1: \documentclass[12pt,twoside]{article}
2:
3: % \usepackage{color}
4: % \definecolor{Red}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0}
5: % \newcommand{\rd}{\color{Red}}
6: % \definecolor{Blue}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0}
7: % \newcommand{\bl}{\color{Blue}}
8:
9: \usepackage{epsf}
10: \usepackage{cite}
11:
12: \usepackage{times}
13: %\parindent=0pt
14: \parindent=3ex
15:
16: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.2cm}
17: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{-0.2cm}
18: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.8cm}
19:
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% make nicer headings %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: \usepackage{fancyheadings}
22: \pagestyle{fancyplain}
23: \renewcommand{\sectionmark}[1]{
24: % \markright{\thesection\ #1}} % section title
25: \markboth{\thesection\ #1}{\thesubsection\ #1}} % section title
26: %\lhead[\fancyplain{}{\thepage}]{\fancyplain{}{\rightmark}}
27: \lhead[\fancyplain{}{\thepage}]{\fancyplain{}{\leftmark}}
28: \rhead[\fancyplain{}{
29: In Pursuit of New Physics with $B_s$ Decays
30: }]{\fancyplain{}{\thepage}}
31: \cfoot{}
32: \advance \headheight by 3.0truept % for 12pt mandatory...
33:
34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end nicer headings %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
35:
36: \addtolength{\textheight}{1.1cm}
37:
38: \addtolength{\jot}{10pt}
39: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
40: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
41: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
42: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
43:
44: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
45:
46: %%%%%% BABAR logo
47: % normal size
48: \def\babar{\mbox{\sl B\hspace{-0.4em} {\scriptsize\sl
49: A}\hspace{-0.4em} B\hspace{-0.4em} {\scriptsize\sl A\hspace{-0.1em}R}}}
50:
51: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Stuff for math environment:
52: \newcommand{\lt}{\left}
53: \newcommand{\rt}{\right}
54: \newcommand{\ov}{\overline}
55: \newcommand{\imag}{{\rm Im}\,}
56: \renewcommand{\Im}{\imag}
57: \newcommand{\real}{{\rm Re}\,}
58: \renewcommand{\Re}{\real}
59:
60: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber \\}
61: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber }
62: %%%%%% A unitmatrix, taken from Manfred and Revtex:
63: \def\openone{\leavevmode\hbox{\small1\kern-3.8pt\normalsize1}}%
64:
65: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Standard referencing
66: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
67: \newcommand{\fig}[1]{Fig.~\ref{#1}}
68: \newcommand{\tab}[1]{Tab.~\ref{#1}}
69:
70:
71: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Stuff for tables/arrays:
72: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}
73: %\newcommand{\bey}{\begin{eqnarray}}
74: %\newcommand{\eey}{\end{eqnarray}}
75:
76:
77: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Physics stuff:
78: % \newcommand{\as}{\ensuremath{\alpha_s}}
79: \newcommand{\e}{\epsilon}
80: %\newcommand{\gev}{\,\mbox{GeV}}
81: %\newcommand{\mev}{\,\mbox{MeV}}
82: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle \, #1 \, | }
83: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{| \, #1 \, \rangle }
84:
85: \newcommand{\bbd}{$B_d$--$\ov{B}{}_d\,$}
86: \newcommand{\bbs}{$B_s$--$\ov{B}{}_s\,$}
87: \newcommand{\bbms}{$B_s$--$\ov{B}{}_s\,$\ mixing}
88: \newcommand{\bbmd}{$B_d$--$\ov{B}{}_d\,$\ mixing}
89: \newcommand{\kkm}{$K$--$\ov{K}{}\,$--mixing}
90: \newcommand{\ddm}{$D$--$\ov{D}{}\,$--mixing}
91: \newcommand{\dbo}{\ensuremath{|\Delta B| = 1}}
92:
93: \newcommand{\dm}{\ensuremath{\Delta m}}
94: \newcommand{\dg}{\ensuremath{\Delta \Gamma}}
95:
96: \newcommand{\adi}{{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}}
97: \newcommand{\ami}{{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}}
98: \newcommand{\adg}{{\cal A}_{\rm \Delta\Gamma}}
99:
100: \newcommand{\gtf}{\ensuremath{\Gamma (B_s (t) \rightarrow f )}}
101: \newcommand{\gbtf}{\ensuremath{\Gamma (\ov{B}_s (t) \rightarrow f )}}
102: \newcommand{\gtfb}{\ensuremath{\Gamma (B_s(t) \rightarrow \ov{f} )}}
103: \newcommand{\gbtfb}{\ensuremath{\Gamma (\ov{B}_s(t) \rightarrow \ov{f} )}}
104: %\newcommand{\Bsun}{\ensuremath{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle \lt
105: %( -\rt)}{B}_s}}
106: \newcommand{\Bsun}{\ensuremath{B_s^\textrm{\scriptsize un}}}
107: \newcommand{\Kun}{\ensuremath{
108: \stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle \lt( -\rt)}{K}{\!}^0}}
109: %\newcommand{\guntf}{\ensuremath{\Gamma (\Bsun (t)\rightarrow f )}}
110: %\newcommand{\guntf}{\ensuremath{\Gamma (\Bsun \rightarrow f,\, t )}}
111: %\newcommand{\guntfb}{\ensuremath{\Gamma (\Bsun \rightarrow \ov{f},\, t )}}
112: %\newcommand{\guntfcpp}{\ensuremath{
113: % \Gamma (\Bsun \rightarrow f_{\rm CP+},\, t )}}
114: \newcommand{\gunt}[1]{\ensuremath{ \Gamma \lt[#1,t\rt] }}
115: \newcommand{\guntf}{\ensuremath{ \Gamma [f,t] }}
116: \newcommand{\guntfb}{\ensuremath{\Gamma [\ov{f},t] }}
117: \newcommand{\guntfcpp}{\ensuremath{\Gamma [ f_{\rm CP+} ,t] }}
118: %\newcommand{\brunt}[1]{\ensuremath{Br\,\big(\!\Bsun \rightarrow #1\, \big)}}
119: \newcommand{\brunt}[1]{ \ensuremath{Br [ { #1} ]}}
120:
121: %%%%%% Asymmetric errors, example: \epm{2}{3} gives +2 stacked on -3
122: \newcommand{\epm}[2]{
123: \raisebox{-0.5ex}{\shortstack[l]{$\scriptstyle+#1$\\$\scriptstyle-#2$}}}
124:
125: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Journals:
126: \newcommand{\prl}{Phys.\ Rev. Lett.}
127: \newcommand{\prd}{Phys.\ Rev.~D}
128: \newcommand{\plb}{Phys.\ Lett.~B}
129: \newcommand{\npb}{Nucl.\ Phys.~B}
130: \newcommand{\zpc}{Z.~Phys.~C}
131:
132: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Tables and figures
133: \newlength{\nseparation}
134: \setlength{\nseparation}{4pt}
135: \newenvironment{nfigure}
136: {\begin{figure}[tb]\hrule\vspace{\nseparation}\par}
137: {\vspace{\nseparation}\par \hrule \end{figure}}
138: \newenvironment{ntable}
139: {\begin{table}[tb]\hrule\vspace{\nseparation}\par}
140: {\vspace{\nseparation}\par \hrule \end{table}}
141:
142:
143:
144: \begin{document}
145:
146: %%%%%%%%%%% Titlepage
147:
148: \begin{titlepage}
149: \parbox[t]{6cm}{
150: Fermilab--Pub--00/245-T \\
151: { DESY 00--171}\\
152: CERN-TH/2000-333}
153: \hfill
154: \parbox[t]{4cm}{December 2000\\
155: hep-ph/0012219}\\
156: \vskip1.5truecm
157: \begin{center}
158: \boldmath
159: {\Large \bf In Pursuit of New Physics with $B_s$ Decays}
160: \unboldmath
161:
162: \vspace{1cm}
163: {\sc Isard~Dunietz}${}^{1,}$\footnote{E-mail: dunietz@fnal.gov},
164: {\sc Robert Fleischer}${}^{2,}$\footnote{E-mail: Robert.Fleischer@desy.de}
165: and
166: {\sc Ulrich Nierste}${}^{3,}$\footnote{E-mail: Ulrich.Nierste@cern.ch}
167: \\[0.5cm]
168: \vspace*{0.1cm} ${}^1${\it Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
169: Batavia, IL 60510-500, USA
170: }\\[0.3cm]
171: \vspace*{0.1cm} ${}^2${\it Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY,
172: Notkestr.\ 85, D--22607 Hamburg, Germany
173: }\\[0.3cm]
174: \vspace*{0.1cm} ${}^3${\it CERN Theory Division, 1211 Geneva 23,
175: Switzerland
176: }\\[0.8cm]
177:
178: %\vspace*{0.6cm}
179:
180: %{\em Version of \today}
181:
182: \vspace*{1truecm}
183:
184:
185: {\large\bf Abstract\\[10pt]}
186: \parbox[t]{\textwidth}{
187: The presence of a sizeable CP-violating phase in \bbms\ { would be}
188: an unambiguous signal of physics beyond the Standard Model. We
189: analyse various possibilities to detect such a new phase considering
190: both tagged and untagged decays. The effects of a sizeable
191: width difference \dg\ between the $B_s$ mass eigenstates, on which
192: the untagged analyses rely, are included in all formulae. A
193: novel method to find this phase from simple measurements of
194: lifetimes and branching ratios in untagged decays is proposed. This
195: method does not involve two-exponential fits, which require much
196: larger statistics. For the tagged decays, an outstanding role is
197: played by the observables of the time-dependent angular distribution
198: of the $B_s\to J/\psi[\to l^+l^-]\, \phi[\to K^+K^-]$ decay
199: products. We list the formulae needed for the angular analysis in
200: the presence of both a new CP-violating phase and a sizeable \dg,
201: and propose methods to remove a remaining discrete
202: ambiguity in the new phase. This phase can therefore be
203: determined in an unambiguous way.
204: }
205: \end{center}
206:
207: \end{titlepage}
208:
209:
210: \thispagestyle{empty}
211: \vbox{}
212: \newpage
213:
214: \setcounter{page}{1}
215:
216:
217: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
218: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
219:
220:
221: %
222: %
223: %
224: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
225: %
226: %
227: %
228: The rich phenomenology of non-leptonic $B$ decays offers various
229: strategies to explore the phase structure of the
230: Cabibbo--Kobayashi--Maskawa (CKM) matrix \cite{revs} and to search for
231: manifestations of physics beyond the Standard Model
232: \cite{new-phys}. Concerning the latter aspect, CP violation in \bbms\
233: is a prime candidate for the discovery of non-standard physics. In the
234: first place the \bbms\ amplitude is a highly CKM-suppressed
235: loop-induced fourth order weak interaction process and therefore very
236: sensitive to new physics. Moreover in the Standard Model the
237: mixing-induced CP asymmetries in the dominant $B_s$ decay modes
238: practically vanish, because they are governed by the tiny phase $\arg
239: (-V_{tb} V_{ts}^*/(V_{cb} V_{cs}^*))$. It does not take much new
240: physics to change this prediction: already a fourth fermion
241: generation\footnote{ This scenario is still possible, though somewhat
242: disfavoured by electroweak precision data \cite{s}.} can easily lead
243: to a sizeable new CP-violating phase in \bbms\ \cite{gnr}. It is
244: further possible that there are new flavour-changing interactions
245: which do not stem from the Higgs-Yukawa sector. The phases of these
246: couplings are not related to the phases of the CKM elements and
247: therefore induce extra CP violation. An example is provided by generic
248: supersymmetric models in which new flavour-changing couplings come
249: from off-diagonal elements of the squark mass matrix
250: \cite{ggms}. While such new contributions are { likely to affect also}
251: \bbmd, they appear in the $B_d$ system as a correction to a non-zero
252: Standard Model prediction for the mixing-induced CP asymmetry, which
253: involves the poorly known phase $\beta=\arg (-V_{tb} V_{td}^*/(V_{cb}
254: V_{cd}^*))$. To extract the new physics here additional information on
255: the unitarity triangle must be used. In the $B_s$ system, however,
256: the new physics contribution is a correction to essentially zero
257: \cite{n}.
258:
259: Indeed, the discovery of new physics through a non-standard
260: CP-violating phase in \bbms\ may be achievable before the LHCb/BTeV era,
261: in Run-II of the Fermilab Tevatron.
262:
263: $B_s$-meson decays into final CP eigenstates that are caused by $\bar
264: b\to \bar c c \bar s$ quark-level transitions such as $B_s\to
265: D_s^+D^-_s$, $J/\psi\, \eta^{(\prime)}$ or $J/\psi\, \phi$, are
266: especially interesting \cite{nirsil,silver,bfNP}. The $\eta$ and
267: $\eta^\prime$ mesons in $B_s\to J/\psi\, \eta^{(\prime)}$ can be
268: detected through $\eta\to\gamma\gamma$ and $\eta^\prime\to\rho^0
269: \gamma$, $\pi^+ \pi^- \eta$, or through $\eta\to\pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0$
270: \cite{hc}. These modes require photon detection. In the case of
271: $B_s\to J/\psi[\to l^+l^-]\, \phi[\to K^+K^-]$, which is particularly
272: interesting for $B$-physics experiments at hadron machines because of
273: its nice experimental signature, the final state is an admixture of
274: different CP eigenstates. In order to disentangle them, an angular
275: analysis has to be performed \cite{ddlr,ddf1}. Experimental attention
276: is also devoted to three-body final states \cite{pm}. $B_s$-meson
277: decays triggered by the quark decay $\bar b \to \bar c u\bar d$ can
278: likewise access a CP-specific final state, e.g.\ via $B_s \to
279: D^0_{\rm CP+}[\to K^+ K^-] K_S$, with a likewise negligibly small
280: CP-violating phase in the Standard Model. The key point here is that
281: there are many different decay modes which all contain the same
282: information on the pursued new CP-violating phase $\phi$. Furthermore,
283: additional information on $\phi$ can be gained from analyses
284: that require no tagging. Untagged studies determine
285: $|\cos \phi|$ and are superior to tagged analyses in terms of
286: efficiency, acceptance and purity. However, they require a sizeable
287: width difference $|\dg|$ between the $B_s$ mass eigenstates. On the
288: other hand, from tagged analyses {(such as CP asymmetries)} $\sin \phi$
289: can be extracted, if the rapid \bbs\ oscillation can be resolved.
290: Both avenues should be pursued and their results combined, because
291: they measure the same fundamental quantities.
292:
293: If we denote the Standard Model and the new physics contributions to
294: the \bbms\ amplitude with $S_{\rm SM}$ and $S_{\rm NP}$, respectively,
295: then the measurement of the mass difference \dm\ in the $B_s$ system
296: determines $|S_{\rm SM}+S_{\rm NP}|$. The knowledge of both \dm\ and
297: the \bbms\ phase $\phi$ then allows to solve for both the magnitude
298: and phase of $S_{\rm NP}$. Information on $\phi$ is especially
299: valuable, if $|S_{\rm SM}|$ and $|S_{\rm NP}|$ are comparable in size
300: and $\dm$ agrees within a factor of 2 or 3 with the Standard Model
301: prediction.
302:
303: The purpose of this paper is twofold: we first identify useful
304: measurements and show how the information from different decay modes
305: and different observables can be combined in pursuit of a
306: statistically significant ``smoking gun'' of new physics. Second we
307: show how the \bbms\ phase can be identified unambiguously, without
308: discrete ambiguities. The outline is as follows: after setting up our
309: notation in Section~\ref{sec:p} we consider untagged $B_s$ decays and
310: discuss various methods to determine $|\cos \phi|$ in
311: Section~\ref{sec:untagged}. { Tagged $B_s$ decays are} discussed in
312: Section~\ref{sec:tagged}, whereas Section~\ref{sec:ambig} shows how to
313: resolve the discrete ambiguity in $\phi$. Finally,
314: we conclude in Section~\ref{sec:concl}.
315: %
316: %
317: \section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:p}
318: In this section we define the various quantities entering the time
319: evolution of $B_s$ mesons and their decay amplitudes. We closely
320: follow the notation of the \babar-Book \cite{revs}. Some of the
321: discussed quantities depend on phase conventions and enter physical
322: observables in phase-independent combinations \cite{d}. Since
323: this feature is well understood and extensively discussed in the
324: standard review articles \cite{revs}, we here fix some of these phases
325: for convenience and only briefly touch this issue where necessary.
326:
327: We choose the following convention for the CP transformation of meson
328: states and quark currents:\footnote{metric $g_{\mu \nu}=(1,-1,-1,-1)$}
329: \begin{eqnarray}
330: CP \ket{B_s} = - \ket{\ov{B}{}_s}, \qquad
331: CP \, \ov{q}_L \gamma_\mu b_L \, (CP)^{-1} \;=\;
332: { - \ov{b}_L \gamma^\mu q_L }
333: . \label{defcp}
334: \end{eqnarray}
335: Hence the CP eigenstates are
336: \begin{eqnarray}
337: \ket{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}}} &=&
338: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \lt( \ket{B_s} - \ket{\ov{B}{}_s} \rt), \qquad
339: \mbox{and} \qquad
340: \ket{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}}} \;=\;
341: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \lt( \ket{B_s} + \ket{\ov{B}{}_s} \rt)
342: .\label{cpe}
343: \end{eqnarray}
344: The time evolution of the \bbs\ system is governed by a Schr\"odinger
345: equation:
346: \begin{eqnarray}
347: i\, \frac{d}{d t} \pmatrix{ \ds \ket{B_s(t)} \cr
348: \ds \ket{\ov{B}_s(t)} \cr }
349: &=& \left( M - i\, \frac{\Gamma}{2} \right) \pmatrix{ \ds \ket{B_s(t)} \cr
350: \ds \ket{\ov{B}_s(t)} \cr } \label{schr}
351: \end{eqnarray}
352: with the mass matrix { $M=M^\dagger$} and the decay matrix
353: { $\Gamma=\Gamma^\dagger$}. Here
354: $\ket{B_s(t)}$ denotes the state of a meson produced as a $B_s$ at time
355: $t=0$, with an analogous definition for $\ket{\ov{B}_s(t)}$. The
356: off-diagonal elements $M_{12}=M_{21}^*$ and
357: $\Gamma_{12}=\Gamma_{21}^*$ correspond to \bbms. In the Standard
358: Model the leading contributions to $M_{12}$ and $\Gamma_{12}$ stem
359: from the box diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig:box};
360: \begin{nfigure}
361: \centerline{\epsfysize=4cm \epsffile{box.eps}}
362: \caption{ \bbms\ in the Standard Model.}\label{fig:box}
363: \end{nfigure}
364: $\Gamma_{12}$ originates from the real final states into which both
365: $B_s$ and $\ov{B}_s$ can decay. It receives contributions from
366: box diagrams with light $u$ and $c$ quarks. Since $\Gamma_{12}$ is
367: dominated by { CKM-favoured} tree-level decays, it is practically
368: insensitive to new physics. On the other hand, $M_{12}$ is almost completely
369: induced by short-distance physics. Within the Standard Model the top
370: quarks in Fig.~\ref{fig:box} give the dominant contribution to
371: \bbms. This contribution is suppressed by four powers of the weak
372: coupling constant and two powers of $|V_{ts}|\simeq 0.04$. Hence new
373: physics can easily compete with the Standard Model and possibly even
374: dominate $M_{12}$. If the non-standard contributions to $M_{12}$ are
375: unrelated to the CKM mechanism of the { three-generation} Standard Model,
376: they will affect the mixing phase
377: \begin{eqnarray}
378: \phi_M &=& \arg M_{12} . \no
379: \end{eqnarray}
380: With our convention \eq{defcp} the Standard Model prediction is
381: $\phi_M=\arg (V_{tb} V_{ts}^*)^2$.
382:
383: The mass eigenstates at time $t=0$, $\ket{B_L}$ and $\ket{B_H}$, are
384: linear combinations of $\ket{B_s}$ and $\ket{\ov{B}{}_s}$:
385: \begin{eqnarray}
386: \mbox{lighter eigenstate:} \quad \ket{B_L} &=&
387: p \ket{B_s} + q \ket{\ov{B}{}_s} \nn
388: \mbox{heavier eigenstate:} \quad \ket{B_H} &=&
389: p \ket{B_s} - q \ket{\ov{B}{}_s},
390: \qquad \qquad \mbox{with $|p|^2+|q|^2=1$}.
391: \label{defpq}
392: \end{eqnarray}
393: We denote the masses and widths of the two eigenstates with $M_{L,H}$
394: and $\Gamma_{L,H}$ and define
395: \begin{eqnarray}
396: \Gamma \; = \; \frac{1}{\tau_{B_s}} &=& \frac{\Gamma_H+ \Gamma_L}{2},
397: \qquad\quad
398: \dm \; = \; M_H - M_L ,
399: \qquad\quad
400: \dg \; = \; \Gamma_L - \Gamma_H
401: . \label{defdm}
402: \end{eqnarray}
403: While $\dm >0$ by definition, $\dg$ can have either sign. Our sign
404: convention is such that $\dg >0$ in the Standard Model.
405: By examining the eigenvalue problem of $M-i\Gamma/2$ we find that
406: the experimental information $\dm \gg \Gamma$ model-independently
407: implies $|\Gamma_{12}| \ll |M_{12}|$. By expanding the eigenvalues and
408: $q/p$ in $\Gamma_{12}/M_{12}$, we find
409: \begin{eqnarray}
410: \dm &=& 2 |M_{12}|, \qquad \dg \; = \;
411: 2 \lt| \Gamma_{12} \rt| \cos \phi \qquad
412: \mbox{and} \qquad \frac{q}{p} \; = \; - e^{-i \phi_M}
413: \lt[ 1 - \frac{a}{2} \rt]
414: . \label{dmdg}
415: \end{eqnarray}
416: Here the phase $\phi$ is defined as
417: \begin{eqnarray}
418: \frac{M_{12}}{\Gamma_{12}} = - \lt| \frac{M_{12}}{\Gamma_{12}} \rt|\,
419: e^{i \phi} \label{defphi}.
420: \end{eqnarray}
421: In \eq{dmdg} we have kept a correction in the small parameter
422: \begin{eqnarray}
423: a &=& \lt| \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{M_{12}} \rt| \sin \phi , \label{defa}
424: \end{eqnarray}
425: but neglected all terms of order $\Gamma_{12}^2/M_{12}^2$ and do so
426: throughout this paper. Since $a$ can hardly exceed $0.01$ we will
427: likewise set it to zero in our studies of $B_s$ decays into CP
428: eigenstates and only briefly discuss a non-zero $a$ in
429: sect.~\ref{sec:cpmix}.
430:
431: The phase $\phi$ is physical and convention-independent; if $\phi = 0 $, CP
432: violation in mixing vanishes. In the Standard Model $\phi = \phi_M -
433: \arg (-\Gamma_{12})$ is tiny, of order 1\%. This is caused by two
434: effects: first, $\Gamma_{12}$ is dominated by the decay $b\to c \ov{c}
435: s$ and $(V_{cb} V_{cs}^*)^2$ is close to the \bbms\ phase $\arg
436: (V_{tb} V_{ts}^*)^2$. Second, the small correction to $\arg
437: (-\Gamma_{12})$ involving $V_{ub} V_{us}^*$ is further suppressed by a
438: factor of $m_c^2/m_b^2$. { In the search for a sizeable new physics
439: contribution to $\phi$ these doubly Cabibbo-suppressed terms
440: proportional to $V_{ub} V_{us}^*$ can safely be neglected, as we do
441: throughout this paper.}
442:
443: % This is not surprising, because $M_{12}$ and
444: % $\Gamma_{12}$ are dominated by two quark families only (the second and
445: % third) and { unitarity of the corresponding $2 \times 2$ CKM
446: % submatrix holds to a few percent. There is no CP violation in a
447: % two-family Standard Model}.
448:
449: For a $B_s$ decay into { some final state} $f$, we introduce the \dbo\
450: matrix elements
451: \begin{eqnarray}
452: A_f = \langle f \ket{B_s}
453: && \qquad\quad \mbox{and} \qquad\quad
454: \ov{A}_f = \langle f \ket{\ov{B}_s} .\no
455: \end{eqnarray}
456: The key quantity for CP violation reads
457: \begin{eqnarray}
458: \lambda_f & = & \frac{q}{p}\, \frac{\ov{A}_f}{A_f}
459: . \label{deflaf}
460: \end{eqnarray}
461: The time evolution formulae and the expressions for the CP asymmetries
462: in the forthcoming sections can be conveniently expressed in terms of
463: \begin{eqnarray}
464: \adi = \frac{1- \lt| \lambda_f \rt|^2}{1+ \lt| \lambda_f
465: \rt|^2} , && \qquad\quad
466: \ami = - \frac{2\, \imag \lambda_f}{1+ \lt| \lambda_f \rt|^2}
467: \qquad\quad \mbox{and} \qquad\quad
468: \adg = - \frac{2\, \real \lambda_f}{1+ \lt| \lambda_f \rt|^2}
469: \, . \label{defacp}
470: \end{eqnarray}
471: If $f$ is a CP eigenstate, $CP\ket{f}=\pm \ket{f}$, then $\adi \neq 0$
472: or $\ami \neq 0$ signals CP violation: a non-vanishing $\adi$ implies $
473: |A_f| \neq |\ov{A}_f|$, meaning direct CP violation; $\ami$ measures
474: mixing-induced CP violation in the interference of $B_s \to f$ and
475: $\ov{B}_s \to f$. The third quantity, $\adg$, plays a role, if \dg\ is
476: sizeable. The three quantities obey the relation
477: \begin{eqnarray}
478: \lt| \adi \rt|^2 + \lt| \ami \rt|^2 + \lt| \adg \rt|^2 &=& 1 . \no
479: \end{eqnarray}
480:
481: The time-dependent decay rate \gtf\ of an initially tagged $B_s$
482: into some final state $f$ is defined as
483: \begin{eqnarray}
484: \gtf &=& \frac{1}{N_B}\,
485: \frac{d N(B_s (t) \rightarrow f)}{d t} \, .
486: \label{defgtf}
487: \end{eqnarray}
488: Here $B_s(t)$ represents a meson { at proper time} $t$ tagged as a
489: $B_s$ at $t=0$; $d N(B_s(t) \rightarrow f)$ denotes the number of
490: decays of $B_s(t)$ into the final state $f$ occurring within the time
491: interval $[t,t+d t]$; $N_B$ is the total number of $B_s$'s produced at
492: time $t=0$. An analogous definition holds for \gbtf. By solving the
493: Schr\"odinger equation \eq{schr} using \eq{dmdg}, we can find these
494: decay rates \cite{dr}:
495: \begin{eqnarray}
496: \!\!\! \gtf &=& {\cal N}_f \, | A_f |^2 \, \frac{1 + \lt| \lambda_f \rt|^2}{2}
497: \, e^{-\Gamma t} \no \\*
498: && \times \lt[ \cosh \frac{\dg \, t}{2} \, + \,
499: \adi \, \cos ( \dm \, t )
500: + \adg \, \sinh \frac{\dg \, t}{2}
501: + \ami \, \sin \lt( \dm \, t \rt) \rt] ,
502: \label{gtfres} \\
503: \!\!\! \gbtf &=& {\cal N}_f \, | A_f |^2 \,
504: \frac{1 + \lt| \lambda_f \rt|^2}{2}\, ( 1 + a ) \,
505: e^{-\Gamma t} \no \\*
506: && \times \lt[
507: \cosh \frac{\dg \, t}{2}
508: - \adi \, \cos ( \dm \, t )
509: + \adg \, \sinh \frac{\dg \, t}{2}
510: - \ami \, \sin ( \dm \, t ) \rt] .
511: \label{gbtfres}
512: \end{eqnarray}
513: Here ${\cal N}_f$ is a time-independent normalization factor.
514:
515: \begin{ntable}
516: \centerline{
517: \begin{tabular}{@{}r|p{0.49\textwidth}|p{0.22\textwidth}}
518: \hline
519: Quark decay & Hadronic decay & Remarks \\\hline\hline
520: \phantom{\Large X}
521: $\ov{b} \rightarrow \ov{c} c \ov{s}$
522: & $B_s \rightarrow \psi \phi$ & \\
523: & $B_s \rightarrow \psi K^{(*)} \ov{K}{}^{(*)}$ & \\
524: & $B_s \rightarrow \psi \phi \phi$ & \\
525: & $B_s \rightarrow \psi \eta $\\
526: & $B_s \rightarrow \psi \eta^\prime$ & \\
527: & $B_s \rightarrow \psi f_0 $ & CP-odd final state\\
528: & $B_s \rightarrow \chi_{c0} \phi $ & CP-odd final state\\
529: & $B_s \rightarrow D_s^{(*)}{}^+ D_s^{(*)}{}^-$ & $D_s^+ D_s^-$ is CP-even\\
530: & $B_s \rightarrow D^{(*)}{}^+ D^{(*)}{}^-$ or
531: $D^{(*)}{}^0 \ov{D}{}^{(*)}{}^0$ &
532: non-spectator decays,
533: $D \ov{D}$ is CP-even \\\hline
534: \phantom{\Large X}
535: $\ov{b} \rightarrow \ov{c} u \ov{d}$
536: & $B_s \rightarrow K_S \ov{D}{}^{(*)0}$
537: [$\rightarrow \phi K_S$, $\rho^0 K_S$, $ K \ov{K}$
538: or $\pi^+ \pi^- $] & \\\hline
539: \end{tabular}
540: }
541: \caption{Some { CKM-favoured} $B_s$ decay modes into CP-specific final
542: states. Here, $\psi$ represents $J/\psi$ or $\psi(2S)$. Decays into two
543: vector particles or into three-body final states with one or more
544: vector particles require an angular analysis to separate the CP-even
545: from the CP-odd component. The final states $D_s^{\pm} D_s^{*}{}^{\mp}$
546: are dominantly CP-even \cite{ayopr} (see sect.~\ref{sec:untagged}).
547: }\label{tab}
548: \end{ntable}
549: { A promising}
550: testing ground for new physics contributions to $\phi_M$ are
551: decays into CP eigenstates triggered by the quark decay $b\to
552: c\ov{c}s$. Table~\ref{tab} summarizes such CP-specific $B_s$ decay
553: modes. To estimate the size of the small Standard Model predictions
554: consider first the decay amplitudes \cite{RF-psiK}:
555: \begin{eqnarray}
556: A_f,\ov{A}_f & \propto&
557: \left[1+\left(\frac{\lambda^2}{1-\lambda^2}\right)
558: \, a_{ \rm p} \, e^{i\theta} \, e^{\pm i\gamma}\right].
559: \label{ampl-ratio}
560: \end{eqnarray}
561: Hence the weak phase factor $e^{i\gamma}$, which is associated with
562: the quantity $a_{ \rm p} e^{i\theta}$, is strongly
563: Cabibbo-suppressed by two powers of the Wolfenstein parameter
564: $\lambda\simeq |V_{us}|\simeq 0.22$ \cite{wolf}. The ``penguin
565: parameter'' $a_{ \rm p} e^{i\theta}$ measures -- sloppily speaking
566: -- the ratio of penguin- to tree-diagram-like topologies and is
567: loop-suppressed. Since new-physics contributions to these decay
568: amplitudes have to compete with a tree diagram, they { are not
569: expected to play a significant role}. A detailed discussion for a
570: left--right-symmetric model can be found in \cite{bfNP}. Since we are
571: interested in large ``smoking gun'' new physics effects {in \bbms}, we
572: account for the Standard Model contributions within the leading order
573: of $\lambda$ and set $|\ov{A}_f|=|A_f|$, neglecting direct CP
574: violation. With the weak phase $\phi_{ c\ov{c} s}=\arg (V_{cb}
575: V_{cs}^*)$ one then finds
576: \begin{eqnarray}
577: \frac{\ov{A}_f}{A_f} &=& - \eta_f e^{2 i \phi_{ c\ov{c} s}} . \label{afaf}
578: \end{eqnarray}
579: Here $\eta_f$ denotes the CP parity of $f$: $CP \ket{f}= \eta_f \ket{f}$.
580: In Table~\ref{tab} we also included decay modes driven by the
581: quark level decay $b\to c\ov{u}d$. The weak phase of these modes
582: involves the phases of the $K$ and $D$ decay amplitudes into CP
583: eigenstates. The phases combine to $\arg (V_{cb} V_{ud}^*) +
584: \arg (V_{ud} V_{us}^*) + \arg (V_{us} V_{cs}^*) = \arg (V_{cb}
585: V_{cs}^*)$, i.e.\ the same result as for $b\to c\ov{c}s$. With
586: \eq{dmdg} and \eq{afaf} $\lambda_f$ reads
587: \begin{eqnarray}
588: \lambda_f & = & \frac{q}{p}\, \frac{\ov{A}_f}{A_f}
589: \; = \; \eta_f \, e^{- i \phi }
590: . \label{laf}
591: \end{eqnarray}
592: Here we have identified the phase $\arg (\eta_f \lambda_f) =
593: \phi_M - 2 \phi_{c\ov{c} s}$ with the phase $\phi$ defined in
594: \eq{defphi}. This is possible, because $\arg (-\Gamma_{12})=2 \phi_{
595: c\ov{c} s} +O (\lambda^2)$ and we neglect the Cabibbo-suppressed
596: contributions. The Standard Model contribution to $\phi=\phi_{\rm SM} +
597: \phi_{\rm NP}$ equals $\phi_{\rm SM}=-2 \eta \lambda^2 $. Here $\eta$ is the
598: Wolfenstein parameter measuring the height of the unitarity
599: triangle. Since our focus is a sizeable new physics contribution
600: $\phi_{\rm NP}$, we can safely neglect $\phi_{\rm SM}$ and identify $\phi$
601: with $\phi_{\rm NP}$ in the following. That is, we neglect terms of order
602: $\lambda^2$ and higher. Using \eq{laf} the quantities in
603: \eq{defacp} simplify to
604: \begin{eqnarray}
605: \adi = 0
606: , && \qquad\quad
607: \ami = \eta_f \sin \phi
608: \qquad\quad \mbox{and} \qquad\quad
609: \adg = - \eta_f \cos \phi
610: . \label{acp2}
611: \end{eqnarray}
612: { The corrections to \eq{acp2} from penguin effects} can be found
613: in \cite{RF-psiK}.
614: We next specify to the PDG phase convention for the CKM matrix
615: \cite{pdg}, in which $\arg (V_{cb} V_{cs}^*) = {\cal O}
616: (\lambda^6)$. Then we can set $\phi_{c\ov{c} s}$ to zero and identify
617: \begin{eqnarray}
618: \phi_M &=& \phi . \no
619: \end{eqnarray}
620: With this convention the mass eigenstates { can be expressed as}
621: \begin{eqnarray}
622: \ket{B_L} & = & \phantom{- \,}
623: \frac{1+e^{i\phi}}{2} \,
624: \ket{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}}} \, { -} \,
625: \frac{1-e^{i\phi}}{2} \,
626: \ket{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}}} \, + \,
627: {\cal O} (a) , \nn
628: \ket{B_H} & = & { -} \, \frac{1-e^{i\phi}}{2} \,
629: \ket{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}}} \, + \,
630: \frac{1+e^{i\phi}}{2} \,
631: \ket{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}}} \, + \,
632: {\cal O} (a) \, .
633: \label{rot}
634: \end{eqnarray}
635: { Whenever we use $B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}}$ and
636: $B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}}$ we implicitly refer to this phase
637: convention. If formulae involving $B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}}$
638: and $B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}}$ are used to constrain models
639: with an extended quark sector, the phase convention used for the
640: enlarged CKM matrix must likewise be chosen such that $\arg (V_{cb}
641: V_{cs}^*) \simeq 0$.}
642:
643: % We close this section with a word of caution: experimental
644: % considerations for the measurement of \dg\ have also included the
645: % decay mode $B_s \to K^+ K^-$ because of its nice signature. { This
646: % decay mode only involves the same weak phase as the modes listed in
647: % Table~\ref{tab}, if both the tree amplitude is negligible and the
648: % penguin amplitude is dominated by the Standard Model
649: % contribution. While the assumption of penguin dominance is even
650: % doubtful in the Standard Model, most extensions of the Standard Model
651: % which affect \bbms\ likewise modify the penguin amplitude triggering
652: % $B_s \to K^+ K^-$. One can certainly expect a sizeably nonzero $\adi$
653: % in this mode. Therefore} the three expressions in \eq{acp2} do not
654: % hold and the formulae in this paper cannot be used for this decay
655: % mode. The same remark of course applies to other penguin-induced decay
656: % modes like $B_s \to K_S K_S $ or $B_s \to \phi \phi $.
657: %
658: %
659: \section{Untagged Studies}\label{sec:untagged}
660: \subsection{Time Evolution}
661: Whereas the width difference \dg\ is negligibly small in the $B_d$
662: system, it can be sizeable for $B_s$ mesons. This has the consequence
663: that the untagged $B_s$ data sample bears information on CP violation
664: \cite{dun}. Further the width difference itself is sensitive to the
665: \bbms\ phase $\phi$ \cite{g}, as we can see from \eq{dmdg}.
666:
667: When $B_s$'s and $\ov{B}_s$'s are produced in equal numbers, the
668: untagged decay rate for the decay $\Bsun \rightarrow f$ reads
669: \begin{eqnarray}
670: \guntf &=& \gtf + \gbtf \no \\*
671: &=& {\cal N}_f
672: \lt[ \, e^{-\Gamma_L t} \lt| \langle f \ket{B_L} \rt|^2 +
673: e^{-\Gamma_H t} \lt| \langle f \ket{B_H} \rt|^2 \rt] +
674: {\cal O} ( a ) . \label{twoex} \\*
675: &=& {\cal N}_f \lt| A_f \rt|^2
676: \lt[ 1 + |\lambda_f|^2 \rt] \, e^{- \Gamma t} \lt\{
677: \cosh \frac{\dg \, t}{2} + \,
678: \sinh \frac{\dg \, t}{2} \, \adg
679: \rt\}
680: + {\cal O} ( a ) \label{guntf} .
681: \end{eqnarray}
682: Here the second expression is simply obtained by adding \eq{gtfres} and
683: \eq{gbtfres}. In \eq{twoex} the same result is expressed in terms of
684: the mass eigenstates and nicely exhibits how the decay is governed by
685: two exponentials. Using \eq{defgtf} we can relate the overall
686: normalization to the branching ratio:
687: \begin{eqnarray}
688: \brunt{f} \, &=&
689: % \frac{1}{2} Br \, \big( B_s (t) \rightarrow f \, \big)\,
690: % + \frac{1}{2} Br \, \big( \ov{B}_s (t) \rightarrow f \, \big)
691: % \; = \;
692: \frac{1}{2} \int_0^\infty \! dt \,\, \guntf\
693: \label{br} \\*
694: &=& \frac{{\cal N}_f}{2} \, | A_f |^2 \, \lt[ 1+ | \lambda_f |^2 \rt]
695: \frac{\Gamma + \adg \,
696: \dg/2 }{\Gamma^2-(\dg/2)^2}
697: + {\cal O} ( a ) .
698: \label{untnorm}
699: \end{eqnarray}
700: Conforming with \cite{pdg} we have normalized the event counting to
701: $N_B+N_{\ov{B}}=2N_B$,
702: so that $\brunt{all} =1$.
703: Using \eq{untnorm} we rewrite \eq{guntf} as
704: \begin{eqnarray}
705: \guntf & = &
706: 2 \, \brunt{f} \,\,
707: \frac{\Gamma^2-(\dg/2)^2}{\Gamma + \adg \, \dg/2}
708: \,\, e^{- \Gamma t} \, \lt[
709: \cosh \frac{\dg \, t}{2} + \,
710: \sinh \frac{\dg \, t}{2} \, \adg
711: \rt]
712: + {\cal O} ( a )
713: . \label{guntf2}
714: \end{eqnarray}
715: Now \eq{guntf2} is our master equation for the time evolution of the
716: decay of an untagged $B_s$ sample. If $\Gamma=1/\tau_{B_s}$ is known,
717: one could perform a two-parameter fit of the decay distribution to
718: \eq{guntf2} and determine $\dg$ and $\adg$. { The latter determines
719: $\phi$ through \eq{acp2}, if $f$ is a CP eigenstate from a
720: CKM-favoured decay.} In practice, however, most data come from short
721: times with $\dg \, t \ll 1$, and one is only sensitive to the product
722: $\dg \cdot \adg$:
723: \begin{eqnarray}
724: \guntf & = &
725: 2\, \brunt{f} \,\,
726: \Gamma
727: \, e^{- \Gamma t} \, \lt[
728: 1 + \frac{\dg}{2} \, \adg \,
729: \lt( t - \frac{1}{ \Gamma } \rt)
730: \rt]
731: + {\cal O} \lt(\lt( \dg\, t \rt)^2 \rt) . \label{guntf3}
732: \end{eqnarray}
733: We return to this point in sect.~\ref{sec:detdg}.
734:
735: \boldmath
736: \subsection{The Width Difference \dg\ and Branching Ratios}\label{sec:wd}
737: \unboldmath
738: { The mass matrix $M_{12}$ and the decay matrix $\Gamma_{12}$
739: provide three rephasing invariant quantities: $|M_{12}|$,
740: $|\Gamma_{12}|$ and the relative phase $\phi$. In \eq{dmdg} we have
741: related the two observables \dm\ and \dg\ to $|M_{12}|$,
742: $|\Gamma_{12}|$ and $\phi$. Interestingly, it is possible to find
743: a third observable, which determines $|\Gamma_{12}|$ and
744: thus encodes additional information.
745: We define
746: \begin{eqnarray}
747: \dg_{\rm CP} &\equiv& 2 |\Gamma_{12}| \; = \;
748: 2\, \sum_{f \in X_{c\ov{c}}} \, \lt[
749: \Gamma ( B_s \to f_{\rm CP+} ) \, - \,
750: \Gamma ( B_s \to f_{\rm CP-}) \rt]
751: .
752: \label{dgcp}
753: \end{eqnarray}
754: Here $X_{c\ov {c}}$ represents the final states containing a
755: $(c,\ov{c})$ pair, which constitute the dominant contribution to
756: $\dg_{\rm CP}$ stemming from the decay $b \to c\ov{c} s$.} In
757: \eq{dgcp} we have decomposed any final state $f$ into its CP-even
758: and CP-odd component, $\ket{f}=\ket{f_{\rm CP+}} + \ket{f_{\rm
759: CP-}}$ and defined
760: \begin{eqnarray}
761: \Gamma ( B_s \to f_{\rm CP\pm} ) &=&
762: {\cal N}_f \, | \bra{f_{\rm CP\pm}} B_s \rangle |^2
763: \; = \;
764: \frac{ | \bra{f_{\rm CP\pm}} B_s \rangle |^2}{ | \bra{f} B_s \rangle
765: |^2} \,
766: \Gamma ( B_s \to f )
767: . \no
768: \end{eqnarray}
769: ${\cal N}_f$ is the usual normalization factor originating from
770: the phase-space integration. In order to prove the second equality in
771: \eq{dgcp} we start from the definition of $\Gamma_{12}$:
772: \begin{eqnarray}
773: \Gamma_{12} &=& \sum_f {\cal N}_f \, \bra{B_s} f \rangle
774: \bra{f} \ov{B}_s \rangle
775: \; = \; \frac{1}{2} \sum_f {\cal N}_f
776: \lt[ \, \bra{B_s} f \rangle \bra{f} \ov{B}_s \rangle +
777: \bra{B_s} \ov{f} \rangle \bra{{ \ov{f}}} \ov{B}_s \rangle \, \rt]
778: .\label{defg12}
779: \end{eqnarray}
780: In the second equation we have paired the final state $\ket{f}$ with its CP
781: conjugate $\ket{\ov{f}}=-CP\ket{f}$.
782: In the next step we
783: trade $f$ for $f_{\rm CP+}$ and $f_{\rm CP-}$ and use the CP transformation
784: \begin{eqnarray}
785: \bra{f_{\rm CP\pm}} \ov{B}_s \rangle &=&
786: \mp \, e^{2 i \phi_{c\ov{c} s}} \, \bra{f_{\rm CP\pm}} B_s \rangle
787: , \no
788: \end{eqnarray}
789: where $\phi_{c\ov{c}s} = \arg (V_{cb} V_{cs}^*) $ is the phase of the $b\to c
790: \ov{c} s$ decay amplitude, which dominates $\Gamma_{12}$. Then
791: \eq{defg12} becomes
792: \begin{eqnarray}
793: - \, e^{-2 i \phi_{c\ov{c}s}} \, \Gamma_{12} &=&
794: \sum_{f\in X_{c\ov{c}}} {\cal N}_f \,
795: \lt[ | \bra{f_{\rm CP+}} B_s \rangle |^2 -
796: | \bra{f_{\rm CP-}} B_s \rangle |^2 \rt] \nn
797: & = & \sum_{f\in X_{c\ov{c}}}
798: \lt[ \Gamma ( B_s \to f_{\rm CP+} ) \, - \,
799: \Gamma ( B_s \to f_{\rm CP-}) \rt] .
800: \label{g12oe}
801: \end{eqnarray}
802: Interference terms involving both $ \bra{f_{\rm CP+}} B_s \rangle$ and
803: $\bra{f_{\rm CP-}} B_s \rangle $ drop out when summing the two terms
804: $\bra{B_s} f \rangle \bra{f} \ov{B}_s \rangle$ and $\bra{B_s} \ov{f}
805: \rangle \bra{{ \ov{f}}} \ov{B}_s \rangle $. In \eq{g12oe} both sides
806: of the equation are rephasing-invariant. An explicit calculation of
807: $\Gamma_{12}$ reveals that the overall sign of the LHS of \eq{g12oe}
808: is positive, which completes the proof of \eq{dgcp}.
809:
810: Loosely speaking, $\dg_{\rm CP}$ is measured by counting the CP-even and
811: CP-odd double-charm final states in $B_s$ decays. We specify this
812: statement in the following and relate $\dg_{\rm CP}$ to measured
813: observables in sect.~\ref{sec:both}. Our formulae become more
814: transparent if we adopt the standard phase convention with $\arg
815: (V_{cb} V_{cs}^*)\simeq 0$ and use the CP-eigenstates defined in
816: \eq{cpe}. With $\ket{B_s}= (\ket{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize
817: even}}}+\ket{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}}})/\sqrt{2}$ one easily
818: finds from \eq{g12oe}:
819: \begin{eqnarray}
820: \dg_{\rm CP} & = & 2 |\Gamma_{12}| \; = \;
821: \Gamma \lt( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}} \rt) -
822: \Gamma ( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}} ) .
823: \label{dgcp2}
824: \end{eqnarray}
825: Here the RHS refers to the total widths of the CP-even and CP-odd
826: $B_s$ eigenstates. We stress that the possibility to relate
827: $|\Gamma_{12}|$ to a measurable quantity in \eq{dgcp} crucially
828: depends on the fact that $\Gamma_{12}$ is dominated by a single weak
829: phase. For instance, the final state $K^+ K^-$ is triggered by $b \to u
830: \ov{u} s$ and involves a weak phase different from $b \to c\ov{c} s$.
831: {Although} $K^+ K^-$ is CP-even, the decay $B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize
832: odd}}\to K^+ K^- $ is possible. An
833: inclusion of { such} CKM-suppressed modes into \eq{g12oe} would add
834: interference terms that spoil the relation to measured quantities.
835: { The omission of these contributions to
836: $\Gamma_{12}$ induces a theoretical uncertainty of order 5\% on \eq{dgcp2}.}
837:
838: In the Standard Model the mass eigenstates in \eq{rot} coincide with
839: the CP eigenstates (with $B_L=B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}}$) and
840: $\dg_{\rm SM}=\dg_{\rm CP}$.
841: The effect of a non-zero \bbms\ phase $\phi$ reduces
842: $\dg$:
843: \begin{eqnarray}
844: \dg &=& \dg_{\rm CP} \cos \phi ,\label{dgcph}
845: \end{eqnarray}
846: while $\dg_{\rm CP}=2 |\Gamma_{12}|$ is not sensitive to new
847: physics. From the calculated $\Gamma_{12}$ we can predict to which
848: extent $\Gamma \lt( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}} \rt)$ exceeds
849: $\Gamma \lt( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}} \rt)$ and this result does
850: not change with the presence of a non-zero $\phi$.
851:
852:
853: The theoretical prediction for $\dg_{\rm CP}$ is known to next-to-leading
854: order in both $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b$ \cite{bbd} and the QCD coupling
855: $\alpha_s$ \cite{bbgln}. It reads
856: \begin{eqnarray}
857: \frac{\dg_{\rm CP}}{\Gamma} &=&
858: \left( \frac{f_{B_s}}{245~{\rm MeV}} \right)^2 \,
859: \left[ \, (0.234\pm 0.035)\, B_S - 0.080 \pm 0.020 \, \right] .
860: \label{dgnum}
861: \end{eqnarray}
862: Here the coefficient of $B_S$ has been updated to
863: $m_b(m_b)+m_s(m_b)=4.3\,$GeV (in the $\ov{\rm MS}$ scheme) and
864: $f_{B_s}$ is the $B_s$ meson decay constant. Recently the
865: KEK--Hiroshima group succeeded in calculating $f_{B_s}$ in an
866: unquenched lattice QCD calculation with two dynamical fermions
867: \cite{fbs}. The result is $f_{B_s}=(245\pm 30)\,$MeV. $B_S$
868: parametrizes the relevant hadronic matrix element, with $B_S=1$ in the
869: vacuum saturation approximation. A recent quenched lattice calculation
870: has yielded $B_S=0.87 \pm 0.09$ \cite{hioy} for the $\ov{\rm MS}$
871: scheme. A similar result has been found in \cite{bmrglm}. This
872: analysis, however, calculates \dg\ after normalizing \eq{dgnum} to the
873: measured mass difference in the \bbd\ system. This method involves $|V_{td}|$,
874: which is obtained from a global CKM fit and thereby relies on the
875: Standard Model. Since the target of our analysis is new physics, we
876: cannot use the numerical prediction for \dg\ of \cite{bmrglm}. At
877: present, studies of $B_S$ are a new topic in lattice calculations and
878: we can expect substantial improvements within the next few years. With
879: these numbers one finds from \eq{dgnum}:
880: \begin{eqnarray}
881: \frac{\dg_{\rm CP}}{\Gamma} &=& 0.12\pm 0.06
882: . \label{dgnum2}
883: \end{eqnarray}
884: Here we have conservatively added the errors from the two lattice quantities
885: linearly.
886:
887: Since $\dg_{\rm CP}$ is unaffected by new physics and $\dg_{\rm CP} > 0$,
888: several facts hold beyond the Standard Model: i) There are more
889: CP-even than CP-odd final states in $B_s$ decays. ii) The
890: shorter-lived mass eigenstate is always the one with the larger
891: CP-even component in \eq{rot}. Its branching ratio into a CP-even
892: final state $f_{\rm CP+}$ exceeds the branching ratio of the longer-lived
893: mass eigenstate into $f_{\rm CP+}$,
894: if { the weak phase of the decay amplitude is close to $ \arg
895: V_{cb} V_{cs}^*$.}
896: For $ \cos \phi > 0$ $B_L$ has a shorter lifetime than $B_H$, while for $
897: \cos \phi < 0$ the situation is the opposite \cite{g}. iii) Measurements
898: based on the comparison of \emph{branching ratios}\ into CP-specific
899: final states determine $\dg_{\rm CP}$ rather than $\dg$. Such an analysis
900: has recently been performed by the ALEPH collaboration \cite{aleph}.
901: ALEPH has measured
902: \begin{eqnarray}
903: % 2\, Br(\Bsun \to D_s^{(*)}{}^+ D_s^{(*)}{}^-) & = &
904: 2\, \brunt{D_s^{(*)}{}^+ D_s^{(*)}{}^-} & = &
905: 0.26 \epm{0.30}{0.15} \label{alexp}
906: \end{eqnarray}
907: and related it to $\dg_{\rm CP}$. For this the following theoretical input has
908: been used \cite{ayopr}:
909: \begin{itemize}
910: \item[i)] In the heavy quark limit $m_c \to \infty $ and
911: neglecting certain terms of order
912: $1/N_c$ (where $N_c=3$ is the number of colours)
913: the decay $B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}} \to D_s^\pm D_s^{*}{}^\mp$
914: is forbidden. Hence in this limit the final state in
915: $\Bsun \to D_s^\pm D_s^{*}{}^\mp$ is CP-even. Further in
916: $\Bsun \to D_s^{*}{}^+ D_s^{*}{}^-$ the final state is in an
917: S-wave.
918: \item[ii)] In the Shifman--Voloshin (SV) limit $m_c \to \infty $ with
919: $m_b - 2 m_c \to 0$ \cite{sv}, $\dg_{\rm CP}$ is saturated by $\Gamma ( \Bsun \to
920: D_s^{(*)}{}^+ D_s^{(*)}{}^- )$.
921: With i) this implies that in the considered limit the width of
922: $B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}}$ vanishes.
923: For $N_c \to \infty$ and in the SV limit, ${ 2 \Gamma ( \Bsun \to
924: D_s^{(*)}{}^+ D_s^{(*)}{}^- )}$ further equals the parton model result for
925: $\dg_{\rm CP}$ (quark-hadron duality).
926: \end{itemize}
927: Identifying
928: $\Gamma ( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}} \to D_s^{(*)}{}^+ D_s^{(*)}{}^- )
929: \simeq \dg_{\rm CP}$ and
930: $\Gamma ( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}} \to D_s^{(*)}{}^+ D_s^{(*)}{}^- )
931: \simeq 0$ we find:
932: \begin{eqnarray}
933: \!\!\!\!
934: 2\, \brunt{ D_s^{(*)}{}^+ D_s^{(*)}{}^-} & \simeq &
935: \dg_{\rm CP} \, \lt[ \, \frac{1+\cos \phi}{2\, \Gamma_L} +
936: \frac{1-\cos \phi}{2\, \Gamma_H} \, \rt]
937: \; = \; \frac{\dg_{\rm CP}}{\Gamma} \lt[
938: 1 + {\cal O} \lt( \frac{\dg}{\Gamma} \rt) \rt] . \label{bdg}
939: \end{eqnarray}
940: Thus the measurement in \eq{alexp} is compatible with the theoretical
941: prediction in \eq{dgnum2}. For $\phi=0$, the expression used in
942: Ref.~\cite{aleph}, in which the Standard Model scenario has been
943: considered, is recovered. The term in square brackets accounts for the
944: fact that in general the CP-even eigenstate
945: $\ket{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}}}$ is a superposition of
946: $\ket{B_L}$ and $\ket{B_H}$. It is straightforward to obtain \eq{bdg}:
947: inserting \eq{rot} into \eq{twoex} expresses \guntf\ in terms of
948: $\Gamma ( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}} \to f )$ and $\Gamma (
949: B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}} \to f )$. After integrating over time
950: the coefficient of $\Gamma ( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}} \to f )$
951: is just the term in square brackets in \eq{bdg}.
952:
953: When using \eq{bdg} one should be aware that the corrections to the
954: limits i) and ii) adopted in \cite{ayopr} can be numerically
955: sizeable. For instance, in the SV limit there are no multibody final
956: states like $D_s^{(*)} \ov{D} X_s$, which can modify \eq{bdg}. As
957: serious would be the presence of a sizeable CP-odd component of the
958: $D_s^{(*)}{}^+ D_s^{(*)}{}^- $ final state, since it would be added
959: with the wrong sign to $\dg_{\rm CP}$ in \eq{bdg}. A method to control
960: the corrections to the SV limit experimentally is proposed in
961: sect.~\ref{sec:both}. We further verify from \eq{bdg} that the
962: measurement of $\brunt{D_s^{(*)}{}^+ D_s^{(*)}{}^-}$ determines
963: $\dg_{\rm CP}$. Its sensitivity to the new physics phase $\phi$ is
964: suppressed by another factor of $\dg/\Gamma$ and is irrelevant in view of
965: the theoretical uncertainties.
966:
967: \boldmath
968: \subsection{Determination of \dg\ and $|\cos \phi|$}\label{sec:detdg}
969: \unboldmath
970: There are two generic ways to obtain information on \dg :
971: \begin{itemize}
972: \item[i)] The measurement of the $B_s$ lifetime in two decay modes
973: $\Bsun \to f_1$ and $\Bsun \to f_2$ with\\
974: $\adg (f_1) \neq \adg (f_2)$.
975: \item[ii)] The fit of the decay distribution of
976: $\Bsun \to f$ to the two-exponential
977: formula in \eq{guntf2}.
978: \end{itemize}
979: As first observed in \cite{g}, the two methods are differently affected
980: by a new physics phase $\phi \neq 0$. Thus by combining the results of
981: methods i) and ii) one can determine $\phi$. In this section we
982: consider two classes of decays:
983: \begin{itemize}
984: \item flavour-specific decays, which are characterized by
985: $\ov{A}_f=0$ { implying} $\adg=0$.
986: Examples are $B_s \to D_s^- \pi^+$ and
987: $B_s \to X \ell^+ \nu_{\ell} $,
988: \item the CP-specific decays of Table~\ref{tab}, with
989: $\adg = - \eta_f \cos \phi$.
990: \end{itemize}
991: In both cases the time evolution of the untagged sample in \eq{guntf2}
992: is not sensitive to the sign of $\dg$ {(or, equivalently, of $\cos
993: \phi$)}. For the CP-specific decays of Table~\ref{tab} this can be
994: seen by noticing that
995: \begin{eqnarray}
996: \adg\, \sinh \frac{\dg \, t}{2} & = &
997: - \, \eta_f \, |\cos \phi| \, \sinh \frac{|\dg| \, t}{2} .\no
998: \end{eqnarray}
999: Here we have used the fact that $\dg $ and $\cos \phi $ always have the same
1000: sign, because $\dg_{\rm CP}>0$. Hence the untagged studies discussed here
1001: in sect.~\ref{sec:detdg} can only determine $|\cos \phi|$ and
1002: therefore lead to a four-fold ambiguity in $\phi$. The sign ambiguity
1003: in $\cos \phi$ reflects the fact that from the untagged time
1004: evolution in \eq{guntf2} one cannot distinguish, whether the
1005: heavier or the lighter eigenstate has the shorter lifetime
1006: (however, see sect.~5).
1007:
1008: { In order to experimentally establish a non-zero \dg\ from the
1009: time evolution in \eq{guntf2} one needs sufficient statistics to
1010: resolve the deviation from a single-exponential decay law, see
1011: \eq{guntf3}. As long as we are only sensitive to terms linear in
1012: $\dg\, t$ and $\dg/\Gamma$, we can only determine $\adg\, \dg$ from
1013: \eq{guntf3}. $\adg\, \dg$ vanishes for flavour-specific decays and
1014: equals $-\eta_f \dg\, \cos \phi$ for CP-specific final states. Hence
1015: from the time evolution alone one can only determine $\dg\, \cos \phi
1016: $ in the first experimental stage. This determination is discussed in
1017: sect.~\ref{sec:dgcos}. Once the statistical accuracy is high enough to
1018: resolve terms of order $(\dg)^2$, one can determine both $|\dg|$ and
1019: $|\cos \phi|$. Fortunately, the additional information from branching
1020: ratios can be used to find $|\dg|$ and $|\cos \phi|$ without resolving
1021: quadratic terms in \dg. The determination of $|\dg|$ and $|\cos \phi|$
1022: is discussed in sect.~\ref{sec:both}.}
1023:
1024: \boldmath
1025: \subsubsection{Determination of $\Gamma$ and $\dg \cos \phi$}\label{sec:dgcos}
1026: \unboldmath
1027: Lifetimes are conventionally measured by fitting the decay
1028: distribution to a single exponential. Consider a decay which is
1029: governed by two exponentials,
1030: \begin{eqnarray}
1031: %\!\!\!\!\!\!
1032: {
1033: \frac{\guntf +\guntfb }{2} }
1034: &=& A \, e^{-\Gamma_L t} \, + \, B \, e^{-\Gamma_H t} \nn
1035: & = & e^{-\Gamma t} \lt[
1036: \lt( A+B \rt) \cosh \frac{\dg t}{2} +
1037: \lt( B-A \rt) \sinh \frac{\dg t}{2} \rt] \! , \label{twoex2}
1038: \end{eqnarray}
1039: but fitted to a single exponential
1040: {
1041: \begin{eqnarray}
1042: F\lt[ f, t \rt] &=&
1043: { \Gamma_f} \, e^{-\Gamma_f \, t}. \label{singex}
1044: \end{eqnarray}
1045: { In \eq{twoex2} we have averaged over $f$ and its CP-conjugate
1046: $\ov{f}$.}
1047: Of course the coefficients depend on the final state:
1048: $A=A(f)$, $B=B(f)$.}
1049: A maximum likelihood fit { of \eq{singex} converges} to \cite{hm}
1050: \begin{eqnarray}
1051: \Gamma_f &=&
1052: \frac{A/\Gamma_L + B/\Gamma_H}{A/\Gamma_L^2 + B/\Gamma_H^2}
1053: . \label{fitex}
1054: \end{eqnarray}
1055: We expand this to second order in \dg:
1056: {
1057: \begin{eqnarray}
1058: \Gamma_f &=& \Gamma \, + \,
1059: \frac{A-B}{A+B} \, \frac{\dg}{2} \,
1060: - \frac{2 \, A B}{(A+B)^2} \frac{(\dg)^2}{\Gamma} \,
1061: + \, {\cal O} \lt( \frac{(\dg)^3}{\Gamma^2} \rt)
1062: . \label{fit}
1063: \end{eqnarray}
1064: }In flavour-specific decays we have $A=B$ (see \eq{guntf2}). We see
1065: from \eq{fit} that here a single-exponential fit determines $\Gamma$
1066: up to corrections of order $\dg^2/\Gamma^2$.
1067:
1068: Alternatively, one can use further theoretical input and exploit that
1069: $\Gamma_{B_s}/\Gamma_{B_d}=1+{\cal O} (1\%) $ from heavy quark
1070: symmetry \cite{bbsuv,bbd,kn}. This relation can therefore be used to
1071: pinpoint $\Gamma$ in terms of the well-measured $B_d$ lifetime. {
1072: New physics in the standard penguin coefficients of the effective
1073: $\Delta B=1$ hamiltonian only mildly affects
1074: $\Gamma_{B_s}/\Gamma_{B_d}$ \cite{kn}. The full impact of new physics
1075: on $\Gamma_{B_s}/\Gamma_{B_d}$, however, has not been studied yet.}
1076:
1077: With \eq{guntf2} and \eq{twoex2} we can read off $A$ and $B$ for
1078: the CP-specific decays of Table~\ref{tab}
1079: {
1080: and find $A(f_{\rm CP+})/B(f_{\rm CP+}) = (1+\cos \phi)/(1-\cos \phi)$ and
1081: $A(f_{\rm CP-})/B(f_{\rm CP-}) = (1-\cos \phi)/(1+\cos \phi)$ for CP-even and
1082: CP-odd final states, respectively. Our key quantity for the discussion
1083: of CP-specific decays $\Bsun \to f_{\rm CP}$ is
1084: \begin{eqnarray}
1085: \dg^\prime_{\rm CP} &\equiv& - \eta_f \adg \, \dg \,
1086: \; = \;
1087: \dg \, \cos \phi
1088: \; = \;
1089: \dg_{\rm CP} \, \cos^2 \phi
1090: .\label{dgp}
1091: \end{eqnarray}
1092: With this definition \eq{fit} reads for the decay rate $\Gamma_{\rm CP,
1093: \eta_f}$
1094: measured in $\Bsun \to f_{\rm CP}$:
1095: \begin{eqnarray}
1096: \Gamma_{\rm CP,\eta_f} &=& \Gamma \, + \,
1097: \eta_f \, \frac{\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}}{2}
1098: { \, - \, \sin^2 \phi \, \frac{(\dg)^2}{2 \Gamma} }
1099: \, + \, {\cal O} \lt( \frac{(\dg)^3}{\Gamma^2} \rt) . \no
1100: \end{eqnarray}
1101: That is, to first order in \dg, comparing the $\Bsun$ lifetimes
1102: measured in a flavour-specific and a CP-specific final state determines
1103: $\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}$.}
1104: Our result agrees with the one in \cite{g},
1105: which has found \eq{dgp} by expanding the time evolution in
1106: \eq{twoex2} and \eq{singex} for small $\dg \, t$.
1107: Including terms of order $(\dg)^2$, lifetime measurements in
1108: a flavour-specific decay $\Bsun \to f_{\rm fs}$ determine \cite{hm}:
1109: \begin{eqnarray}
1110: \Gamma_{\rm fs} &=& \Gamma \, - \, \frac{(\dg)^2}{2\Gamma}
1111: \, + \, {\cal O} \lt( \frac{(\dg)^3}{\Gamma^2} \rt) . \no
1112: \end{eqnarray}
1113: This implies $\Gamma_{\rm fs} < \Gamma$. Despite the heavy quark symmetry
1114: prediction $\Gamma_{B_s}/\Gamma_{B_d}\simeq 1 $, a large \dg\ leads to
1115: an excess of the $B_s$ lifetime measured in $\Bsun \to f_{\rm fs}$ over
1116: the $B_d$ lifetime \cite{hm}. From \eq{fit} one finds
1117: \begin{eqnarray}
1118: \Gamma_{\rm CP,\eta_f} \, - \, \Gamma_{\rm fs} & = &
1119: { \frac{\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}}{2}} \lt( \eta_f \, + \,
1120: \frac{\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}}{\Gamma} \rt) \, + \,
1121: {\cal O} \lt( \frac{(\dg)^3}{\Gamma^2} \rt)
1122: . \label{dgp2}
1123: \end{eqnarray}
1124: Hence for a CP-even (CP-odd) final state the quadratic corrections
1125: enlarge (diminish) the difference between the two measured widths. A
1126: measurement of $\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}$ at Run-II of the Tevatron seems to be
1127: feasible. The lifetime measurement in the decay mode $\Bsun \to
1128: J/\psi \phi$ has been studied in simulations \cite{sim,mm}. This
1129: decay mode requires an angular analysis to separate the CP-odd
1130: (P-wave) from the CP-even (S-wave and D-wave) components. The angular
1131: analysis is discussed in sect.~\ref{BsVV}. With 2 fb$^{-1}$
1132: integrated luminosity CDF expects 4000 reconstructed $\Bsun \to
1133: J/\psi[\to \mu \ov{\mu}] \phi$ events and a measurement of
1134: $\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}/\Gamma$ with an { absolute} error of 0.052. This {
1135: simulation} assumes that $\Gamma -(\dg)^2/({ 2}\Gamma)$ (see
1136: \eq{fit}) will be measured from flavour-specific decays with an
1137: accuracy of 1\% \cite{mm} { and uses the input $\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}/\Gamma
1138: =0.15$.} When combining this with other modes in Table~\ref{tab} and
1139: taking into account that an integrated luminosity of 10--20 fb$^{-1}$
1140: is within reach of an extended (up to 2006) Run-II, the { study} of
1141: $\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}$ at CDF looks very promising. {The LHC
1142: experiments ATLAS, CMS and LHCb expect to measure
1143: $\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}/\Gamma$ with absolute errors between 0.012 and
1144: 0.018 for $\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}/\Gamma =0.15$ \cite{cern}. An upper bound on
1145: $\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}$} would be especially interesting. If the lattice
1146: calculations entering \eq{dgnum2} mature and the theoretical
1147: uncertainty decreases, an upper bound on $|\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}|$ may {
1148: show that} $\phi \neq 0,\pi$ through
1149: \begin{eqnarray}
1150: \frac{\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}}{\dg_{\rm CP}} &=& \cos^2 \phi .\label{cp2}
1151: \end{eqnarray}
1152: Note that conversely the experimental establishment of a non-zero
1153: $\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}$ immediately helps to constrain models of new
1154: physics, because it excludes values of $\phi$ around $\pi/2$. This
1155: feature even holds true, if there is no theoretical progress
1156: in \eq{dgnum2}.
1157:
1158: The described method to obtain $\dg_{\rm CP}^\prime$ can also be used, if
1159: the sample contains { a known ratio of} CP-even and CP-odd
1160: components. This situation occurs e.g.\ in decays to $J/\psi \phi$,
1161: if no angular analysis is performed or in final states, which are
1162: neither flavour-specific nor CP eigenstates. We discuss this case
1163: below in sect.~\ref{sec:both} with $\Bsun \to D_s^\pm D_s^{(*)}{}^\mp
1164: $. A measurement of the $B_s$ lifetime in $\Bsun \to J/\psi \phi$ has
1165: been performed in \cite{cdf}, but the error is still too large to gain
1166: information on $\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}$. { Note that the comparison of the
1167: lifetimes measured in CP-even and CP-odd final states determines
1168: $\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}$ up to corrections of order $(\dg/\Gamma)^3$.}
1169:
1170: \boldmath
1171: \subsubsection{Determination of $|\dg|$ and $|\cos \phi|$}\label{sec:both}
1172: \unboldmath
1173: The theoretical uncertainty in \eq{dgnum2} dilutes the extraction
1174: of $|\cos \phi|$ from a measurement of $\dg_{\rm CP}^\prime$ alone.
1175: One can bypass the theory prediction in \eq{dgnum2} altogether by
1176: measuring both $\dg_{\rm CP}^\prime$ and $|\dg|$ and determine
1177: $|\cos \phi|$ through
1178: \begin{eqnarray}
1179: \frac{\dg^\prime_{\rm CP}}{\lt| \dg \rt|} &=& |\cos \phi | . \label{cp3}
1180: \end{eqnarray}
1181: To obtain additional information on \dg\ and $\phi$ from the time
1182: evolution in \eq{guntf2} requires more statistics: the coefficient of
1183: $t$ in \eq{guntf3}, $\dg\, \adg/2$, vanishes in flavour-specific
1184: decays and is equal to $-\eta_f \dg_{\rm CP}^\prime/2 $ in the CP-specific
1185: decays of Table~\ref{tab}. Therefore the data sample must be large
1186: enough to be sensitive to the terms of order $(\dg \, t)^2$ in order
1187: to get new information on \dg\ and $\phi$. We now list { three} methods
1188: to determine $|\dg|$ and $|\cos \phi|$ separately. The theoretical
1189: uncertainty decreases and the required experimental statistics
1190: increases from method 1 to method { 3}. Hence as the collected data
1191: sample grows, one can work off our list downwards. The first method
1192: exploits information from branching ratios and needs no information
1193: from the quadratic $(\dg \,t)^2$ terms.
1194:
1195: \paragraph{Method 1:}
1196: { We assume that $\dg_{\rm CP}^\prime$ has been measured as described
1197: in sect.~\ref{sec:dgcos}. The method presented now is a measurement of
1198: $\dg_{\rm CP}$ using the information from branching ratios. With \eq{cp2}
1199: one can then find $|\cos \phi|$ and subsequently $|\dg|$ from
1200: \eq{cp3}.} In the SV limit the branching ratio $\brunt{D_s^{(*)}{}^+
1201: D_s^{(*)}{}^-}$ equals $\dg_{\rm CP}/(2 \Gamma)$ { up to corrections of
1202: order $\dg/\Gamma$,} as discussed in sect.~\ref{sec:wd} \cite{ayopr}.
1203: Corrections to the SV limit, however, can be sizeable. Yet we stress
1204: that one can control the corrections to this limit experimentally,
1205: successively arriving at a result which does not rely on the validity of
1206: the SV limit. { For this it is of prime importance to determine the
1207: CP-odd component of the final states $D_s^{\pm} D_s^{*\mp}$ and
1208: $D_s^{*+} D_s^{*-}$. We now explain how the CP-odd and CP-even
1209: component of any decay $\Bsun \to f$ corresponding to the quark level
1210: transition $b \to c\ov{c} s$ can be obtained. This simply requires a
1211: fit of the time evolution of the decay to a single exponential, as in
1212: \eq{singex}. { Define the contributions of the CP-odd and CP-even
1213: eigenstate to $B_s \to f$:
1214: \begin{eqnarray}
1215: \Gamma (B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}} \to f) \; \equiv \; {\cal N}_f
1216: \, | \langle f
1217: \ket{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}}} |^2,
1218: && \qquad \qquad
1219: \Gamma (B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}} \to f) \; \equiv \; {\cal N}_f
1220: \, | \langle f
1221: \ket{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}}} |^2 . \label{defoe}
1222: \end{eqnarray}
1223: It is useful to define the CP-odd fraction $x_f$ by
1224: \begin{eqnarray}
1225: \frac{ \Gamma (B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}}
1226: \to f) }{
1227: \Gamma ( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}}
1228: \to f) }
1229: & = & \frac{ \lt| \langle f
1230: \ket{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}}} \rt|^2 }{
1231: \lt| \langle f
1232: \ket{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}}} \rt|^2 } \; =\;
1233: \frac{ \lt| \langle \ov{f}
1234: \ket{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}}} \rt|^2 }{
1235: \lt| \langle \ov{f}
1236: \ket{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}}} \rt|^2 } \; =\;
1237: \frac{x_f}{1-x_f} . \label{x1x}
1238: \end{eqnarray}
1239: The time evolution $(\guntf +\guntfb)/2$ of the CP-averaged untagged
1240: decay $\Bsun \to f,\ov{f}$ is governed by a two-exponential formula:
1241: \begin{eqnarray}
1242: \frac{\guntf +\guntfb }{2} &=&
1243: A(f) \, e^{-\Gamma_L t} + B(f) \, e^{-\Gamma_H t} .\label{twoex3}
1244: \end{eqnarray}
1245: With \eq{rot} and \eq{twoex} one finds
1246: \begin{eqnarray}
1247: A(f) & = &
1248: \frac{{\cal N}_f}{2} \, | \langle f \ket{B_L} |^2 \, +
1249: \frac{{\cal N}_f}{2} \, | \langle \ov{f} \ket{B_L} |^2 \nn
1250: & = & \frac{1+ \cos \phi}{2} \,
1251: \Gamma ( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}} \to f) \, + \,
1252: \frac{1- \cos \phi}{2} \,
1253: \Gamma ( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}} \to f) \nn
1254: B(f) & = & \frac{{\cal N}_f}{2} \,
1255: | \langle f \ket{B_H } |^2 \, + \,
1256: \frac{{\cal N}_f}{2} \, | \langle \ov{f} \ket{B_H } |^2 \nn
1257: & = & \frac{ 1- \cos \phi }{2} \,
1258: \Gamma ( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}} \to f) \, + \,
1259: \frac{ 1+ \cos \phi }{2} \,
1260: \Gamma ( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}} \to f)
1261: .\label{abg}
1262: \end{eqnarray}
1263: With \eq{x1x} we arrive at
1264: \begin{eqnarray}
1265: \frac{A(f)}{B(f)} & = &
1266: \frac{ (1+ \cos \phi)
1267: \Gamma ( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}} \to f) +
1268: (1- \cos \phi)
1269: \Gamma ( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}} \to f)}{
1270: (1- \cos \phi)
1271: \Gamma ( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}} \to f) +
1272: (1+ \cos \phi)
1273: \Gamma ( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}} \to f)
1274: }
1275: \; = \;
1276: \frac{1+(1- 2 x_f) \cos \phi}{1-(1- 2 x_f) \cos \phi}
1277: .\label{ab}
1278: \end{eqnarray}
1279: In \eq{abg} and \eq{ab} it is crucial that we average the decay rates
1280: for $\Bsun \to f$ and the CP-conjugate process $\Bsun \to
1281: \ov{f}$. This eliminates the interference term
1282: $\bra{B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}}} f\rangle \bra{f}
1283: B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}} \rangle $, so that $A(f)/B(f)$ only depends
1284: on $x_f$. The single exponential fit with \eq{singex} determines
1285: $\Gamma_f$. Equations \eq{fit} and \eq{ab} combine to give
1286: \begin{eqnarray}
1287: { 2\, ( \Gamma_f - \Gamma )} &=&
1288: (1- 2 x_f ) \, \dg \, \cos \phi
1289: \; = \; (1- 2 x_f ) \, \dg_{\rm CP} \, \cos^2 \phi
1290: \; = \; (1- 2 x_f ) \, \dg_{\rm CP}^\prime
1291: \label{dgmx}
1292: \end{eqnarray}
1293: up to corrections of order $(\dg)^2/\Gamma$. In order to determine
1294: $x_f$ from \eq{dgmx} we need $\dg_{\rm CP}^\prime$ from the lifetime
1295: measurement in a CP-specific final state like $D_s^+ D_s^-$ or from
1296: the angular separation of the CP components in $\Bsun \to \psi
1297: \phi$. The corrections of order $(\dg)^2/\Gamma$ to
1298: \eq{dgmx} can be read off from \eq{fit} with \eq{ab} as well. {
1299: Expressing the result in terms of $\Gamma_f$ and the rate $\Gamma_{\rm
1300: fs}$ measured in flavour-specific decays, we find
1301: \begin{eqnarray}
1302: 1- 2 x_f &=& 2\,
1303: \frac{\Gamma_f-\Gamma_{\rm fs}}{\dg_{\rm CP}^\prime}
1304: \, \lt[ 1 \, - \,
1305: 2\, \frac{\Gamma_f-\Gamma_{\rm fs}}{\Gamma} \rt] \,
1306: + {\cal O} \lt( \frac{(\dg)^2}{\Gamma^2} \rt)
1307: . \label{xfres}
1308: \end{eqnarray}
1309: }In order to solve for $\Gamma (B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}} \to f)
1310: $ and $\Gamma (B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}} \to f) $ we also need
1311: the branching ratio $\brunt{f}+\brunt{\ov{f}}$. Recalling
1312: \eq{untnorm} one finds from \eq{twoex3} and \eq{abg}:
1313: \begin{eqnarray}
1314: \brunt{f}+\brunt{\ov{f}}
1315: &=& \phantom{ + }
1316: \Gamma (B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}} \to f)
1317: \lt[ \frac{1+ \cos \phi }{2 \Gamma_L} +
1318: \frac{1- \cos \phi }{2 \Gamma_H} \rt] \nn
1319: && + \,
1320: \Gamma (B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}} \to f)
1321: \lt[ \frac{1- \cos \phi }{2 \Gamma_L} +
1322: \frac{1+ \cos \phi }{2 \Gamma_H} \rt]
1323: . \label{boe}
1324: \end{eqnarray}
1325: By combining \eq{x1x} and \eq{boe} we can solve for the two CP components:
1326: \begin{eqnarray}
1327: \Gamma (B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}} \to f)
1328: &=&
1329: \lt[ \Gamma^2- \lt( \dg/2 \rt)^2 \rt] \,
1330: \lt( \brunt{ f} + \brunt{\ov{f}} \rt) \,
1331: \frac{1- x_f}{ 2 \Gamma \, - \, \Gamma_f } \nn
1332: & = & (1- x_f) \, \lt( \brunt{ f} + \brunt{\ov{f}} \rt) \,
1333: \Gamma
1334: +\, {\cal O} \lt( \dg \rt) \nn
1335: \Gamma (B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}} \to f)
1336: &=&
1337: \lt[ \Gamma^2- \lt( \dg/2 \rt)^2 \rt] \,
1338: \lt( \brunt{ f} + \brunt{\ov{f}} \rt) \,
1339: \frac{x_f}{ 2 \Gamma \, - \, \Gamma_f } \nn
1340: & = & x_f \, \lt( \brunt{ f} + \brunt{\ov{f}} \rt) \,
1341: \Gamma \,
1342: +\, {\cal O} \lt( \dg \rt) \no .
1343: \end{eqnarray}
1344: From \eq{dgcp2} we now find the desired quantity by summing over all
1345: final states $f$:
1346: \begin{eqnarray}
1347: \dg_{\rm CP} \; = \;
1348: \Gamma \lt( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize even}} \rt) -
1349: \Gamma \lt( B_s^{\textrm{\scriptsize odd}} \rt)
1350: &=&
1351: 2 \, \lt[ \Gamma^2- \lt( \dg/2 \rt)^2 \rt]
1352: \sum_{f \in X_{c\ov{c}}} \brunt{ f} \,
1353: \frac{1- 2\, x_f}{ 2 \Gamma \, - \, \Gamma_f}
1354: \label{dgcpres} \\
1355: &=& 2\, \Gamma \sum_{f \in X_{c\ov{c}}} \brunt{ f}
1356: \,
1357: (1- 2\, x_f)\, \lt[ 1 \, + \, {\cal O} \lt( \frac{\dg}{\Gamma}
1358: \rt) \rt].
1359: \label{dgcpres2}
1360: \end{eqnarray}
1361: { It is easy to find $\dg_{\rm CP}$: first determine $1-2x_f$ from
1362: \eq{xfres} for each studied decay mode, then insert the result into
1363: \eq{dgcpres}. The small quadratic term $( \dg/2 )^2=\dg_{\rm CP}
1364: \dg_{\rm CP}^\prime/4$ is negligible.} This procedure can be performed
1365: for $\brunt{D_s^{\pm} D_s^{*}{}^{\mp}}$ and $\brunt{D_s^{*}{}^+
1366: D_s^{*}{}^-}$ to determine the corrections to the SV limit. In
1367: principle the CP-odd P-wave component of $\brunt{D_s^{*}{}^+
1368: D_s^{*}{}^-}$ (which vanishes in the SV limit) could also be obtained
1369: by an angular analysis, but this is difficult in first-generation
1370: experiments at hadron colliders, because the photon from
1371: $D_s^* \to D_s \gamma$ cannot be detected. We emphasize that it is
1372: not necessary to separate the $D_s^{(*)}{}^+D_s^{(*)}{}^-$ final
1373: states; our method can also be applied to the semi-inclusive
1374: $D_s^{(*)}{}^\pm D_s^{(*)}{}^\mp $ sample, using
1375: $\dg_{\rm CP}^\prime$ obtained from an angular separation of the CP
1376: components in $\Bsun \to \psi \phi$. Further one can successively
1377: include those double-charm final states which vanish in the SV limit
1378: into \eq{dgcpres}. If we were able to reconstruct all $b \to c \ov{c}
1379: s$ final states, we could determine $\dg_{\rm CP}$ without invoking the SV
1380: limit. In practice a portion of these final states will be missed,
1381: but the induced error can be estimated from the corrections to the SV
1382: limit in the measured decay modes. By comparing $\dg_{\rm CP}$ and
1383: $\dg_{\rm CP}^\prime$ one finds $|\cos \phi|$ from \eq{cp2}. }
1384: { The irreducible theoretical error of method 1 stems from the
1385: omission of CKM-suppressed decays and is of order $2 |V_{ub}
1386: V_{us}/(V_{cb} V_{cs})| \sim 5\%$.}
1387:
1388: Method 1 is experimentally simple: at the first stage (relying on the
1389: SV limit) it amounts to counting the $\Bsun$ decays into $
1390: D_s^{(*)}{}^+ D_s^{(*)}{}^-$. A first simulation indicates that CDF
1391: will be able to separate the $B_s$ decay modes into $D_s^+ D_s^-$, {
1392: $D_s^{*\pm} D_s^{\mp}$} and $D_s^{*+} D_s^{*-}$ \cite{cp}. The
1393: corrections to the SV limit are obtained by one-parameter fits to the
1394: time evolution of the collected double-charm data samples. This
1395: sample may include final states from decay modes which vanish in the
1396: SV limit, such as multiparticle final states. No sensitivity to $(\dg
1397: \, t)^2$ is needed. A further advantage is that $\dg_{\rm CP}$ is not
1398: diminished by the presence of new physics.
1399:
1400: % \paragraph{Method 2:}
1401: % In \cite{hm} the lifetime $1/{ \Gamma_f}$ measured by
1402: % fitting \eq{singex} to the decay time evolution in flavour-specific
1403: % decays has been studied. The result has been compared to the measured
1404: % $B_d$ lifetime $\tau_{B_d}$ in order to constrain $|\dg|$ from the
1405: % second term in \eq{fit} (in which $A=B$). One can use this method to
1406: % obtain $|\dg|$ and then $|\cos \phi|$ from \eq{cp3}. The theoretical
1407: % input is $\Gamma_{B_s}/\Gamma_{B_d}=1+{\cal O} (1\%) $ from heavy
1408: % quark symmetry \cite{bbsuv,bbd,kn}. This method only involves a
1409: % one-parameter fit, but is quadratic in $\dg$. { Three
1410: % different decays must be studied (to measure $\tau_{B_d}$,
1411: % $\tau_{B_s}$ and $\dg_{\rm CP}^\prime$) in order to find $|\cos \phi|$.}
1412:
1413: \paragraph{Method 2:}
1414: In the Standard Model the decay into a CP eigenstate $f_{\rm CP}$ is
1415: governed by a single exponential. If a second exponential is found in
1416: the time evolution of a CKM-favoured decay $\Bsun \to f_{\rm CP}$, this
1417: will be clear evidence of new physics \cite{dun}. To this end we must
1418: resolve the time evolution in \eq{guntf2} up to order $(\dg \,
1419: t)^2$. At first glance this seems to require a three-parameter fit to
1420: the data, because \guntf\ in \eq{guntf2} depends on $\Gamma$, $\dg$
1421: and (through $\adg$, see \eq{acp2}) on $\phi$. It is possible,
1422: however, to choose these parameters in such a way that one of them
1423: enters \gunt{f_{\rm CP}}\ at order $(\dg )^3$, with negligible impact.
1424: The fit parameters are $\Gamma^\prime$ and $Y$. They are chosen such
1425: that
1426: \begin{eqnarray}
1427: \!\!\!\!
1428: \guntfcpp &=& 2\, \brunt{f_{\rm CP+} } \,\,
1429: \Gamma^\prime e^{-\Gamma^\prime t} \,
1430: \lt[ 1 + Y \, \Gamma^\prime \, t \,
1431: \lt( -1
1432: +\frac{\Gamma^\prime t}{2} \rt)
1433: + {\cal O} \lt( (\dg )^3 \rt)
1434: \rt]
1435: . \label{t2}
1436: \end{eqnarray}
1437: Here we have considered a CP-even final state, for which a lot more
1438: data are expected than for CP-odd states. With \eq{t2} we have
1439: generalized the lifetime fit method described in sect.~\ref{sec:dgcos}
1440: to the order $(\dg\, t)^2$. A non-zero $Y$ signals the presence of
1441: new physics.
1442: The fitted rate $\Gamma^\prime$ and $Y$ are related to
1443: $\Gamma$, $\dg$ and $\phi$ by
1444: \begin{eqnarray}
1445: Y \; = \; \frac{(\dg)^2}{4 \Gamma^{\prime 2}} \sin^2 \phi
1446: , \qquad \qquad \qquad
1447: \Gamma^\prime &=& \Gamma (1-Y) + \frac{\cos \phi}{2} \dg
1448: \label{defgpy} .
1449: \end{eqnarray}
1450: Note that for $|\cos \phi|=1$ the rate $\Gamma^\prime$ equals the
1451: rate of the shorter-lived mass eigenstate and the expansion in \eq{t2}
1452: becomes the exact single-exponential formula.
1453: { After determining $\Gamma^\prime$ and $Y$ we can solve \eq{defgpy}
1454: for $\Gamma$, $\dg$ and $\phi$. To this end we need the width
1455: $\Gamma_{\rm fs}$ measured in flavour-specific decays. We find
1456: \begin{eqnarray}
1457: |\dg| \;=\; 2 \sqrt{(\Gamma^\prime-\Gamma_{\rm fs})^2 +\Gamma_{\rm fs}^2 Y }
1458: \lt[ 1+ {\cal O} \lt( \frac{\dg}{\Gamma} \rt) \rt],
1459: && \quad
1460: \Gamma\; = \; \Gamma_{\rm fs} + \frac{(\dg)^2}{2 \Gamma} +
1461: {\cal O} \lt( \lt(\frac{\dg}{\Gamma}\rt)^3 \rt) \nn
1462: \dg_{\rm CP}^\prime \; =\; 2 \lt[ \Gamma^\prime - \Gamma \lt( 1- Y \rt) \rt]
1463: \lt[ 1 + {\cal O} \lt( \lt(\frac{\dg}{\Gamma}\rt)^2 \rt) \rt],
1464: && \quad
1465: |\sin \phi| \; = \; \frac{2\Gamma \sqrt{Y}}{|\dg|} \,
1466: \lt[ 1+ {\cal O} \lt( \frac{\dg}{\Gamma} \rt) \rt] \!.
1467: \label{gpyres}
1468: \end{eqnarray}
1469: The { quantity} $\dg_{\rm CP}^\prime$, which we could already
1470: determine from single-exponential fits, { is} now found beyond the
1471: leading order in $\dg/\Gamma$. By contrast, \dg\ and $|\sin \phi|$ in
1472: \eq{gpyres} are only determined to the first non-vanishing order in
1473: $\dg/\Gamma$.}
1474:
1475: In conclusion method 2 involves a two-parameter fit and needs
1476: sensitivity to the quadratic term in the time evolution. The presence
1477: of new physics can be invoked from $Y\neq 0$ and does not require to
1478: combine lifetime measurements in different decay modes.
1479:
1480: \paragraph{Method 3:}
1481: Originally the following method has been proposed to determine $|\dg|$
1482: \cite{dun,g}: The time evolution of a $\Bsun$ decay into a
1483: flavour-specific final state is fitted to two exponentials. This
1484: amounts to resolving the deviation of $\cosh (\dg\, t/2)$ from 1 in
1485: \eq{guntf2} in a two-parameter fit for $\Gamma$ and $|\dg|$. If one
1486: adopts the same parametrization as in \eq{t2}, $\Gamma^\prime$ and
1487: $Y$ are obtained from \eq{defgpy} by replacing $\phi$ with $\pi/2$.
1488: The best suited flavour-specific decay modes at hadron colliders are
1489: $\Bsun \to D_s^{(*)\pm} \pi^\mp $, $\Bsun \to D_s^{(*)\pm} \pi^\mp
1490: \pi^+ \pi^- $ and $\Bsun \to D_s^{(*)\pm} X \ell^{\mp} \nu$.
1491: Depending on the event rate in these modes, method 3 could be superior
1492: to method 2 in terms of statistics. On the other hand, to find the
1493: ``smoking gun'' of new physics, the $|\dg|$ obtained must be
1494: compared to $\dg_{\rm CP}^\prime$ from CP-specific decays to prove $|\cos
1495: \phi|\neq 1$ through \eq{cp3}. Since the two measurements are
1496: differently affected by systematic errors, this can be a difficult
1497: task. First upper bounds on $|\dg|$ using method 3 have been obtained
1498: in \cite{semi}.
1499:
1500: The L3 collaboration has determined an upper bound $|\dg|/\Gamma\leq
1501: 0.67$ by fitting the time evolution of fully inclusive decays to two
1502: exponentials \cite{l3}. This method is quadratic in $\dg$ as well. The
1503: corresponding formula for the time evolution can be simply obtained
1504: from \eq{twoex2} with $A=\Gamma_L$ and $B=\Gamma_H$.
1505:
1506: \subsection{ CP Violation in Mixing and
1507: Untagged Oscillations}\label{sec:cpmix}
1508: In the preceding sections we have set the small parameter $a$ in
1509: \eq{defa} to zero. { CP violation in mixing} vanishes in this limit.
1510: The corresponding ``wrong-sign'' CP asymmetry is measured in
1511: flavour-specific decays and equals
1512: \begin{eqnarray}
1513: a_{\rm fs} &=& \frac{\gbtf - \gtfb}{\gbtf + \gtfb} \; = \; a
1514: \quad \qquad \mbox{for} \quad \ov{A}_f = 0
1515: \quad \mbox{and} \quad |A_f| = |\ov{A}_{\ov{f}}|
1516: . \label{defafs}
1517: \end{eqnarray}
1518: { A special case of $a_{\rm fs}$ is the semileptonic asymmetry, where
1519: $f=X \ell^+ \nu$.}
1520: { A determination of $a$ gives additional information on the three
1521: physical quantities $|M_{12}|$, $|\Gamma_{12}|$ and $\phi$
1522: characterizing \bbms. Measuring $\dm$, $\dg_{\rm CP}$, $\dg_{\rm CP}^\prime$
1523: and $a$ overconstrains these quantities.
1524:
1525: The ``right-sign'' asymmetry vanishes:}
1526: \begin{eqnarray}
1527: \gtf - \gbtfb \; = \; 0
1528: \quad \qquad \mbox{for} \quad \ov{A}_f = 0
1529: \quad \mbox{and} \quad |A_f| = |\ov{A}_{\ov{f}}|
1530: . \label{unm}
1531: \end{eqnarray}
1532: This implies that one can measure $a_{\rm fs}$ from \emph{untagged}
1533: decays. { This observation was already made in \cite{y}}. It is
1534: easily verified from the sum of \eq{gtfres} and \eq{gbtfres} that to
1535: order $a$ the time evolution of untagged decays exhibits oscillations
1536: governed by \dm. Since $a$ is small, one must be concerned to which
1537: accuracy $|A_f| = |\ov{A}_{\ov{f}}|$ holds in flavour-specific decays
1538: in the presence of new physics. For example in left--right-symmetric
1539: extensions of the Standard Model, small CP-violating corrections to the
1540: decay amplitude could eventually spoil this relation at the few
1541: per mille level. Further, a small production asymmetry $\epsilon =
1542: N_{\ov{B}}/N_B -1$ also leads to oscillations in the untagged sample.
1543: To first order in the small parameters $a$, $\epsilon$ and
1544: $|A_f|/|\ov{A}_{\ov{f}}|-1$ one finds
1545: \begin{eqnarray}
1546: a_{\rm fs}^{unt} &=&
1547: \frac{\guntf - \guntfb}{\guntf + \guntfb}
1548: \nn
1549: & = &
1550: \frac{|A_f|^2-|\ov{A}_{\ov{f}}|^2}{|A_f|^2+|\ov{A}_{\ov{f}}|^2}
1551: \, + \,
1552: \frac{a}{2} - \frac{a+\epsilon}{2} \,
1553: \frac{\cos (\dm\, t)}{\cosh (\dg t/2) }
1554: \qquad \mbox{for} \quad \ov{A}_f = 0
1555: \quad \mbox{and} \quad |A_f| \approx |\ov{A}_{\ov{f}}|
1556: . \, \label{fsun}
1557: \end{eqnarray}
1558: For $|A_f| = |\ov{A}_{\ov{f}}|$ and $\epsilon=0$ one recovers the
1559: formula derived in \cite{y}.} Note that the production asymmetry
1560: between $B_s$ and $\ov{B}_s$ cannot completely fake the effect of a
1561: non-zero $a$ in \eq{fsun}: while both $a\neq 0$ and $\epsilon\neq 0$
1562: lead to oscillations, the offset from the constant term indicates new
1563: CP-violating physics either in \bbms\ (through $a\neq 0$) or in the
1564: studied decay amplitude (through $|A_f|\neq |\ov{A}_{\ov{f}}|$). The
1565: latter effect, which is theoretically { much} less likely, can be
1566: tested in $B^\pm$ decays and can therefore be disentangled from $a\neq 0$.
1567:
1568: The ratio $\dg_{\rm CP}/\Gamma \leq 0.22$ from \eq{dgnum2} and the current
1569: experimental limit $\dm \geq { 14.9}\,$ps${}^{-1}$ \cite{os} imply that
1570: $|a| \leq 0.01$. CDF expects sufficiently many reconstructed $\Bsun
1571: \to D_s^{(*)\pm} \pi^{\mp}$ and $\Bsun \to D_s^{(*)\pm} \pi^{\mp}
1572: \pi^+ \pi^-$ events at Run-II after collecting 2 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated
1573: luminosity to achieve a statistical error at the few permille level.
1574: { From \eq{defa} and \eq{dmdg} we can relate $a$ to $|\dg|$, \dm\
1575: and $\phi$:}
1576: \begin{eqnarray}
1577: a &=& \frac{|\dg|}{\dm} \, \frac{\sin \phi}{|\cos \phi|} . \no
1578: \end{eqnarray}
1579: Note, however, that the measurement of the sign of $a$ determines the
1580: sign of $\sin \phi$. This reduces the four-fold ambiguity in $\phi$
1581: from the measurement of $|\cos \phi| $ to a two-fold one. It is
1582: interesting that, at order $a$, without tagging one can { in
1583: principle} gain information which otherwise requires tagged
1584: studies. Of course $\sin \phi$ can be measured more directly from
1585: tagged decays, as discussed in the forthcoming section
1586: \ref{sec:tagged}.
1587:
1588: %
1589: %
1590: %
1591: %
1592: %
1593: %
1594: \section{Tagged Decays}\label{sec:tagged}
1595: %
1596: %
1597: %
1598: %
1599: \boldmath
1600: \subsection{The CP-Violating Observables of $B_s\to D_s^+D^-_s$ and
1601: $J/\psi\, \eta^{(\prime)}$}\label{BsPP}
1602: \unboldmath
1603: %
1604: %
1605: %
1606: For a $B_s$ decay into a CP eigenstate $f$
1607: the $B_s$--$\overline{B_s}$ oscillations lead to the following
1608: time-dependent CP asymmetry:
1609: \begin{eqnarray}
1610: a_{\rm CP}(t) & \equiv &
1611: \frac{ \Gamma(\overline{B_s}(t)\to f) - \Gamma(B_s(t)\to f)
1612: }{\Gamma(B_s(t)\to f)+ \Gamma(\overline{B_s}(t)\to f) }
1613: \; = \;
1614: -\; \frac{ \adi \cos(\dm \, t) + \ami \sin(\dm \, t)}{
1615: \cosh \lt( \dg \, t/2 \rt) + \adg \sinh \lt( \dg \, t/2 \rt)
1616: }
1617: .\label{ee6}
1618: \end{eqnarray}
1619: Here the mass and width difference $\dm$ and $\dg$ can be found in
1620: \eq{defdm} and $\adi$, $\ami$ and $\adg$ have been defined in
1621: \eq{defacp}. We have set the small parameter $a$ in \eq{defa} to zero
1622: and will continue to do so. The final states $B_s\to
1623: D_s^+D^-_s$, { $\psi\, \eta^{(\prime)}$, $\psi f_0$} or $\chi_{c0} \phi$ in
1624: Table~\ref{tab} are CP eigenstates. Their CP eigenvalue $\eta_f$ reads
1625: $\eta_{D_s^+D^-_s}=\eta_{\psi \eta^\prime}=\eta_{\psi\eta}=+1$ and
1626: ${ \eta_{\psi f_0}=} \eta_{\chi_{c0} \phi}= -1$. With \eq{acp2} we then
1627: find from \eq{ee6}:
1628: \begin{eqnarray}
1629: a_{\rm CP}(t) & = &
1630: -\; \frac{ \eta_f \sin \phi \, \sin(\dm \, t)}{
1631: \cosh \lt( \dg \, t/2 \rt) -
1632: \eta_f |\cos \phi| \sinh \lt( |\dg| \, t/2 \rt)
1633: }
1634: .\label{aph}
1635: \end{eqnarray}
1636: Since $\dg$ and $\cos \phi$ have the same sign (see \eq{dgcph}) we
1637: could replace these quantities by their absolute values in the
1638: denominator of \eq{aph}. This displays that the ambiguity in the sign
1639: of $\cos \phi$ cannot be removed by measuring $a_{\rm CP}$. Its
1640: measurement determines $\sin \phi$ and leaves us with a two-fold
1641: ambiguity in $\phi$. Then we still do not know whether the heavier or
1642: lighter mass eigenstate is shorter-lived. The resolution of this
1643: ambiguity will be discussed in Section~\ref{sec:ambig}.
1644: %
1645: %
1646: %
1647: \boldmath
1648: \subsection{The CP-violating Observables of $B_s\to J/\psi\, \phi$
1649: and $D_s^{\ast+}D_s^{\ast-}$}\label{BsVV}
1650: \unboldmath
1651: %
1652: %
1653: %
1654: The situation in the decay $B_s\to J/\psi\, \phi$, which is very
1655: promising for $B$-physics experiments at hadron machines because of
1656: its nice experimental signature, is a bit more involved than in the
1657: case of the pseudoscalar--pseudoscalar modes $B_s\to D_s^+D^-_s$ and
1658: $J/\psi\, \eta^{(\prime)}$, since the final state is an admixture of
1659: different CP eigenstates. In order to disentangle them, we have to
1660: make use of the angular distribution of the decay products of the
1661: decay chain $B_s\to J/\psi[\to l^+l^-]\, \phi[\to K^+K^-]$, which can
1662: be found in \cite{ddlr,ddf1}. In that paper, also appropriate
1663: weighting functions are given to extract the observables of the
1664: angular distribution in an efficient way from the experimental
1665: data. For an initially, i.e.\ at time $t=0$, present $B_s$-meson, the
1666: time-dependent angular distribution can be written generically as
1667: \begin{equation}\label{ang}
1668: f(\Theta,\Phi,\Psi;t)=\sum_k{\cal O}^{(k)}(t)\,
1669: g^{(k)}(\Theta,\Phi,\Psi),
1670: \end{equation}
1671: where we have denoted the angles describing the kinematics of the
1672: decay products of $J/\psi\to l^+l^-$ and $\phi\to K^+K^-$ by $\Theta$,
1673: $\Phi$ and $\Psi$. The observables ${\cal O}^{(k)}(t)$ describing the
1674: time evolution of the angular distribution (\ref{ang}) can be
1675: expressed in terms of real or imaginary parts of certain bilinear
1676: combinations of decay amplitudes. In the case of decays into two
1677: vector mesons, such as $B_s\to J/\psi\, \phi$, it is convenient to
1678: introduce linear polarization amplitudes $A_0(t)$, $A_\parallel(t)$
1679: and $A_\perp(t)$ \cite{pol}. Whereas $A_\perp(t)$ describes a CP-odd
1680: final-state configuration, both $A_0(t)$ and $A_\parallel(t)$
1681: correspond to CP-even final-state configurations. The observables
1682: ${\cal O}^{(k)}(t)$ of the corresponding angular distribution are
1683: given by
1684: \begin{equation}\label{obs1}
1685: \left|A_f(t)\right|^2\quad\mbox{with}\quad f\in\{0,\parallel,\perp\},
1686: \end{equation}
1687: as well as by the interference terms
1688: \begin{equation}\label{obs2}
1689: \Re\{A_0^\ast(t)A_\parallel(t)\}\quad\mbox{and}\quad
1690: \Im\{A_f^\ast(t)A_\perp(t)\} \quad\mbox{with}\quad f\in\{0,\parallel\}.
1691: \end{equation}
1692: For our consideration, the time evolution of these observables plays
1693: a crucial role. In the case of the observables (\ref{obs1}), which
1694: correspond to ``ordinary'' decay rates, we obtain
1695: % \begin{eqnarray}
1696: % |A_0(t)|^2&=&\frac{1}{2}\,|A_0(0)|^2 \left[\left(1+\cos\phi_s\right)
1697: % e^{-\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(s)} t} + \left(1-\cos\phi_s\right)
1698: % e^{-\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(s)} t}+2e^{-\Gamma_s t}\sin(\Delta M_s t)
1699: % \sin\phi_s\right]~~~~\label{EQB}\\
1700: % |A_{\|}(t)|^2&=&\frac{1}{2}\,|A_{\|}(0)|^2 \left[\left(1+\cos\phi_s\right)
1701: % e^{-\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(s)} t} + \left(1-\cos\phi_s\right)
1702: % e^{-\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(s)} t}+
1703: % 2e^{-\Gamma_s t}\sin(\Delta M_s t)\sin\phi_s\right]~~~~\\
1704: % |A_{\perp}(t)|^2&=&\frac{1}{2}|A_{\perp}(0)|^2 \left[\left(1-
1705: % \cos\phi_s\right)e^{-\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(s)} t} + \left(1+\cos\phi_s\right)
1706: % e^{-\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(s)} t}-
1707: % 2e^{-\Gamma_s t}\sin(\Delta M_s t)\sin\phi_s\right]\hspace*{-0.1truecm},~~~~
1708: % \end{eqnarray}
1709: % whereas we have in the case of the interference terms (\ref{obs2}):
1710: % \begin{eqnarray}
1711: % \Re\{A_0^*(t) A_{\|}(t)\}&=&\frac{1}{2}|A_0(0)||A_{\|}(0)|\cos(\delta_2-
1712: % \delta_1)\nonumber\\
1713: % &&\times\left[\left(1+\cos\phi_s\right)e^{-\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(s)} t} +
1714: % \left(1-\cos\phi_s\right)e^{-\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(s)} t}
1715: % + 2e^{-\Gamma_s t}\sin(\Delta M_s t)\sin\phi_s\right]~~~~\label{Re-expr}\\
1716: % \Im\{A_{\|}^*(t)A_{\perp}(t)\}&=&|A_{\|}(0)||A_{\perp}(0)|\Bigl[
1717: % e^{-\Gamma_s t}\left\{\sin\delta_1\cos(\Delta M_s t)-\cos\delta_1
1718: % \sin(\Delta M_s t)\cos\phi_s\right\}\nonumber\\
1719: % &&-\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{-\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(s)} t}-
1720: % e^{-\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(s)} t}\right)\cos\delta_1\sin\phi_s\Bigr]\\
1721: % \Im\{A_{0}^*(t)A_{\perp}(t)\}&=&|A_{0}(0)||A_{\perp}(0)|\Bigl[
1722: % e^{-\Gamma_s t}\left\{\sin\delta_2\cos(\Delta M_s t)-
1723: % \cos\delta_2\sin(\Delta M_s t)\cos\phi_s\right\}\nonumber\\
1724: % &&-\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{-\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(s)} t}-e^{-\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(s)} t}
1725: % \right)\cos\delta_2\sin\phi_s\Bigr].\label{EQE}
1726: % \end{eqnarray}
1727: \begin{eqnarray}
1728: |A_0(t)|^2 &=&
1729: |A_0(0)|^2 e^{-\Gamma t} \lt[
1730: \cosh \frac{\dg \, t}{2} \, - \,
1731: |\cos \phi| \sinh \frac{|\dg| \, t}{2} \, + \,
1732: \sin \phi \, \sin (\dm\, t) \rt]
1733: \label{EQB}\\
1734: |A_{\|}(t)|^2 &=&
1735: |A_{\|}(0)|^2 e^{-\Gamma t} \lt[
1736: \cosh \frac{\dg \, t}{2} \, - \,
1737: |\cos \phi| \sinh \frac{|\dg| \, t}{2} \, + \,
1738: \sin \phi \, \sin (\dm\, t) \rt]
1739: \\
1740: |A_{\perp}(t)|^2 &=&
1741: |A_{\perp}(0)|^2 e^{-\Gamma t} \lt[
1742: \cosh \frac{\dg \, t}{2} \, + \,
1743: |\cos \phi| \sinh \frac{|\dg| \, t}{2} \, - \,
1744: \sin \phi \, \sin (\dm\, t) \rt]
1745: , \label{EQP}
1746: \end{eqnarray}
1747: whereas we have in the case of the interference terms (\ref{obs2}):
1748: \begin{eqnarray}
1749: \!\!\!\!\!\!\! \Re\{A_0^*(t) A_{\|}(t)\} &=&
1750: |A_0(0)| \, |A_{\|}(0)| \, \cos ( \delta_2 - \delta_1 ) \,
1751: e^{-\Gamma t} \nn
1752: && \!\!\! \times \lt[
1753: \cosh \frac{\dg \, t}{2} \, - \,
1754: |\cos \phi| \sinh \frac{|\dg| \, t}{2} \, + \,
1755: \sin \phi \, \sin (\dm\, t) \rt] \label{Re-expr}\\
1756: \!\!\!\!\!\!\! \Im\{ A_{\|}^* (t) A_{\perp}(t)\} &=&
1757: |A_{\|}(0)| \, |A_{\perp}(0)| \, e^{-\Gamma t} \nn
1758: && \!\!\! \times \lt[
1759: \sin\delta_1 \, \cos(\dm\, t) \, - \,
1760: \cos\delta_1 \, \cos\phi \, \sin(\dm\, t) \, - \,
1761: \cos\delta_1 \, \sin\phi \, \sinh \frac{\dg \, t}{2}
1762: \rt] \\
1763: \!\!\!\!\!\!\! \Im\{A_{0}^*(t)A_{\perp}(t)\} &=&
1764: |A_{0}(0)| \, |A_{\perp}(0)| \, e^{-\Gamma t} \nn
1765: && \!\!\! \times \lt[
1766: \sin\delta_2 \, \cos(\dm\, t) \, - \,
1767: \cos\delta_2 \, \cos\phi \, \sin(\dm\, t) \, - \,
1768: \cos\delta_2 \, \sin\phi \, \sinh \frac{\dg \, t}{2}
1769: \rt] \! . \label{EQE}
1770: \end{eqnarray}
1771: In (\ref{Re-expr})--(\ref{EQE}), $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$
1772: denote CP-conserving strong phases, which are defined as follows
1773: \cite{ddlr,ddf1}:
1774: \begin{equation}
1775: \delta_1\equiv\mbox{arg}\Bigl\{A_{\|}(0)^\ast A_{\perp}(0)\Bigr\},\quad
1776: \delta_2\equiv\mbox{arg}\Bigl\{A_{0}(0)^\ast A_{\perp}(0)\Bigr\}.
1777: \end{equation}
1778: The time evolutions (\ref{EQB})--(\ref{EQE}) generalize those given in
1779: \cite{ddlr,ddf1} to the case of a sizeable \bbms\ phase $\phi$ to cover
1780: the pursued case of new physics. A further generalization taking
1781: into account also the small penguin contributions can be found in
1782: \cite{RF-ang}. It should be emphasized that new physics manifests
1783: itself {\it only} in the observables ${\cal O}^{(k)}(t)$, while
1784: the $g^{(k)}(\Theta,\Phi,\Psi)$'s are not affected.
1785:
1786:
1787: We may use the same angles $\Theta$, $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ to describe the
1788: kinematics of the decay products of the CP-conjugate transition
1789: $\overline{B_s}\to J/\psi\, \phi$. Consequently, we have
1790: \begin{equation}\label{ang-CP}
1791: \overline{f}(\Theta,\Phi,\Psi;t)=\sum_k\overline{{\cal O}}^{(k)}(t)\,
1792: g^{(k)}(\Theta,\Phi,\Psi).
1793: \end{equation}
1794: Within this formalism, CP transformations relating
1795: $B_s\to\! [J/\psi\, \phi]_f$ to $\overline{B_s}\to\! [J/\psi\, \phi]_f$
1796: \mbox{ ($f\! \in\! \{0,\parallel,\perp\}$)} are taken into account in the
1797: expressions
1798: for the ${\cal O}^{(k)}(t)$ and $\overline{{\cal O}}^{(k)}(t)$,
1799: and do not affect the form of the $g^{(k)}(\Theta,\Phi,\Psi)$. Therefore
1800: the same functions $g^{(k)}(\Theta,\Phi,\Psi)$ are present in (\ref{ang})
1801: and (\ref{ang-CP}) (see also \cite{FD,FD1}). The CP-conjugate observables
1802: $\overline{{\cal O}}^{(k)}(t)$ take the following form:
1803: % \begin{eqnarray}
1804: % |\overline{A}_0(t)|^2 &=&
1805: % \frac{1}{2}\,|A_0(0)|^2 \left[\left(1+\cos\phi\right)
1806: % e^{-\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(s)} t} + \left(1-\cos\phi\right)
1807: % e^{-\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(s)} t}-2e^{-\Gamma t}\sin(\dm t)
1808: % \sin\phi\right]~~~~\\
1809: % |\overline{A}_{\|}(t)|^2&=&\frac{1}{2}\,|A_{\|}(0)|^2
1810: % \left[\left(1+\cos\phi\right)
1811: % e^{-\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(s)} t} + \left(1-\cos\phi\right)
1812: % e^{-\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(s)} t}-
1813: % 2e^{-\Gamma t}\sin(\dm t)\sin\phi\right]~~~~\\
1814: % |\overline{A}_{\perp}(t)|^2&=&\frac{1}{2}|A_{\perp}(0)|^2 \left[\left(1-
1815: % \cos\phi\right)e^{-\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(s)} t} + \left(1+\cos\phi\right)
1816: % e^{-\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(s)} t}+
1817: % 2e^{-\Gamma t}\sin(\dm t)\sin\phi\right]~~~~
1818: % \end{eqnarray}
1819: % \begin{eqnarray}
1820: % \Re\{\overline{A}_0^*(t) \overline{A}_{\|}(t)\}&=&\frac{1}{2}
1821: % |A_0(0)||A_{\|}(0)|\cos(\delta_2-\delta_1)\nonumber\\
1822: % &&\times\left[\left(1+\cos\phi\right)e^{-\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(s)} t} +
1823: % \left(1-\cos\phi\right)e^{-\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(s)} t}
1824: % - 2e^{-\Gamma t}\sin(\dm t)\sin\phi\right]~~~~\\
1825: % \Im\{\overline{A}_{\|}^*(t)\overline{A}_{\perp}(t)\}&=&
1826: % -|A_{\|}(0)||A_{\perp}(0)|\Bigl[e^{-\Gamma t}
1827: % \left\{\sin\delta_1\cos(\dm t)-\cos\delta_1
1828: % \sin(\dm t)\cos\phi\right\}\nonumber\\
1829: % &&+\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{-\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(s)} t}-
1830: % e^{-\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(s)} t}\right)\cos\delta_1\sin\phi\Bigr]\\
1831: % \Im\{\overline{A}_{0}^*(t)\overline{A}_{\perp}(t)\}&=&
1832: % -|A_{0}(0)||A_{\perp}(0)|\Bigl[e^{-\Gamma t}
1833: % \left\{\sin\delta_2\cos(\dm t)-\cos\delta_2\sin(\dm t)
1834: % \cos\phi\right\}\nonumber\\
1835: % &&+\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{-\Gamma_{\rm H}^{(s)} t}-e^{-\Gamma_{\rm L}^{(s)} t}
1836: % \right)\cos\delta_2\sin\phi\Bigr].
1837: % \end{eqnarray}
1838: \begin{eqnarray}
1839: |\overline{A}_0(t)|^2 &=&
1840: |A_0(0)|^2 e^{-\Gamma t} \lt[
1841: \cosh \frac{\dg \, t}{2} \, - \,
1842: |\cos \phi| \sinh \frac{|\dg| \, t}{2} \, - \,
1843: \sin \phi \, \sin (\dm\, t) \rt] \label{EQBb} \\
1844: |\overline{A}_{\|}(t)|^2 &=&
1845: |A_{\|}(0)|^2 e^{-\Gamma t} \lt[
1846: \cosh \frac{\dg \, t}{2} \, - \,
1847: |\cos \phi| \sinh \frac{|\dg| \, t}{2} \, - \,
1848: \sin \phi \, \sin (\dm\, t) \rt]
1849: \\
1850: |\overline{A}_{\perp}(t)|^2 &=&
1851: |A_{\perp}(0)|^2 e^{-\Gamma t} \lt[
1852: \cosh \frac{\dg \, t}{2} \, + \,
1853: |\cos \phi| \sinh \frac{|\dg| \, t}{2} \, + \,
1854: \sin \phi \, \sin (\dm\, t) \rt] \label{EQPb}
1855: \end{eqnarray}
1856: \begin{eqnarray}
1857: \!\!\!\!\!\!\! \Re\{\overline{A}_0^*(t) \overline{A}_{\|}(t)\} &=&
1858: |A_0(0)| \, |A_{\|}(0)| \, \cos ( \delta_2 - \delta_1 ) \,
1859: e^{-\Gamma t} \nn
1860: && \! \times \lt[
1861: \cosh \frac{\dg \, t}{2} \, - \,
1862: |\cos \phi| \sinh \frac{|\dg| \, t}{2} \, - \,
1863: \sin \phi \, \sin (\dm\, t) \rt]
1864: \label{Re-exprb} \\
1865: \!\!\!\!\!\!\! \Im\{\overline{A}_{\|}^*(t)\overline{A}_{\perp}(t)\} &=&
1866: |A_{\|}(0)| \, |A_{\perp}(0)| \, e^{-\Gamma t} \nn
1867: && \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \times \lt[
1868: -\, \sin\delta_1 \, \cos(\dm\, t) \, + \,
1869: \cos\delta_1 \, \cos\phi \, \sin(\dm\, t) \, - \,
1870: \cos\delta_1 \, \sin\phi \, \sinh \frac{\dg \, t}{2}
1871: \rt] \\
1872: \!\!\!\!\!\!\! \Im\{\overline{A}_{0}^*(t)\overline{A}_{\perp}(t)\}&=&
1873: |A_{0}(0)| \, |A_{\perp}(0)| \, e^{-\Gamma t} \nn
1874: && \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \times \lt[
1875: -\, \sin\delta_2 \, \cos(\dm\, t) \, + \,
1876: \cos\delta_2 \, \cos\phi \, \sin(\dm\, t) \, - \,
1877: \cos\delta_2 \, \sin\phi \, \sinh \frac{\dg \, t}{2}
1878: \rt] \!\! . \label{EQEb}
1879: \end{eqnarray}
1880: Note that one can determine $\sin \delta_{1,2}$, $ \cos
1881: (\delta_1-\delta_2)$, $\sin \phi$, $ \cos \delta_i \cos \phi$, \dm\
1882: and $|\dg|$ from (\ref{EQB})-(\ref{EQEb}). Using $\cos(\delta_2 -
1883: \delta_1) = \cos \delta_1 \cos \delta_2 + \sin \delta_1 \sin \delta_2
1884: $ in \eq{Re-expr} { and \eq{Re-exprb}} one realizes that these equations
1885: are invariant, if the signs of $\cos \phi$, \dg, and $\cos
1886: \delta_{1,2}$ are flipped simultaneously. { Hence an overall
1887: two-fold sign ambiguity persists and the sign of $\cos \phi$ remains
1888: undetermined.}
1889:
1890: The time evolution of the full three-angle distribution of the products
1891: of the decay chain $B_s\to J/\psi[\to l^+l^-]\, \phi[\to K^+K^-]$ provides
1892: many interesting CP-violating observables \cite{ddf1,RF-ang}.
1893: { The expressions for three-angle angular distributions can be
1894: obtained by inserting (\ref{EQB}-\ref{EQEb}) into Eqs.~(64) and (70) of
1895: \cite{ddf1}.}
1896:
1897: The situation is considerably simplified in the case of the one-angle
1898: distribution, which takes the following form \cite{ddlr,ddf1}:
1899: \begin{equation}\label{single}
1900: \frac{d \Gamma (t)}{d \cos \Theta} \propto
1901: (|A_0(t)|^2 + |A_{\|}(t)|^2)\,\frac{3}{8}\,(1 + \cos ^2 \Theta)
1902: + |A_{\perp}(t)|^2\,\frac{3}{4} \sin^2 \Theta \,.
1903: \label{angel}
1904: \end{equation}
1905: Here $\Theta$ describes the angle between the decay direction of the $l^+$
1906: and the $z$ axis in the $J/\psi$ rest frame; the $z$ axis is perpendicular
1907: to the decay plane of $\phi\to K^+K^-$. With the help of this one-angle
1908: distribution, the observables $|A_0(t)|^2 + |A_{\|}(t)|^2$ and
1909: $|A_{\perp}(t)|^2$, as well as their CP conjugates, can be determined.
1910: They provide the following CP asymmetries:
1911: \begin{equation}\label{CP1}
1912: \frac{ \left[|\overline{A}_0(t)|^2 + |\overline{A}_{\|}(t)|^2\right] -
1913: \left[|A_0(t)|^2 + |A_{\|}(t)|^2\right]
1914: }{
1915: \left[|\overline{A}_0(t)|^2 +|\overline{A}_{\|}(t)|^2\right]
1916: + \left[|A_0(t)|^2 + |A_{\|}(t)|^2\right] }
1917: \; = \;
1918: \frac{ - \sin\phi \, \sin(\dm\, t) }{
1919: \cosh (\dg\, t/2) - |\cos \phi | \sinh (|\dg|\, t/2) }
1920: \end{equation}
1921: \begin{equation}\label{CP2}
1922: \frac{ |\overline{A}_{\perp}(t)|^2 - |A_{\perp}(t)|^2 }{
1923: |\overline{A}_{\perp}(t)|^2 + |A_{\perp}(t)|^2 }
1924: \; = \;
1925: \frac{ \sin\phi \, \sin( \dm\, t) }{
1926: \cosh (\dg\, t/2) + |\cos \phi | \sinh (|\dg|\, t/2) } .
1927: \end{equation}
1928: In contrast to these CP-violating observables, untagged data samples are
1929: sufficient to determine the following quantities:
1930: \begin{eqnarray}
1931: \lefteqn{\left[|A_0(t)|^2 + |A_{\|}(t)|^2\right]+\left[|\overline{A}_0(t)|^2 +
1932: |\overline{A}_{\|}(t)|^2\right]}\nonumber\\
1933: &&~~~~~=\; 2\,
1934: \left[|A_0(0)|^2 + |A_{\|}(0)|^2\right] \, e^{-\Gamma t} \,
1935: \lt[ \cosh \frac{\dg\, t}{2} - |\cos \phi |
1936: \sinh \frac{ |\dg|\, t}{2}
1937: \rt]\label{untag1}
1938: \end{eqnarray}
1939: \begin{equation}\label{untag2}
1940: |A_{\perp}(t)|^2+|\overline{A}_{\perp}(t)|^2
1941: \; = \; 2\, |A_{\perp}(0)|^2 \, e^{-\Gamma t} \,
1942: \lt[ \cosh \frac{\dg\, t}{2} + |\cos \phi |
1943: \sinh \frac{ |\dg|\, t}{2}
1944: \rt].
1945: \end{equation}
1946: Since $\phi$ is tiny in the Standard Model, a striking signal of
1947: new-physics contributions to $B_s$--$\overline{B_s}$ mixing would be
1948: provided by
1949: a sizeable $\sin \phi$ either from a fit of the tagged
1950: observables \eq{EQB} -- \eq{EQE}, \eq{EQBb} -- \eq{EQEb}, or from the
1951: CP-violating asymmetries
1952: { in \eq{aph}}, (\ref{CP1}) and (\ref{CP2}), or if the untagged
1953: observables (\ref{untag1}) and (\ref{untag2}) should depend on {\it
1954: two} exponentials. Note that in \eq{untag1} the coefficient of $\sinh
1955: (|\dg|\, t/2)$ is always negative. Phrased differently, the
1956: coefficient of the exponential $\exp(-(\Gamma+|\dg|/2) t) $ with the
1957: larger rate is always larger than the coefficient of
1958: $\exp(-(\Gamma-|\dg|/2) t) $. In \eq{untag2} the situation is
1959: reversed. This feature can be used as an experimental consistency
1960: check, once $\dg \neq 0$ is established.
1961:
1962: Let us finally note that the formalism developed in this subsection
1963: applies also to the mode $B_s\to D_s^{\ast+}\,D_s^{\ast-}$, where the
1964: subsequent decay of the $D_s^{\ast\pm}$-mesons is predominantly
1965: electromagnetic, i.e.\ $D_s^{\ast\pm}\to D_s^{\pm}\gamma$. The
1966: corresponding angular distribution can be found in \cite{ddlr,ddf1}. The
1967: analysis of this decay requires the capability to detect photons and
1968: appears to be considerably more challenging than that of $B_s\to
1969: J/\psi\,\phi$, which is one of the ``gold-plated'' channels for
1970: $B$-physics experiments at hadron machines. Higher $D_s$ resonances
1971: exhibiting all-charged final states, for instance $D_{s1}(2536)^+\to
1972: D^{\ast+}[\to D\pi^+]\, K$, may be more promising in this
1973: respect~\cite{FD1}. If photon detection is not possible, one can still
1974: distinguish $D_s^{\ast\pm}$'s from $D_s^\pm$'s through the energy
1975: smearing associated with the escaped photon \cite{cp}. Then one can
1976: use the lifetime method introduced in sect.~\ref{sec:both} to find the
1977: CP-odd fraction $x$ ($\propto |A_{\perp}(0)|^2$) and the CP-even
1978: fraction $1-x$ ($\propto |A_0(0)|^2 + |A_{\|}(0)|^2$) of the
1979: $D_s^{\ast +} D_s^{\ast -}$ data sample through \eq{dgmx}. If
1980: $x\neq1/2$ there are still non-vanishing CP asymmetries, although they
1981: are diluted by $1- 2 x$. The corresponding formula for the CP asymmetry of this
1982: weighted average of CP-even and CP-odd final states can readily be
1983: obtained from \eq{EQB}--\eq{EQP} and \eq{EQBb}--\eq{EQPb}:
1984: \begin{eqnarray}
1985: \lefteqn{
1986: \frac{ \Gamma ( \ov{B}_s (t) \to D_s^{\ast +} D_s^{\ast -} ) -
1987: \Gamma ( B_s (t) \to D_s^{\ast +} D_s^{\ast -} )
1988: }{
1989: \Gamma ( \ov{B}_s (t) \to D_s^{\ast +} D_s^{\ast -} ) +
1990: \Gamma ( B_s (t) \to D_s^{\ast +} D_s^{\ast -} )
1991: } \; = } \nn
1992: && \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
1993: \frac{ - (1- 2x) \, \sin\phi \, \sin(\dm \, t) }{
1994: \cosh (\dg\, t/2) \, - \, (1- 2 x)\, |\cos \phi | \sinh (|\dg|\,
1995: t/2) } . \label{dilu}
1996: \end{eqnarray}
1997: The same procedure can be done with the $D_s^{\pm} D_s^{\ast \mp}$
1998: data sample or any other of the decay modes in Table~\ref{tab}.
1999:
2000: A complete angular analysis for the three-body decays in
2001: Table~\ref{tab} is more involved than the analysis for $B_s \to \psi
2002: \phi$. For example in $B_s \to \psi { K_S K_S}$, the { $K_S$} pair does
2003: not necessarily come from a vector resonance and could be in an S- or
2004: D-wave or even have a larger angular momentum. In such cases one might
2005: restrict oneself to a one-angle transversity analysis of \cite{dqstl}
2006: or even satisfy oneself with the diluted asymmetries in \eq{dilu}.
2007: %
2008: %
2009: %
2010: \boldmath
2011: %\section{The Unambiguous Determination of the\\
2012: %$B_s$--$\overline{B_s}$ Mixing Phase}\label{sec:ambig}
2013: \section{The Unambiguous Determination of $\phi$}\label{sec:ambig}
2014: \unboldmath
2015: %%Dunietz
2016: \newcommand{\sbarm}{
2017: \ensuremath{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle \! \lt( - \rt)}{S{}^{-}}}}
2018: \newcommand{\sbarp}{
2019: \ensuremath{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle \! \lt( -\rt)}{S{}^{+}}}}
2020: \newcommand{\pbm}{
2021: \ensuremath{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle \lt( +\rt)}{-}}}
2022: \newcommand{\mbp}{
2023: \ensuremath{\stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle \lt( -\rt)}{+}}}
2024: \newcommand{\gks}{\ensuremath{\Gamma_{short}}}
2025: \newcommand{\gkl}{\ensuremath{\Gamma_{long}}}
2026: \newcommand{\gk}{\ensuremath{\Gamma_K}}
2027: \newcommand{\sinphi}{\ensuremath{\sin \phi}}
2028: \newcommand{\cosphi}{\ensuremath{\cos \phi}}
2029: \newcommand{\signcos}{\ensuremath{sign(\cos \phi)}}
2030: \newcommand{\cosTwoBeta}{\ensuremath{\cos 2\widetilde{\beta}}}
2031: \newcommand{\bsbsbar}{\ensuremath{
2032: \stackrel{\scriptscriptstyle \lt( -\rt)}{B}_s}}
2033: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
2034: \newcommand{\subdecay}{
2035: \parbox[b]{2truecm}{\vspace{-10mm}
2036: \begin{picture}(18,13)
2037: \put(0,1){\line(0,1){6}}
2038: \put(0,1){\vector(1,0){18}}
2039: \end{picture}
2040: }}
2041:
2042: While \sinphi\ can be measured by conventional methods, this section
2043: shows that even \signcos\ can be determined. That determination is
2044: important { for various reasons. It is not only necessary for a
2045: complete extraction of magnitude and phase of the new physics
2046: contributions to \bbms, $\phi$ must also be known to extract the CKM
2047: angle $\gamma$ from $B_s \to D_s^{\pm} K^{\mp}$. Even if $\sin \phi$
2048: is found to be consistent with zero, the determination of \signcos\ is
2049: necessary to distinguish the Standard Model prediction
2050: $\cosphi \simeq 1$} from $\cosphi \simeq -1$. In the advent of new physics,
2051: \signcos\ completes our knowledge about $\phi$. There are several
2052: methods to extract $\cosphi$.
2053: % ulifr: isick why not instead \cosphi\
2054:
2055: % \paragraph{Method 1:}
2056: % The previous Section revealed that angular correlation studies of
2057: % $B_s \to \psi \phi$ determine
2058: % \begin{eqnarray}
2059: % \cos \delta_i \cosphi
2060: % \label{cosDeltaCosPhi} .
2061: % \end{eqnarray}
2062: % Once $sign( \cos \delta_i )$ is known, \signcos\ follows immediately.
2063: % The former can be deduced from their $SU(3)$
2064: % counterparts occurring in
2065: % $B_d \to \psi K^* [\to \pi^0 K_S], \psi \rho^0, \psi \omega$ decays
2066: % [denoted by $sign( \cos \widehat{\delta}_i )$],
2067: % as follows:
2068: %
2069: % The angular correlations of those $B_d$ modes are sensitive to
2070: % \cite{dqstl,ddf1}
2071: %
2072: % $$\cos 2 \widetilde{\beta} \cos \widehat{\delta}_i . $$ Since there
2073: % are methods which extract the \bbmd\ phase $2 \widetilde{\beta}$
2074: % unambiguously even in the presence of new physics
2075: % \cite{azimovRappaport,kayserLondon,kayser,soaresQuinn,charles},
2076: % \cosTwoBeta\ will be
2077: % known and
2078: % $\cos \widehat{\delta}_i$ can be extracted. In the absence of new physics,
2079: % $\widetilde{\beta}$ equals the angle $\beta$ of the CKM unitarity triangle.
2080: %
2081: % \signcos\ can thus be determined
2082: % from the observable \eq{cosDeltaCosPhi}, by applying the SU(3) relation
2083: % \footnote{
2084: % Note that Ref.~\cite{ddfAmbig} implicitly assumes $\cosphi > 0$ when it
2085: % determines $sign( \cosTwoBeta)$. Once new physics effects are considered,
2086: % \cosphi\ may be negative, and method 1 { is still applicable}.
2087: % Combining $B_s \to \psi \phi$ and $B_d \to \psi K^* [\to \pi^0 K_S],
2088: % \psi \rho^0, \psi \omega$ studies measures the relative sign between
2089: % \cosTwoBeta\ and \cosphi\ , but the absolute sign cannot be
2090: % determined. External information is required to determine that
2091: % absolute sign and can be obtained, see
2092: % Refs.~\cite{azimovRappaport,kayserLondon,kayser,soaresQuinn,charles}.
2093: % }
2094: % %end footnote
2095: % $$sign(\cos \delta_i) = sign(\cos \widehat{\delta}_i) .$$
2096: %
2097: % { Progress in first-principle calculations of $\delta_i$ could even
2098: % make our SU(3) considerations unnecessary and determine $sign(\cos
2099: % \delta_i)$ from theory \cite{bbns}.}
2100:
2101: \paragraph{Method 1:}
2102: The previous section revealed that angular correlation studies of
2103: $B_s \to \psi \phi$ determine
2104: \begin{eqnarray}
2105: \cos \delta_i \cosphi
2106: \label{cosDeltaCosPhi} .
2107: \end{eqnarray}
2108: Once $sign( \cos \delta_i )$ is known, \signcos\ follows immediately.
2109: The former can be deduced from theory, once first-principle
2110: calculations of $\delta_i$ have progressed sufficiently~\cite{bbns}.
2111: Alternatively, one can infer $sign( \cos \delta_i )$ from their
2112: SU(3) counterparts occurring in $B_d \to \psi K^* [\to \pi^0 K_S],
2113: \psi \rho^0, \psi \omega$ decays [denoted by $sign( \cos
2114: \widehat{\delta}_i )$], as follows:
2115:
2116: The angular correlations of those $B_d$ modes are sensitive to
2117: \cite{dqstl,ddf1}
2118:
2119: $$\cos \widehat{\delta}_i \cos 2 \widetilde{\beta} . $$
2120: By applying the SU(3) relation
2121: %\footnote{
2122: %Note that Ref.~\cite{ddfAmbig} implicitly assumes $\cosphi > 0$ when it
2123: %determines $sign( \cosTwoBeta)$. Once new physics effects are considered,
2124: %\cosphi\ may be negative, and method 1 is still applicable.
2125: %}
2126: %end footnote
2127: $$sign(\cos \delta_i) = sign(\cos \widehat{\delta}_i) ,$$
2128: the relative
2129: sign between \cosTwoBeta\ and \cosphi\ can be determined, but not yet
2130: the absolute sign of \cosphi. That absolute sign can be determined,
2131: since there are methods which extract the \bbmd\ phase $2
2132: \widetilde{\beta}$ unambiguously, even in the presence of new physics
2133: \cite{azimovRappaport,kayserLondon,kayser,soaresQuinn,charles}. In
2134: the absence of new physics, $\widetilde{\beta}$ equals the angle
2135: $\beta$ of the CKM unitarity triangle. In Ref.~\cite{ddfAmbig},
2136: basically the same approach was used to determine the sign of $\cos
2137: 2\tilde\beta$. However, in that paper it was assumed that $\phi$ is
2138: negligibly small, as in the Standard Model. On the other hand, in
2139: method 1 we assume that $2\tilde\beta$ is known unambiguously,
2140: allowing the determination of $\cos\phi$. Using a theoretical input
2141: \cite{bbns} to determine $sign(\cos\delta_i)$ as noted above, the
2142: angular distribution of the $B_d\to J/\psi(\to
2143: l^+l^-)K^{*0}(\to\pi^0K_S)$ decay products considered in
2144: Ref.~\cite{ddfAmbig} also allows an unambiguous determination of
2145: $2\tilde\beta$ in the presence of $\phi\not=0$.
2146:
2147:
2148: \paragraph{Method 2:}
2149: Consider certain three- (or $n$-) body modes $f$ that can be fed from both
2150: a $B_s$ and a $\ov B_s$, and where the \bsbsbar\ -decay amplitude is
2151: a sum over a non-resonant contribution and several contributions via
2152: quasi two-body modes. The strong phase variation can be modelled by
2153: Breit-Wigners and is known, so that \cosphi\ can be extracted. Such a method
2154: was suggested in determining $\cos 2 \alpha$
2155: and \cosTwoBeta\ in $B_d$ decays \cite{charles}.
2156:
2157: An additional method can be found elsewhere~\cite{cascadeMethod}.
2158:
2159:
2160: %
2161: %
2162: %
2163:
2164:
2165:
2166:
2167: %
2168: %
2169: %
2170: \section{Conclusions}\label{sec:concl}
2171: %
2172: %
2173: %
2174: In this paper we have addressed the experimental signatures of a
2175: non-vanishing CP-violating phase $\phi$ in the \bbms\ amplitude. Since
2176: $\phi$ is negligibly small in the Standard Model, but sizeable in many
2177: of its extensions, it provides an excellent ground for the search of
2178: new physics. We have discussed the determination of $\phi$ from both
2179: untagged and tagged decays in CP-specific $B_s$ decay modes triggered
2180: by the dominant quark level decays $\ov{b} \to \ov{c} c \ov{s}$ and
2181: $\ov{b} \to \ov{c} u \ov{d}$. From lifetime measurements in these modes
2182: one can find the product of $\cos \phi$ and the width difference $\dg$
2183: in the $B_s$ system. The previously proposed methods to separately
2184: determine $|\dg|$ and $|\cos \phi|$ from untagged decay modes require
2185: two-exponential fits to the time evolution of either flavour-specific
2186: or CP-specific decay modes. In both cases terms of order $(\dg)^2$
2187: must be experimentally resolved, which requires a substantially higher
2188: statistics than needed to measure $\dg \cos \phi$. We have proposed a
2189: new method to measure $|\dg|$ and $|\cos \phi|$, which only requires
2190: lifetime fits to the collected data samples with double-charm final
2191: states. This method does not require sensitivity to ${\cal O}
2192: ((\dg)^2)$ terms. It is based on the observation that the measurement
2193: of $\dg$ from branching ratios discussed in \cite{ayopr} and performed
2194: in \cite{aleph} is almost unaffected by new physics. These branching
2195: ratios and $\dg \cos \phi$ obtained from the lifetime fits allow one to
2196: solve for $|\dg|$ and $|\cos \phi|$. In this context we have stressed
2197: that the lifetime measurements also allow one to determine the size of the
2198: CP-even and CP-odd components of $D_s^{\ast +} D_s^{\ast -}$ and
2199: $D_s^{\pm} D_s^{\ast \mp}$ final states. This is relevant for
2200: experiments which cannot detect photons { well enough} and therefore
2201: cannot separate these components with angular analyses. We have
2202: further mentioned that a non-zero phase $\phi$ leads to tiny $\dm\, t$
2203: oscillations in untagged data samples. This implies that { in
2204: principle} the measurement of { CP violation in mixing from}
2205: flavour-specific decays does not require tagging.
2206:
2207: For the tagged analyses we have generalized the formulae for the CP
2208: asymmetries to the case of a non-zero $\phi$. Here we have discussed in
2209: detail the expressions needed for the angular analysis in $B_s \to
2210: \psi \phi $ decays or other final states composed of two vector
2211: particles. Finally we have shown how the discrete ambiguities in
2212: $\phi$ encountered with the measurements of $|\cos \phi|$ and $\sin
2213: \phi$ can be resolved and $\phi$ can be determined unambiguously.
2214: This is important, even if $\sin \phi$ is found to be consistent
2215: with zero, because it distinguishes the Standard Model case
2216: $\phi\simeq 0$ from the case $\phi\simeq \pi$. If there are new
2217: particles which couple to quarks with the same CKM elements as $W$
2218: bosons, there can be new contributions to the \bbms\ amplitude
2219: with larger magnitude, but opposite sign than the Standard Model box
2220: diagram. In this case one encounters $\phi\simeq \pi$. This situation
2221: can occur in multi-Higgs doublet models and in supersymmetric models
2222: with flavour universality. From a measurement of \dm\ alone the
2223: contributions from the Standard Model and from new physics to the
2224: \bbms\ amplitude cannot be separated. The new contribution can only
2225: be determined by combining the measurements of \dm\ and
2226: $\phi$. Consider, for example, that \dm\ is measured in agreement with
2227: the Standard Model prediction: the new physics contribution to \bbms\
2228: then varies between 0 and twice the { Standard Model prediction},
2229: if $\phi$ is varied between 0 and $\pm \pi$.
2230:
2231: \section*{Acknowledgements}
2232: I.D.\ and U.N.\ thank Farrukh Azfar, Stephen Bailey, Harry
2233: Cheung, Petar Maksimovic, Matthew Martin, Hans-G\"unther Moser and
2234: Christoph Paus for illuminating discussions.
2235:
2236:
2237:
2238:
2239: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2240:
2241: \bibitem{revs}For reviews, see, for instance, {\it The \babar Physics Book},
2242: eds.\ P.F. Harrison and H.R.~Quinn (SLAC report 504, October 1998). Y. Nir,
2243: published in the proceedings of the {\it 18th International Symposium on
2244: Lepton--Photon Interactions (LP '97)}, Hamburg, Germany, 28 July--1~August
2245: 1997, eds.\ A. De Roeck and A. Wagner (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998),
2246: p.\ 295 [hep-ph/9709301]. M. Gronau, { Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\
2247: Suppl.}~{\bf 65} (1998) 245. R. Fleischer,
2248: published in the proceedings of the {\it 6th International
2249: Conference on $B$-Physics at Hadron Machines (BEAUTY '99)}, Bled, Slovenia,
2250: 21--25 June 1999, Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ {\bf A446} (2000) 1.
2251: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709301;%%
2252: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705440;%%
2253: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908340;%%
2254:
2255: \bibitem{new-phys}For reviews, see Y. Grossman, Y. Nir and R. Rattazzi,
2256: in {\it Heavy Flavours II}, eds.\ A.~Buras and M. Lindner (World Scientific,
2257: Singapore, 1998) [hep-ph/9701231]. M. Gronau and D.~London,
2258: { Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D55} (1997) 2845. Y. Nir and H.R. Quinn,
2259: { Annu.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.}~{\bf 42} (1992) 211. R. Fleischer,
2260: published in the proceedings
2261: of the {\it 7th International Symposium on Heavy Flavor Physics},
2262: Santa Barbara, California, 7--11 July 1997, ed.\ C.~Campagnari
2263: (World Scientific,
2264: Singapore, 1999), p.~155 [hep-ph/9709291].
2265: L. Wolfenstein, { Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D57} (1998) 6857.
2266: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9701231;%%
2267: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608430;%%
2268: %%CITATION = ARNUA,42,211;%%
2269: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709291;%%
2270: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801386;%%
2271:
2272: \bibitem{s}
2273: S.~Sultansoy, hep-ph/0004271.
2274: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004271;%%
2275:
2276: \bibitem{gnr}
2277: Y.~Grossman, Y.~Nir and R.~Rattazzi, in Ref.~\cite{new-phys}.
2278: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9701231;%%
2279:
2280: \bibitem{ggms}
2281: F.~Gabbiani, E.~Gabrielli, A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini,
2282: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B477} (1996) 321.
2283: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604387;%%
2284:
2285: \bibitem{n}
2286: A.~I.~Sanda,
2287: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 55} (1985) 2653.
2288: %%CITATION = PRLTA,55,2653;%%
2289: Y.~Nir, Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 109A} (1996) 991.
2290: %%%CITATION = HEP-PH 9507290;%%
2291: G.~C.~Branco, L.~Lavoura and J.~P.~Silva,
2292: \emph{CP violation}, (Clarendon, Oxford, 1999).
2293: I.~I.~Bigi and A.~I.~Sanda,
2294: \emph{CP violation},
2295: (University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
2296:
2297:
2298: \bibitem{nirsil}Y. Nir and D. Silverman, { Nucl.\ Phys.}~{\bf B345}
2299: (1990) 301.
2300: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B345,301;%%
2301:
2302: \bibitem{silver}D. Silverman, { Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D58} (1998) 095006.
2303: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806489;%%
2304:
2305: \bibitem{bfNP}
2306: P.~Ball and R.~Fleischer,
2307: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B475} (2000) 111.
2308: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912319;%%
2309:
2310:
2311: \bibitem{hc} Harry Cheung, \textit{private communication}.
2312:
2313: \bibitem{ddlr}
2314: A.S.~Dighe, I. Dunietz,
2315: H.J. Lipkin and J.L. Rosner, { Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B369} (1996) 144.
2316: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511363;%%
2317:
2318: \bibitem{ddf1}
2319: A.S. Dighe, I. Dunietz and R. Fleischer,
2320: { Eur.\ Phys. J.}~{\bf C6} (1999) 647.
2321: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804253;%%
2322:
2323: \bibitem{pm}
2324: F. Azfar, S. Bailey, % J. B. Gonzalez,
2325: J. G. Heinrich,
2326: { N.~S.~Lockyer,}
2327: P. Maksimovic\newline
2328: [CDF Collaboration], \textit{private communication}.
2329:
2330: \bibitem{d}
2331: J.D.~Bjorken and I.~Dunietz, { Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D36} (1987)
2332: 2109.
2333: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D36,2109;%%
2334: I.~Dunietz,
2335: Ann.~Phys.\ {\bf 184} (1988) 350.
2336: %%CITATION = APNYA,184,350;%%
2337:
2338:
2339: \bibitem{dr}
2340: I.~Dunietz and J.~L.~Rosner,
2341: %``Time Dependent CP Violation Effects In B0 Anti-B0 Systems,''
2342: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D34} (1986) 1404.
2343: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D34,1404;%%
2344:
2345:
2346: \bibitem{ayopr}
2347: R.~Aleksan, A.~Le Yaouanc, L.~Oliver, O.~P\`ene and J.~C.~Raynal,
2348: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B316} (1993) 567.
2349: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B316,567;%%
2350:
2351: \bibitem{RF-psiK}
2352: R. Fleischer, { Eur.\ Phys. J.}~{\bf C10} (1999) 299.
2353: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903455;%%
2354:
2355: \bibitem{wolf}L. Wolfenstein,
2356: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 51} (1983) 1945.
2357: %%CITATION = PRLTA,51,1945;%%
2358:
2359: {
2360: \bibitem{pdg}
2361: D.~E.~Groom {\it et al.},
2362: %``Review of particle physics,''
2363: \emph{Review of Particle Physics},
2364: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ {\bf C15} (2000) 1.
2365: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C15,1;%%
2366: }
2367:
2368: % \bibitem{ksuv}
2369: % V.~A.~Khoze, M.~A.~Shifman, N.~G.~Uraltsev and M.~B.~Voloshin,
2370: % Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 46} (1987) 112.
2371: % %%CITATION = SJNCA,46,112;%%
2372:
2373:
2374: \bibitem{dun}
2375: I. Dunietz, { Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D52} (1995) 3048.
2376: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9501287;%%
2377:
2378: \bibitem{g}
2379: Y.~Grossman,
2380: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B380} (1996) 99.
2381: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603244;%%
2382:
2383: \bibitem{bbd}
2384: M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla and I.~Dunietz,
2385: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D54} (1996) 4419.
2386: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605259;%%
2387:
2388: \bibitem{bbgln}
2389: M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, C.~Greub, A.~Lenz and U.~Nierste,
2390: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B459} (1999) 631.
2391: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808385;%%
2392:
2393: \bibitem{fbs}
2394: S.~Hashimoto,
2395: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 83-84} (2000) 3.
2396: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9909136;%%
2397:
2398: \bibitem{hioy}
2399: N.~Yamada et al.\ (JLQCD coll.), contr.\ to the \textit{18th Intern.\
2400: Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice 2000)}, Bangalore, India,
2401: 17-22 Aug 2000, hep-lat/0010089.
2402: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0010089;%%
2403:
2404: \bibitem{bmrglm}
2405: D.~Becirevic, D.~Meloni, A.~Retico, V.~Gimenez, V.~Lubicz and G.~Martinelli,
2406: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 18} (2000) 157.
2407: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006135;%%
2408:
2409: \bibitem{aleph}
2410: R.~Barate \emph{et al.}\ [ALEPH coll.], Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B486} (2000) 286.
2411: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B486,286;%%
2412:
2413: \bibitem{sv} %SV limit
2414: M.~A.~Shifman and M.~B.~Voloshin,
2415: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 47} (1988) 511.
2416: %%CITATION = SJNCA,47,511;%%
2417:
2418: \bibitem{bbsuv}
2419: I.~Bigi, B.~Blok, M.~Shifman, N.~Uraltsev and A.~Vainshtein,
2420: in \emph{B decays}, ed.~S.~Stone, revised 2nd edition, p.~132--157,
2421: hep-ph/9401298.
2422: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9401298;%%
2423: M.~Neubert and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
2424: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B483} (1997) 339.
2425: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603202;%%
2426:
2427: \bibitem{kn}
2428: Y.~Keum and U.~Nierste,
2429: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D57} (1998) 4282.
2430: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710512;%%
2431:
2432: \bibitem{hm}
2433: K.~Hartkorn and H.~G.~Moser,
2434: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ {\bf C8} (1999) 381.
2435: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C8,381;%%
2436:
2437: \bibitem{sim}
2438: P. Kooijman and N. Zaitsev, LHCb NOTE 98067.
2439: M.~Smizanska [ATLAS coll.], talk at
2440: \emph{6th Conference on B Physics with Hadron Machines},
2441: 21--25 Jun 1999, Bled, Slovenia.
2442: Harry Cheung, talk at \emph{Second Workshop on
2443: B Physics at the Tevatron,
2444: Run II and Beyond}, 24--26 Feb 2000, Batavia, USA.
2445:
2446:
2447: \bibitem{mm}
2448: F.~Azfar, L.~Lyons, M.~Martin, C.~Paus and J.~Tseng,
2449: CDF note no.~5351.
2450:
2451:
2452: \bibitem{cern}
2453: Report of the $b$-decay Working Group of the Workshop
2454: \emph{Standard Model Physics (and More) at the LHC},
2455: P.~Ball {\it et al.},
2456: CERN-TH/2000-101 [hep-ph/0003238].
2457: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003238;%%
2458:
2459:
2460: \bibitem{cdf}
2461: F.~Abe {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
2462: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D57} (1998) 5382.
2463: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D57,5382;%%
2464:
2465: \bibitem{cp}
2466: Christoph Paus
2467: [CDF Collaboration], \textit{private communication}.
2468:
2469: \bibitem{semi}
2470: F.~Abe {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
2471: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D59} (1999) 032004.
2472: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9808003;%%
2473: A.~Borgland {\it et al.}\ [DELPHI Collaboration], talk at
2474: \emph{EPS-HEP 99 conference}, 15--21 Jul 1999, Tampere, Finland.
2475:
2476: \bibitem{l3}
2477: M.~Acciarri {\it et al.} [L3 Collaboration],
2478: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B438} (1998) 417.
2479: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B438,417;%%
2480:
2481: \bibitem{y}
2482: H.~Yamamoto,
2483: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 65} (1998) 236;
2484: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707427;%%
2485: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B401} (1997) 91.
2486: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703336;%%
2487:
2488:
2489: \bibitem{os}
2490: A.~Stocchi,
2491: talk at
2492: \emph{ICHEP 2000 Conference}, 7 Jul -- 2 Aug 2000, Osaka, Japan.
2493:
2494:
2495: \bibitem{pol}J.L. Rosner, { Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D42} (1990) 3732.
2496: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D42,3732;%%
2497:
2498: \bibitem{RF-ang}R. Fleischer, { Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D60} (1999) 073008.
2499: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903540;%%
2500:
2501: \bibitem{FD}R. Fleischer and I. Dunietz, { Phys.\ Lett.}~{\bf B387}
2502: (1996) 361. R. Fleischer,
2503: { Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D58} (1998) 093001.
2504: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605221;%%
2505: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605220;%%
2506: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710331;%%
2507:
2508: \bibitem{FD1}R. Fleischer and I. Dunietz, { Phys.\ Rev.}~{\bf D55}
2509: (1997) 259.
2510: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605220;%%
2511:
2512: \def\plb#1#2#3{{ Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf #1B}, #3 (19#2)}
2513: \def\prd#1#2#3{{ Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D#1}, #2 (19#3)}
2514:
2515: \bibitem{dqstl}
2516: I. Dunietz, H. Quinn, A. Snyder, W. Toki and H.J. Lipkin,
2517: Phys.\ Rev.~{\bf D43} (1991) 2193.
2518: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,2193;%%
2519:
2520: \bibitem{bbns}
2521: M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, M.~Neubert and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
2522: hep-ph/0006124. { For a different approach see}
2523: Y.~Keum, H.~Li and A.~I.~Sanda, hep-ph/0004004.
2524: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006124;%%
2525: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004004;%%
2526:
2527: \bibitem{azimovRappaport}
2528: Ya.I.~Azimov, V.L.~Rappoport and V.V.~Sarantsev,
2529: Z.~Phys.~{\bf A356} (1997) 437.
2530: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608478;%%
2531:
2532: \bibitem{kayserLondon}
2533: B. Kayser and D. London, Phys.Rev. {\bf D61} (2000) 116012.
2534: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909560;%%
2535:
2536: \bibitem{kayser}
2537: B. Kayser, published in the proceedings of {\it 30th Rencontres de Moriond:
2538: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories}, Meribel les Allues,
2539: France, 11--18 Mar 1995, ed.\ J. Tran Thanh
2540: Van (Editions Fronti\`eres, Paris 1997), p.\ 389.
2541: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9509386;%%
2542:
2543: \bibitem{soaresQuinn}
2544: H. R. Quinn et al., hep-ph/0008021.
2545: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008021;%%
2546:
2547:
2548: \bibitem{charles}
2549: J. Charles, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. P\`ene
2550: and J.-C. Raynal, Phys.\ Lett.~{\bf B425} (1998) 375.
2551: T.E. Browder et al., Phys.\ Rev.~{\bf D61} (2000) 054009.
2552: One of the earlier discussions of the method can be found
2553: in A.E. Snyder and H.R. Quinn, \prd{48}{93}{2139}.
2554: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801363;%%
2555: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905425;%%
2556: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D48,2139;%%
2557:
2558: \bibitem{ddfAmbig}
2559: A.S. Dighe, I. Dunietz and R. Fleischer,
2560: Phys.\ Lett.~{\bf B433} (1998) 147.
2561: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804254;%%
2562:
2563: \bibitem{cascadeMethod} I. Dunietz, in progress.
2564:
2565: \end{thebibliography}
2566: \end{document}
2567:
2568:
2569:
2570:
2571: