 14.9 ~{\rm ps}^{-1}$ \cite{Stocchi00}. More

447: intriguing, there is now a hint of a possible signal at $\delms \simeq

448: 17.7~{\rm ps}^{-1}$ \cite{Stocchi00}. Clearly, the last word on

449: $\delms$ from the combined LEP/SLD/CDF analysis is yet to come, and it

450: is conceivable that the measurement of $\delms$ is just around the

451: corner. In anticipation of this, and to underscore the importance of

452: the $\delms$ measurement for CKM phenomenology, in this paper we

453: present two analyses. First, we update the CKM fits in the SM and in

454: the supersymmetric models mentioned above. Second, we assume a

455: (future) measurement of $\Delta M_s = 17.7 \pm 1.4~{\rm ps}^{-1}$, and

456: examine the consequences. As we will see, such a measurement would be

457: sufficient to disfavor a large class of minimal flavor-violating

458: supersymmetric models (though it would be completely consistent with

459: the SM).

460: 

461: The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we present the

462: year-2000 profile of the unitarity triangle, both in the SM and in

463: supersymmetric theories with minimal flavor violation. As we will see,

464: the measurement of $\beta$ will not distinguish among these various

465: models, though the measurement of $\alpha$ and/or $\gamma$ will. More

466: to the point, in supersymmetric models one can obtain a very different

467: allowed range for $\Delta M_s$, so that a precision measurement of

468: this quantity will be able to strongly constrain the SUSY parameter

469: space. This is shown quantitatively in Sec. 3. Here we present a

470: future profile of the unitarity triangle, both in the SM and in SUSY,

471: assuming a hypothetical measurement of $\Delta M_s = 17.7 \pm

472: 1.4~{\rm ps}^{-1}$. Such a measurement would disfavor a certain class

473: of SUSY models.  Furthermore, it turns out that, of all the models

474: considered here, the SM yields the best fit to the data. Thus, the

475: hint of a signal at $\delms = 17.7~{\rm ps}^{-1}$ is not in any way in

476: conflict with the SM. (Of course, there is still a large class of SUSY

477: models which provides a reasonable fit to the data.) We conclude in

478: Sec.~4.

479: 

480: \section{Unitarity Triangle: Year-2000 Profile}

481: 

482: It is customary to use an approximate parametrization of the CKM

483: matrix, due to Wolfenstein \cite{Wolfenstein}, to quantitatively

484: discuss the allowed region of the unitarity triangle. The Wolfenstein

485: parametrization can be written as

486: %

487: \beq

488: V \simeq \left(\matrix{

489:  1-{1\over 2}\lambda^2 & \lambda

490:  & A\lambda^3 \left( \rho - i\eta \right) \cr

491:  -\lambda ( 1 + i A^2 \lambda^4 \eta )

492: & 1-{1\over 2}\lambda^2 & A\lambda^2 \cr

493:  A\lambda^3\left(1 - \rho - i \eta\right) & -A\lambda^2 & 1 \cr}\right)~.

494: \label{CKM}

495: \eeq

496: %

497: Thus, $\lambda$, $A$, $\rho$ and $\eta$ are the four quantities which

498: parametrize the CKM matrix.

499: 

500: With the experimental precision expected in future $B$ (and $K$)

501: decays, it may become necessary to go beyond leading order in

502: $\lambda$ in the Wolfenstein parametrization given above. To this end,

503: we follow here the prescription of Buras et al.\ \cite{BLO94}:

504: defining $\bar{\rho} \equiv \rho(1-\lambda^2/2)$ and $\bar{\eta}

505: \equiv \eta(1-\lambda^2/2)$, we have

506: %

507: \beq

508: V_{us} = \lambda,~~~V_{cb}=A\lambda^2,~~~V_{ub}=A\lambda^3(\rho -i

509: \eta),~~~V_{td} = A\lambda^3(1- \bar{\rho} -i \bar{\eta})

510: \label{nlo-wolf}

511: \eeq

512: %

513: (Note that the matrix elements $V_{us}, V_{cb}$ and $V_{ub}$ remain

514: unchanged, but $V_{td}$ is renormalized in going from leading order to

515: next-to-leading order.) The apex of the unitarity triangle is now

516: defined by the renormalized Wolfenstein parameters

517: $(\bar{\rho},\bar{\eta})$.

518: 

519: \subsection{Input Data}

520: 

521: There are a variety of measurements which constrain $\bar{\rho}$ and

522: $\bar{\eta}$, either directly or indirectly. The theoretical and

523: experimental quantities which are used in the CKM fits are listed in

524: Table~\ref{datatable}, along with their present values and errors (if

525: applicable). For a detailed description of these quantities, as well

526: as a discussion of our methodology, we refer the reader to

527: Ref.~\cite{AL99}.

528: 

529: % This is Table 1

530: \begin{table}[t]

531: \centering

532: \caption{ \it Data used in the CKM fits}

533: \vskip 0.1 in

534: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline

535: Parameter & Value \\

536: \hline

537: \hline

538: $\lambda$ & $0.2196$  \cr

539: $\vert V_{cb} \vert $ & $0.0404 \pm 0.0018$ \cr

540: $\vert V_{ub} / V_{cb} \vert$ & $0.087 \pm 0.018$ \cr

541: $\abseps$ & $(2.280 \pm 0.013) \times 10^{-3}$ \cr

542: $\Delta M_d$ & $0.487 \pm 0.014~{\rm ps}^{-1}$ \cr

543: $\Delta M_s$ & $ > 14.9 ~{\rm ps}^{-1}$ \cr 

544: $\overline{\mt}(\mt(pole))$ & $165 \pm 5$ GeV  \cr

545: $\overline{\mc}(\mc(pole))$ & $1.25 \pm 0.05$ GeV  \cr

546: $\hat{\eta}_B$ & $0.55$ \cr

547: $\hat{\eta}_{cc} $ & $1.38 \pm 0.53$  \cr

548: $\hat{\eta}_{ct} $ & $0.47 \pm 0.04$  \cr

549: $\hat{\eta}_{tt} $ & $0.57$  \cr

550: $\hat{B}_K$ & $0.94 \pm 0.15$  \cr

551: $\fbd\sqrt{\hat{B}_{B_d}} $ & $230 \pm 40$ MeV  \cr

552: $\xi_s $ & $1.16 \pm 0.05$   \cr

553: \hline

554: \end{tabular}

555: \label{datatable}

556: \end{table}

557: 

558: The one measurement which must be described in more detail here is

559: $\Delta M_s$. Since the first studies of $\bs$-$\bsbar$ mixing in the

560: SM \cite{ali-aydin}, it was known that the measurement of the mass

561: differences $\delms$ and $\delmd$ would provide a powerful constraint

562: on the CKM matrix elements. The ratio of these mass differences can be

563: expressed in the SM as:

564: %

565: \beq

566: \frac{\delms}{\delmd} =

567:  \frac{\hat{\eta}_{B_s}M_{B_s}\left(\fbbs\right)}

568: {\hat{\eta}_{B_d}M_{B_d}\left(\fbb\right)}

569: \left\vert \frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}} \right\vert^2

570: =C\frac{\xi_s^2}{\lambda^2} \frac{1}{(1-\bar{\rho})^2 + \bar{\eta}^2}.

571: \label{xratio}

572: \eeq

573: %

574: Since the QCD correction factors satisfy $\hat{\eta}_{B_s} =

575: \hat{\eta}_{B_d} = 0.55$ \cite{etaB}, and since $C = M_{B_s}/M_{B_d} =

576: 1.017$ \cite{PDG00}, the only real uncertainty in this quantity is the

577: ratio of hadronic matrix elements $\xi_s \equiv (f_{B_s}

578: \sqrt{\hat{B}_{B_s}}) / (f_{B_d}\sqrt{\hat{B}_{B_d}})$. It is now

579: widely accepted that the ratio $\xi_s$ is probably the most reliable

580: of the lattice-QCD estimates in $B$ physics, $\xi_s=1.16 \pm 0.05$

581: \cite{Bernard00}. Thus, the accurate knowledge of $\Delta M_s/\Delta

582: M_d$ puts a stringent constraint on the CKM parameters $\bar{\rho}$

583: and $\bar{\eta}$, and hence on the allowed region of the unitarity

584: triangle.

585: 

586: Since $\delmd$ has already been measured very accurately (the present

587: world average is $\delmd=0.487 \pm 0.014 ~{\rm ps}^{-1}$

588: \cite{Stocchi00}), a measurement of $\delms$ is being keenly awaited.

589: The present experimental situation on $\delms$ can be summarized as

590: follows: the combined analysis of the LEP/SLD/CDF measurements

591: undertaken by the $B$-oscillation working group yields a lower bound

592: $\delms > 14.9 ~{\rm ps}^{-1}$ (at 95\% C.L.) \cite{Stocchi00}, using

593: the amplitude analysis method of Moser and Rousarie \cite{Moser97}.

594: However, quite interestingly, the same analysis also yields a {\it

595:   local minimum in the log-likelihood distribution around} $\delms

596: =17.7 ~{\rm ps}^{-1}$, whose significance becomes more pronounced if

597: the amplitude spectrum is converted to a log-likelihood function

598: referenced to $\delms =\infty$: $\Delta\log {\it L}^\infty(\delms) =

599: (0.5 -{\cal A})/\sigma_{\cal A}^2$ \cite{checciaetal}. Here ${\cal A}$

600: is an amplitude modulating the oscillating terms as $ (1\pm {\cal A}

601: \cos \delms t)$, with $\sigma_{\cal A}$ being its error. This local

602: minimum has the interpretation that at this value of $\delms$, the

603: amplitude ${\cal A}$ is away from being zero (no-mixing case) by

604: $2.5\sigma$. The statistical significance of this result has been

605: studied in a monte-carlo based analysis by Boix and Abbaneo

606: \cite{boix-abbaneo}. They estimate the probability that the observed

607: result was produced by a statistical fluctuation anywhere in the

608: scanned values of $\delms$ to be $1 - {\rm C.L.} \simeq 2.5\%$

609: \cite{Stocchi00}. Although this probability is not yet small enough to

610: consider this to be a measurement of $\Delta M_s$, the result is

611: intriguing.

612: 

613: The other quantity which must be mentioned is $\sin 2 \beta$. Since a

614: non-zero value of $\sin 2\beta$ would be the first evidence for CP

615: violation outside the kaon system, many experiments are attempting to

616: measure this quantity. In the Wolfenstein parametrization, $-\beta$ is

617: the phase of the CKM matrix element $V_{td}$. From Eq.~(\ref{CKM}) one

618: can readily find that

619: %

620: \beq

621: \sin 2 \beta = \frac{2\bar{\eta}(1-\bar{\rho})}{(1-\bar{\rho})^2 +   

622: \bar{\eta}^2} ~.

623: \label{sin2beta-wolf}

624: \eeq

625: %

626: Thus, a measurement of $\sin 2\beta$ would put a strong constraint on

627: the parameters $\bar{\rho}$ and $\bar{\eta}$.

628: 

629: In fact, first measurements of $\sin 2 \beta$ have already been

630: reported, and the present status is summarized below:

631: %

632: \begin{eqnarray}

633: \sin 2 \beta &=& 3.2 ^{+1.8}_{-2.0} \pm 0.5

634: ~~(\mbox{OPAL \cite{OPAL-sin2beta}}),\\ \nonumber

635: &=& 0.79 ^{+0.41}_{-0.44}~~(\mbox{CDF \cite{CDF-sin2beta}}),\\ \nonumber

636: & =& 0.84 ^{+0.83}_{-1.04} \pm 0.16 ~~(\mbox{ALEPH

637: \cite{ALEPH-sin2beta}}),\\ \nonumber

638: & =& 0.45^{+0.43 ~+0.07}_{-0.44 ~-0.09}  ~~(\mbox{BELLE

639: \cite{BELLE-sin2beta}}), \\ \nonumber

640: & =& 0.12 \pm 0.37 \pm 0.09~~(\mbox{BABAR \cite{BABAR-sin2beta}}),

641: \label{sin2beta-all}

642: \end{eqnarray}

643: %

644: yielding a world average $\sin 2 \beta = 0.48^{+0.22}_{-0.24}$

645: \cite{Faccioli}. This quantity will eventually be very precisely

646: measured at the ongoing $B$-factory experiments and elsewhere.

647: However, since the error is still quite large, we do not include this

648: measurement in our fits.

649: 

650: \subsection{SM Fits}

651: 

652: In order to find the allowed region in $\bar{\rho}$--$\bar{\eta}$

653: space, i.e.\ the allowed shapes of the unitarity triangle, the

654: computer program MINUIT is used to fit the parameters to all the

655: experimental constraints. In the fit, we allow ten parameters to vary:

656: $\bar{\rho}$, $\bar{\eta}$, $A$, $m_t$, $m_c$, $\eta_{cc}$,

657: $\eta_{ct}$, $f_{B_d} \sqrt{\hat{B}_{B_d}}$, $\hat{B}_K$, and $\xi_s$.

658: The $\Delta M_s$ constraint is included using the amplitude method

659: \cite{Moser97}. The allowed (95\% C.L.) $\bar\rho$--$\bar\eta$ region

660: is shown in Fig.~\ref{rhoeta1}. The triangle drawn is to facilitate

661: our discussions, and corresponds to the central values of the fits,

662: $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma) = (95^\circ,22^\circ,63^\circ)$.

663: 

664: % This is Figure 1

665: \begin{figure}

666: \vskip -1.0truein

667: \centerline{\epsfxsize 3.5 truein \epsfbox {smfit.ps}}

668: \vskip -1.5truein

669: \caption{Allowed region in $\bar\rho$--$\bar\eta$ space in the SM,

670: from a fit to the ten parameters discussed in the text and given in

671: Table \protect{\ref{datatable}}. The solid line represents the region

672: with $\chi^2=\chi_{min}^2+6$ corresponding to the 95\% C.L.\

673: region. The triangle shows the best fit.}

674: \label{rhoeta1}

675: \end{figure}

676: 

677: The CP angles $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ can be measured in

678: CP-violating rate asymmetries in $B$ decays.  These angles can be

679: expressed in terms of $\bar{\rho}$ and $\bar{\eta}$. Thus, different

680: shapes of the unitarity triangle are equivalent to different values of

681: the CP angles. Referring to Fig.~\ref{rhoeta1}, the allowed ranges at

682: 95\% C.L. are given by

683: %

684: %

685: \beq

686: 77^\circ \le \alpha \le 127^\circ ~~,~~~~

687: 14^\circ \le \beta \le 35^\circ ~~,~~~~

688: 34^\circ \le \gamma \le 81^\circ ~~,

689: \label{CPangleregion}

690: \eeq

691: or, equivalently,

692: %

693: \beq

694: -0.96 \le  \sin 2\alpha  \le 0.45 ~~,~~~~

695: 0.46  \le  \sin 2\beta  \le 0.94  ~~,~~~~

696: 0.31  \le  \sin^2 \gamma  \le 0.98 ~~.

697: \label{smabgrange}

698: \eeq

699: 

700: Of course, the values of $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are

701: correlated, i.e.\ they are not all allowed simultaneously. After all,

702: the sum of these angles must equal $180^\circ$. We illustrate these

703: correlations in Figs.~\ref{alphabetacorrsm} and

704: \ref{alphagammacorrsm}. In both of these figures, the SM plot is

705: labelled by $f=0$. Fig.~\ref{alphabetacorrsm} shows the allowed region

706: in $\sin 2\alpha$--$\sin 2\beta$ space allowed by the data, while

707: Fig.~\ref{alphagammacorrsm} shows the allowed (correlated) values of

708: the CP angles $\alpha$ and $\gamma$. This correlation is roughly

709: linear, due to the relatively small allowed range of $\beta$

710: [Eq.~(\ref{CPangleregion})].

711: 

712: % This is Figure 2

713: \begin{figure}

714: \vskip -2.0truein

715: \centerline{\epsfxsize 6.0 truein \epsfbox {cpsugfigs.ps}}

716: \vskip -3.7truein

717: \caption{Allowed 95\% C.L. region of the CP-violating quantities 

718:   $\sin 2\alpha$ and $\sin 2\beta$, from a fit to the data given in

719:   Table \protect{\ref{datatable}}. The upper left plot ($f=0$)

720:   corresponds to the SM, while the other plots ($f=0.2$, 0.4, 0.75)

721:   correspond to various SUSY models.}

722: \label{alphabetacorrsm}

723: \end{figure}

724: 

725: % This is Figure 3

726: \begin{figure}

727: \vskip -2.0truein

728: \centerline{\epsfxsize 6.0 truein \epsfbox {abgsugfigs.ps}}

729: \vskip -3.7truein

730: \caption{Allowed 95\% C.L. region of the CP-violating quantities 

731:   $\alpha$ and $\gamma$, from a fit to the data given in Table

732:   \protect{\ref{datatable}}. The upper left plot ($f=0$) corresponds

733:   to the SM, while the other plots ($f=0.2$, 0.4, 0.75) correspond to

734:   various SUSY models.}

735: \label{alphagammacorrsm}

736: \end{figure}

737: 

738: Finally, one can also calculate the range of $\Delta M_s$ which is

739: presently allowed in the SM. At 95\% C.L. we find:

740: %

741: \beq

742: 14.6 \le \Delta M_s \le 31.2 ~.

743: \eeq

744: 

745: \subsection{SUSY Fits}

746: 

747: In this subsection we update the profile of the unitarity triangle in

748: supersymmetric (SUSY) theories with minimal flavor violation. In this

749: class of models, the SUSY contributions to $\delmd$, $\delms$ and

750: $\abseps$ can all be described by a single common parameter $f$ (for a

751: more detailed discussion, we refer the reader to Ref.~\cite{AL99}):

752: %

753: \begin{eqnarray}

754: \delmd &=& \delmd (SM) [ 1 + f ], \nonumber \\

755: \delms &=& \delms (SM) [ 1 + f ], \nonumber \\

756: \abseps &=& \frac{G_F^2f_K^2M_KM_W^2}{6\sqrt{2}\pi^2\Delta M_K}

757: \hat{B}_K\left(A^2\lambda^6\bar{\eta}\right)

758: \bigl(y_c\left\{\hat{\eta}_{ct}f_3(y_c,y_t)-\hat{\eta}_{cc}\right\}

759:  \nonumber \\

760: &~& + ~~~~~~~~~

761: \hat{\eta}_{tt}y_tf_2(y_t)[1 + f] A^2\lambda^4(1-\bar{\rho})\bigr).

762: \label{susyformel}

763: \end{eqnarray}

764: %

765: The parameter $f$ is positive definite, so that the supersymmetric

766: contributions add {\it constructively} to the SM contributions in the

767: entire allowed supersymmetric parameter space. The size of $f$

768: depends, in general, on the parameters of the supersymmetric model.

769: In our fits, we will consider four representative values of $f$ --- 0,

770: 0.2, 0.4 and 0.75 --- which are typical of the SM, minimal

771: supergravity (SUGRA) models, non-minimal SUGRA models, and non-SUGRA

772: models, respectively.

773: 

774: For the SUSY fits, we use the same program as for the SM fits, except

775: that the theoretical expressions for $\Delta M_d$, $\Delta M_s$ and

776: $\abseps$ are modified as above [Eq.~(\ref{susyformel})]. The allowed

777: 95\% C.L. regions for the four values $f=0$, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.75 are

778: all plotted in Fig.~\ref{sugratot}. We can see from this figure that,

779: as $f$ increases, the allowed region moves slightly down and towards

780: the right in the $\bar{\rho}$--$\bar{\eta}$ plane.

781: 

782: At present, there is still considerable overlap between the $f=0$ (SM)

783: and $f=0.75$ regions.  However, there are also regions allowed for one

784: value of $f$ which are excluded for another value. In particular, one

785: notices that, as $f$ increases, larger values of ${\bar\rho}$ are

786: allowed. This in turn implies that larger values of $\Delta M_s$ are

787: allowed, and in fact this is borne out quantitively.  The allowed

788: ranges for $\Delta M_s$ (95\% C.L.) are given by:

789: %

790: \begin{eqnarray}

791: f = 0 ~{\rm (SM)} & : & 14.6 \le \Delta M_s \le 31.2 ~, \nn \\

792: f = 0.2 & : & 14.6 \le \Delta M_s \le 35.5 ~, \nn \\

793: f = 0.4 & : & 14.9 \le \Delta M_s \le 39.4 ~, \nn \\

794: f = 0.75 & : & 15.1 \le \Delta M_s \le 48.6 ~. 

795: \end{eqnarray}

796: %

797: Although the lower limit on $\Delta M_s$ is roughly independent of

798: $f$, the upper limit increases as $f$ increases. Thus, should $\Delta

799: M_s$ be found to be very large, this would be consistent with SUSY

800: models with large values of $f$. Conversely, if $\Delta M_s$ is

801: measured to be near its lower limit, this would disfavor SUSY models

802: with large $f$. (Note that, although small values of $\Delta M_s$ are

803: allowed in such models, the region of parameter space which yields

804: such values is relatively small. Thus, one can expect the fits to the

805: data to be poorer for SUSY models with large values of $f$ than for

806: models with small $f$. We will see this in more detail in Sec.~3.)

807: 

808: % This is Figure 4

809: \begin{figure}

810: \vskip -1.0truein

811: \centerline{\epsfxsize 3.5 truein \epsfbox {sugratot.ps}}

812: \vskip -1.5truein

813: \caption{Allowed 95\% C.L. region in $\rho$--$\eta$ space in the SM 

814:   and in SUSY models, from a fit to the data given in Table

815:   \protect{\ref{datatable}}. From left to right, the allowed regions

816:   correspond to $f=0$ (SM, solid line), $f=0.2$ (long dashed line),

817:   $f=0.4$ (short dashed line), $f=0.75$ (dotted line).}

818: \label{sugratot}

819: \end{figure}

820: 

821: As was seen in the SM fit, different shapes of the unitarity triangle

822: correspond to different values of the CP phases $\alpha$, $\beta$ and

823: $\gamma$. Furthermore, these allowed values are correlated: the

824: correlations between $\sin 2\alpha$ and $\sin 2\beta$, and between

825: $\alpha$ and $\gamma$, are shown in Fig.~\ref{alphabetacorrsm} and

826: Fig.~\ref{alphagammacorrsm}, respectively. Tables~\ref{cpasym1} and

827: \ref{cpasym2} give, respectively, the allowed ranges for the CP phases

828: and the quantities measured in CP-violating asymmetries. The key

829: observation here is that a measurement of the CP angle $\beta$ will

830: {\it not} distinguish among the various values of $f$ -- the allowed

831: range for $\beta$ is rather independent of $f$. If one wants to

832: distinguish among the various SUSY models, it will be necessary to

833: measure $\alpha$ and/or $\gamma$. (Of course, as mentioned above,

834: there is still significant overlap among all four models. Thus,

835: depending on what values of $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ are obtained, we may

836: or may not be able to rule out certain values of $f$.)

837: 

838: % This is Table 2

839: \begin{table}

840: \hfil

841: \caption{Allowed 95\% C.L. ranges for the CP phases $\alpha$, $\beta$

842: and $\gamma$, as well as their central values, from the CKM fits in

843: the SM $(f=0)$ and supersymmetric theories, characterized by the

844: parameter $f$ defined in the text.}

845: \vbox{\offinterlineskip

846: \halign{&\vrule#&

847:  \strut\quad#\hfil\quad\cr

848: \noalign{\hrule}

849: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr 

850: & $f$ && $\alpha$ && $\beta$ && $\gamma$ && $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)_{\rm cent}$ & \cr

851: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr 

852: \noalign{\hrule}

853: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr

854: & $f=0$ (SM) && $77^\circ$ -- $127^\circ$ && $14^\circ$ -- $35^\circ$ &&

855: $34^\circ$ -- $81^\circ$ && $(95^\circ, 22^\circ, 63^\circ)$ & \cr

856: & $f=0.2$ && $80^\circ$ -- $133^\circ$ && $13^\circ$ -- $34^\circ$ &&

857: $29^\circ$ -- $81^\circ$ && $(109^\circ, 22^\circ, 49^\circ)$ & \cr   

858: & $f=0.4$ && $82^\circ$ -- $138^\circ$ && $12^\circ$ -- $34^\circ$ &&

859: $25^\circ$ -- $78^\circ$ && $(112^\circ, 20^\circ, 48^\circ)$ & \cr

860: & $f=0.75$ && $87^\circ$ -- $146^\circ$ && $10^\circ$ -- $35^\circ$ &&

861: $20^\circ$ -- $74^\circ$ && $(114^\circ, 21^\circ, 45^\circ)$ & \cr

862: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr

863: \noalign{\hrule}}}

864: \label{cpasym1}

865: \end{table}

866: 

867: % This is Table 3

868: \begin{table}

869: \caption{Allowed 95\% C.L. ranges for the CP asymmetries $\sin

870: 2\alpha$, $\sin 2\beta$ and $\sin^2 \gamma$, from the CKM fits in the

871: SM $(f=0)$ and supersymmetric theories, characterized by the parameter

872: $f$ defined in the text.}  

873: \hfil \vbox{\offinterlineskip

874: \halign{&\vrule#& \strut\quad#\hfil\quad\cr \noalign{\hrule}

875: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr & $f$ && $\sin 2\alpha$ &&

876: $\sin 2\beta$ && $\sin^2 \gamma$ & \cr

877: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr \noalign{\hrule}

878: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr

879: & $f=0$ (SM) && $-$0.96 -- 0.45 && 0.46 -- 0.94 && 0.31 -- 0.98 & \cr

880: & $f=0.2$ && $-$1.00 -- 0.35 && 0.44 -- 0.93 && 0.24 -- 0.97 & \cr

881: & $f=0.4$ && $-$1.00 -- 0.26 && 0.42 -- 0.93 && 0.19 -- 0.96 & \cr

882: & $f=0.75$ && $-$1.00 -- 0.11 && 0.36 -- 0.94 && 0.12 -- 0.93 & \cr

883: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr \noalign{\hrule}}}

884: \label{cpasym2}

885: \end{table}

886: 

887: \section{Unitarity Triangle: Future Profile}

888: 

889: As was discussed in Sec.~2.1, the $\bs$--$\bsbar$ mixing data appears

890: to contain a $2.5\sigma$ signal centered at $\Delta M_s = 17.7~{\rm

891:   ps}^{-1}$. This signal is not statistically significant enough to be

892: considered a measurement of $\Delta M_s$. However, it is still

893: interesting to consider what the effect would be on the profile of the

894: unitarity triangle, both in the SM and in SUSY models, if this signal

895: persisted and became a measurement. This is the purpose of this section.

896: 

897: In order to be consistent with both the central value of $\Delta M_s$

898: and its 95\% C.L. lower limit ($14.9~{\rm ps}^{-1}$), we assume the

899: hypothetical future measurement of this quantity to be

900: %

901: \beq

902: \Delta M_s = 17.7 \pm 1.4 ~{\rm ps}^{-1} ~.

903: \label{Dmsmeas}

904: \eeq

905: %

906: The SM and SUSY fits are then performed with this as part of the input

907: data.

908: 

909: The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{dmssugratot}. The effect of the

910: $\Delta M_s$ constraint is quite striking: the minimum- and

911: maximum-allowed values of ${\bar\rho}$ are essentially independent of

912: $f$. Now, as $f$ increases, the allowed region only moves slightly

913: down in the $\bar{\rho}$--$\bar{\eta}$ plane.

914: 

915: % This is Figure 5

916: \begin{figure}

917: \vskip -1.0truein

918: \centerline{\epsfxsize 3.5 truein \epsfbox {dmssugratot.ps}}

919: \vskip -1.5truein

920: \caption{Allowed 95\% C.L. region in $\rho$--$\eta$ space in the SM 

921:   and in SUSY models, in the hypothetical scenario in which $\Delta

922:   M_s$ is given by Eq.~(\protect\ref{Dmsmeas}). From top to bottom,

923:   the allowed regions correspond to $f=0$ (SM, solid line), $f=0.2$

924:   (long dashed line), $f=0.4$ (short dashed line), $f=0.75$ (dotted

925:   line).}

926: \label{dmssugratot}

927: \end{figure}

928: 

929: However, Fig.~\ref{dmssugratot} does not tell the whole story. In

930: particular, it does not take into account how good the fits are for

931: the various values of $f$. The goodness of fit is indicated by the

932: minimum value of $\chi^2$: since there are two degrees of freedom

933: ($\bar{\rho}$ and $\bar{\eta}$), fits with $\chi^2_{min} > 2$ are

934: disfavored. In fact, the model with $f=0.75$ has $\chi^2_{min} =

935: 2.9$, and is hence a poor fit to the data.  In Fig.~\ref{fchi2min} we

936: present $\chi^2_{min}$ as a function of $f$. This figure shows that,

937: for the hypothetical scenario in which $\Delta M_s$ given by

938: Eq.~(\ref{Dmsmeas}), models with $f > 0.6$ are disfavored.

939: 

940: % This is Figure 6

941: \begin{figure}

942: \vskip -1.0truein

943: \centerline{\epsfxsize 3.0 truein \epsfbox {fchi2min.ps}}

944: \vskip -0.5truein

945: \caption{Minimum value of $\chi^2$ as a function of the SUSY parameter

946:   $f$, for the fits in the hypothetical scenario in which $\Delta M_s$

947:   is given by Eq.~(\protect\ref{Dmsmeas}). Models with $\chi^2_{min} >

948:   2$ are disfavored.}

949: \label{fchi2min}

950: \end{figure}

951: 

952: It is interesting --- and perhaps somewhat discouraging --- to note

953: that the best fit ($\chi^2_{min} = 9.5 \times 10^{-3}$) occurs for

954: $f=0$, i.e.\

955: for the standard model.

956: That is, although some models with $f \ne 0$ would give reasonable

957: fits to the data, the hint of a signal at $\Delta M_s = 17.7~{\rm

958: ps}^{-1}$ does not indicate any problems whatsoever for the SM.

959: 

960: Note also that the percentage error we have assumed for $\Delta M_s$,

961: 7.9\%, is considerably greater than the present experimental error on

962: $\Delta M_d$ of 2.9\%. It is not unreasonable to believe that the

963: percentage error on $\Delta M_s$ will eventually approach that of

964: $\Delta M_d$. In that case, the precise measurement of $\Delta M_s$

965: will be able to rule out an even greater region of SUSY parameter

966: space. That is, values of $f$ smaller than 0.6 will be disfavored.

967: Thus, we see that a precision measurement of $\Delta M_s$ will be an

968: extremely powerful tool for distinguishing among the SM and its

969: various supersymmetric extensions.

970: 

971: For completeness, in Figs.~\ref{dmsalphabetacorrsm} and

972: \ref{dmsalphagammacorrsm} we present, respectively, the $\sin

973: 2\alpha$--$\sin 2\beta$ and $\alpha$--$\gamma$ correlations for the

974: scenario in which $\Delta M_s$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{Dmsmeas}). The

975: allowed ranges for the CP phases and for $\sin 2\alpha$, $\sin 2\beta$

976: and $\sin^2 \gamma$ are given in Tables~\ref{cpasym3} and

977: \ref{cpasym4}, respectively. A comparison of, for example, Tables

978: \ref{cpasym1} and \ref{cpasym3} reveals that, as expected, the

979: measurement of $\Delta M_s$ does not affect the allowed range for

980: $\beta$ appreciably, though the ranges for $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ are

981: significantly reduced.

982: 

983: % This is Figure 7

984: \begin{figure}

985: \vskip -2.0truein

986: \centerline{\epsfxsize 6.0 truein \epsfbox {dmscpsugfigs.ps}}

987: \vskip -3.7truein

988: \caption{Allowed 95\% C.L. region of the CP-violating quantities $\sin

989:   2\alpha$ and $\sin 2\beta$, in the hypothetical scenario in which

990:   $\Delta M_s$ is given by Eq.~(\protect\ref{Dmsmeas}). The upper left

991:   plot ($f=0$) corresponds to the SM, while the other plots ($f=0.2$,

992:   0.4, 0.75) correspond to various SUSY models.}

993: \label{dmsalphabetacorrsm}

994: \end{figure}

995: 

996: % This is Figure 8

997: \begin{figure}

998: \vskip -2.0truein

999: \centerline{\epsfxsize 6.0 truein \epsfbox {dmsabgsugfigs.ps}}

1000: \vskip -3.7truein

1001: \caption{Allowed 95\% C.L. region of the CP-violating quantities

1002:   $\alpha$ and $\gamma$, in the hypothetical scenario in which

1003:   $\Delta M_s$ is given by Eq.~(\protect\ref{Dmsmeas}). The upper left

1004:   plot ($f=0$) corresponds to the SM, while the other plots ($f=0.2$,

1005:   0.4, 0.75) correspond to various SUSY models.}

1006: \label{dmsalphagammacorrsm}

1007: \end{figure}

1008: 

1009: % This is Table 4

1010: \begin{table}

1011: \hfil

1012: \caption{Allowed 95\% C.L. ranges for the CP phases $\alpha$, $\beta$ 

1013:   and $\gamma$, as well as their central values, from the CKM fits in

1014:   the SM $(f=0)$ and supersymmetric theories, in the hypothetical 

1015:   scenario in which $\Delta M_s$ is given by Eq.~(\protect\ref{Dmsmeas}).}

1016: \vbox{\offinterlineskip

1017: \halign{&\vrule#&

1018:  \strut\quad#\hfil\quad\cr

1019: \noalign{\hrule}

1020: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr

1021: & $f$ && $\alpha$ && $\beta$ && $\gamma$ && $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)_{\rm

1022: cent}$ & \cr 

1023: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr

1024: \noalign{\hrule} 

1025: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr

1026: & $f=0$ (SM) && $80^\circ$ -- $119^\circ$ && $14^\circ$ -- $34^\circ$ &&

1027: $44^\circ$ -- $79^\circ$ && $(98^\circ, 22^\circ, 60^\circ)$ & \cr

1028: & $f=0.2$ && $82^\circ$ -- $123^\circ$ && $13^\circ$ -- $33^\circ$ &&

1029: $41^\circ$ -- $77^\circ$ && $(101^\circ, 21^\circ, 58^\circ)$ & \cr   

1030: & $f=0.4$ && $84^\circ$ -- $127^\circ$ && $12^\circ$ -- $32^\circ$ &&

1031: $38^\circ$ -- $76^\circ$ && $(105^\circ, 20^\circ, 55^\circ)$ & \cr

1032: & $f=0.75$ && $87^\circ$ -- $134^\circ$ && $10^\circ$ -- $30^\circ$ &&

1033: $34^\circ$ -- $73^\circ$ && $(110^\circ, 18^\circ, 52^\circ)$ & \cr

1034: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr

1035: \noalign{\hrule}}}

1036: \label{cpasym3}

1037: \end{table}

1038: 

1039: % This is Table 5

1040: \begin{table}

1041: \caption{Allowed 95\% C.L. ranges for the CP asymmetries $\sin

1042:   2\alpha$, $\sin 2\beta$ and $\sin^2 \gamma$, from the CKM fits in the

1043:   SM $(f=0)$ and supersymmetric theories, in the hypothetical 

1044:   scenario in which $\Delta M_s$ is given by Eq.~(\protect\ref{Dmsmeas}).}

1045: \hfil \vbox{\offinterlineskip

1046: \halign{&\vrule#& \strut\quad#\hfil\quad\cr \noalign{\hrule}

1047: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr & $f$ && $\sin 2\alpha$ &&

1048: $\sin 2\beta$ && $\sin^2 \gamma$ & \cr

1049: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr \noalign{\hrule}

1050: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr

1051: & $f=0$ (SM) && $-$0.84 -- 0.35 && 0.47 -- 0.93 && 0.48 -- 0.96 & \cr

1052: & $f=0.2$ && $-$0.92 -- 0.27 && 0.44 -- 0.91 && 0.43 -- 0.95 & \cr

1053: & $f=0.4$ && $-$0.97 -- 0.20 && 0.40 -- 0.90 && 0.38 -- 0.94 & \cr

1054: & $f=0.75$ && $-$1.00 -- 0.09 && 0.35 -- 0.87 && 0.31 -- 0.92 & \cr

1055: height2pt&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&&\omit&\cr \noalign{\hrule}}}

1056: \label{cpasym4} 

1057: \end{table}

1058: 

1059: \section{Conclusions}

1060: 

1061: The latest experimental data on $\bs$--$\bsbar$ mixing puts the 95\%

1062: C.L. lower limit at $\delms > 14.9 ~{\rm ps}^{-1}$. Furthermore, there

1063: is an intriguing $2.5\sigma$ hint of a signal at $\delms \simeq

1064: 17.7~{\rm ps}^{-1}$. In light of this, in this paper we examine the

1065: effect that a measurement of $\Delta M_s$ would have on the profile of

1066: the CKM matrix, both in the standard model and in supersymmetric

1067: models with minimal flavor violation.

1068: 

1069: We first update the profile of the unitarity triangle, both in the SM

1070: and in supersymmetric models, using current experimental data. The

1071: SUSY contributions to $\delmd$, $\delms$ and $\abseps$ can all be

1072: described by a single common parameter $f$, and we take three

1073: representative values in our fits: $f = 0.2$, 0.4 and 0.75. The

1074: measurement of the CP-phase $\beta$ will not distinguish among the

1075: various models, though the measurement of $\alpha$ and/or $\gamma$ may

1076: do so. More importantly, the different models make different

1077: predictions for the allowed range of $\Delta M_s$. This indicates that

1078: the measurement of $\Delta M_s$ will also be important for

1079: distinguishing among the various models.

1080: 

1081: This point is made quantitatively when the fits are repeated assuming

1082: a hypothetical measurement of $\Delta M_s = 17.7 \pm 1.4~{\rm

1083:   ps}^{-1}$. In this case, we find that SUSY models with $f > 0.6$

1084: provide poor fits to the data, and are hence disfavored. Thus, we see

1085: that the measurement of $\delms$ is indeed a powerful tool for

1086: discriminating between the SM and its supersymmetric extensions.

1087: 

1088: For the particular experimental value of $\delms$ that we have assumed

1089: --- and we have chosen this value to be consistent with the lower 95\%

1090: C.L. bound, as well as with the hint of a signal --- the best fit to

1091: the data occurs for $f=0$, i.e.\ for the SM. Thus, present data on

1092: $\bs$--$\bsbar$ mixing does not indicate any problems with the SM,

1093: which may be somewhat discouraging for those who hope to see signals

1094: for new physics via CKM phenomenology.

1095: 

1096: Finally, it is not unreasonable to expect that the percentage error on

1097: a measurement of $\Delta M_s$ will eventually reach the same level as

1098: that of $\Delta M_d$ (i.e.\ $\sim 3$\%). When this happens, the

1099: precise measurement of $\Delta M_s$ will be able to rule out an even

1100: greater region of SUSY parameter space. (Or, if the central value

1101: changes, one could conceivably rule out the SM!) Once again, this

1102: emphasizes the importance of a measurement of $\delms$ for searching

1103: for new flavor physics.

1104: 

1105: \bigskip

1106: \noindent

1107: {\bf Acknowledgements}:

1108: \bigskip

1109: We would like to thank John Jaros, Fabrizio Parodi, and Achille

1110: Stocchi for very helpful discussions about the current measurements

1111: and fit procedures used in constraining $\delms$. The work of D.L.

1112: was financially supported by NSERC of Canada.

1113:   

1114: \newpage

1115: 

1116: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% REFERENCES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1117: 

1118: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1119:   

1120: \bibitem{CKM} N. Cabibbo, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 10}, 531 (1963); M.

1121:   Kobayashi and K. Maskawa, Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 49}, 652

1122:   (1973).

1123:   

1124: \bibitem{PDG00} D.E.~Groom et al.\ (Particle Data Group), Eur.\ Phys.\ 

1125:   J.\ {\bf C15}, 1 (2000).

1126:   

1127: \bibitem{AL99} A. Ali and D. London, Eur.\ Phys.\ J. {\bf C9}, 687

1128:   (1999); Phys. Rep. {\bf 320}, 79 (1999).

1129:   

1130: \bibitem{oldAL} For example, see A. Ali and D. London, Proc.\ of the

1131:   ECFA Workshop on a European $B$-Meson Factory, $B$-Physics Working

1132:   Group Report, ed.\ R. Aleksan and A. Ali (1993), pp.\ 42-68.

1133: 

1134: \bibitem{Stocchi00} A.~Stocchi, hep-ph/0010222, {\it Invited talk at

1135:     the conference Beauty 2000, Sea of Galilee, Israel, September

1136:     13-18, 2000.} For details, see the LEP B-Oscillations Working

1137:   Group web site, http://www.cern.ch/LEPBOSC/.

1138:   

1139: \bibitem{Wolfenstein} L. Wolfenstein, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 51},

1140:   1945 (1983).

1141:   

1142: \bibitem{BLO94} A.J. Buras, M.E. Lautenbacher and G. Ostermaier,

1143:   Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D50}, 3433 (1994).

1144: 

1145: \bibitem{ali-aydin} A. Ali and Z.Z. Aydin, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B148}, 165

1146: (1979).

1147: 

1148: \bibitem{etaB} A.J. Buras, M. Jamin and P.H. Weisz, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf

1149:     B347}, 491 (1990).

1150:   

1151: \bibitem{Bernard00} C. Bernard, Invited Talk at the conference Lattice

1152:   '00, Banglore, India.

1153:   

1154: \bibitem{Moser97} H.G. Moser and A. Roussarie, Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth.\ 

1155:   {\bf A384}, 491 (1997).

1156:   

1157: \bibitem{checciaetal} P. Checchia, E. Piotto, and F. Simonetto,

1158:   preprint hep-ph/9907300.

1159:   

1160: \bibitem{boix-abbaneo} G. Boix and D. Abbaneo, Journal of High Energy

1161:   Physics 9908 (1999) 004.

1162:   

1163: \bibitem{OPAL-sin2beta} K. Ackerstaff et al.\ (OPAL Collaboration),

1164:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ {\bf C5}, 379 (1998).

1165:   

1166: \bibitem{CDF-sin2beta} T. Affolder et al.\ (CDF Collaboration), Phys.\ 

1167:   Rev.\ {\bf D61}, 072005 (2000); C.A. Blocker (CDF Collaboration),

1168:   Fermilab-CONF-00-004 (1999).

1169:   

1170: \bibitem{ALEPH-sin2beta} R. Barate et al.\ (ALEPH Collaboration),

1171:   preprint CERN-EP/2000-119.

1172:   

1173: \bibitem{BELLE-sin2beta} H. Aihara (BELLE Collaboration), preprint

1174:   hep-ex/0010008, to appear in the Proceedings of the XXth

1175:   International Conference on High Energy Physics, July 27 - August 2,

1176:   2000, Osaka, Japan.

1177:   

1178: \bibitem{BABAR-sin2beta} B. Aubert et al.\ (BABAR Collaboration),

1179:   BABAR-CONF-00/01, SLAC-PUB-8540.

1180:   

1181: \bibitem{Faccioli} P. Faccioli, hep-ph/0011269, {\it Invited talk at

1182:     the conference Beauty 2000, Sea of Galilee, Israel, September

1183:     13-18, 2000.}

1184: 

1185: \end{thebibliography}

1186: 

1187: \end{document}

1188: 

1189: 

1190: 

1191: