1: % Talk at XXI Brazilian Meeting on Particles and Fields
2: % Sao Lourenco, Minas Gerais, October 23-26, 2000
3: % Draft as of Jan. 8, 2000
4: \documentstyle[epsfig,twocolumn,aps,prd]{revtex}
5: % \documentstyle[twocolumn,aps,prd]{revtex}
6: \def \b{B^0}
7: \def \bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
8: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
9: \def \d{D^0}
10: \def \eea{\end{eqnarray}}
11: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
12: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No. EFI}
13: \def \ipp{I_{\pi \pi}}
14: \def \k{K^0}
15: \def \m{{\cal M}}
16: \def \ob{\overline{B^0}}
17: \def \od{\overline{D^0}}
18: \def \ok{\overline{K}^0}
19: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
20: \def \tl{\tilde{\lambda}}
21: % Journal and other miscellaneous abbreviations for references
22: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.\ J. Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
23: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
24: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.\ Polonica {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
25: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
26: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
27: \def \cn{Collaboration}
28: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,
29: Singapore, 1989)}
30: \def \econf#1#2#3{Electronic Conference Proceedings {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
31: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
32: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and
33: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by
34: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
35: Batavia, IL, 1979}
36: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and
37: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel
38: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl.\ Phys.\ B, Proc.\ Suppl.\, vol. 3) (North-Holland,
39: Amsterdam, 1988)}
40: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
41: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
42: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High
43: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,
44: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,
45: IL, 1972)}
46: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
47: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
48: \def \jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
49: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.\ Phys.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
50: \def \lg{{\it Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on
51: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, August 9--14 1999,
52: edited by J. Jaros and M. Peskin (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)}
53: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of
54: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --
55: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore,
56: 1987)}
57: \def \kdvs#1#2#3{Kong.\ Danske Vid.\ Selsk., Matt-fys.\ Medd.\ {\bf #1}, No.~#2
58: (#3)}
59: \def \ky85{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and
60: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.
61: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}
62: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
63: \def \nat#1#2#3{Nature {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
64: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
65: \def \np#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
66: \def \npbps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
67: \def \os{XXX International Conference on High Energy Physics, Osaka, Japan,
68: July 27 -- August 2, 2000}
69: \def \PDG{Particle Data Group, C. Caso \ite, \epjc{15}{1-878}{2000}}
70: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP
71: Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}
72: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
73: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
74: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
75: \def \pr#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
76: \def \prc#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
77: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
78: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
79: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
80: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
81: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
82: \def \rp#1{~~~~~\ldots\ldots{\rm rp~}{#1}~~~~~}
83: \def \si90{25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore,
84: Aug. 2-8, 1990}
85: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of
86: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),
87: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}
88: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on
89: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.
90: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}
91: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary
92: Particle Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.
93: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}
94: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the
95: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass, Colorado),
96: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}
97: \def \tasi{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990
98: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,
99: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker
100: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}
101: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\ J. Nucl.\ Phys.\
102: {\bf #1}, #4 (#3)]}
103: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\
104: Phys.\ - JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}
105: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
106: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
107: % End of journal definitions
108: \begin{document}
109: \topmargin -0.1in
110: \title{CP Violation: Past, Present, and Future$^*$}
111: \author{Jonathan L. Rosner}
112: \address{Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics \\
113: University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 USA}
114: \maketitle
115: \begin{abstract}
116: We discuss the history of CP violation and its
117: manifestations in kaon physics, its explanation in terms of phases of the
118: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix describing charge-changing weak quark
119: transitions, predictions for experiments involving
120: $B$ mesons, and the light it can shed on physics beyond the Standard Model.
121: \end{abstract}
122:
123: \section{Introduction}
124:
125: CP symmetry and its violation are important guides to fundamental quark
126: properties and to the understanding of the matter-antimatter asymmetry
127: of the Universe. In this review, an updated version of one presented
128: earlier in the year \cite{PR}, we describe past, present, and future
129: aspects of CP violation studies. After an illustration of fundamental
130: discrete symmetries in Maxwell's equations (Sec.\ II), we recall the history of
131: CP violation's discovery \cite{CCFT} in the decays of neutral kaons
132: (Sec.\ III). The product CPT so far seems to be conserved, as is expected in
133: local Lorentz-invariant quantum field theories \cite{CPT}. We then discuss the
134: electroweak theory's explanation of CP violation \cite{KM} in terms of phases
135: of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) \cite{KM,Cab} matrix in
136: Sec.\ IV), and mention some present tests of this theory with kaons (Sec.\ V)
137: $B$ mesons (Sec.\ VI), and charmed particles (Sec.\ VII). The future of CP
138: violation studies (Sec.\ VIII) is very rich, with a wide variety of experiments
139: relevant to physics beyond the Standard Model and the baryon asymmetry of
140: the Universe.
141:
142: \section{DISCRETE SYMMETRIES IN MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS}
143:
144: The behavior of the Maxwell equations under the discrete symmetries P
145: (parity), T (time reversal), C (charge conjugation), and CPT is summarized in
146: Table \ref{tab:max}. Each term behaves as shown.
147:
148: % This is Table I
149: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
150: \begin{table}[h]
151: \caption{Behavior of Maxwell's equations under discrete symmetries.
152: \label{tab:max}}
153: \begin{center}
154: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c}
155: Equation & P & T & C & CPT \\
156: $\nabla \cdot {\bf E} = 4 \pi \rho$ & $+$ & $+$ & $-$ & $-$ \\
157: $\nabla \cdot {\bf B} = 0$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ \\
158: $\nabla \times {\bf B} - \frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial {\bf E}}{\partial t} =
159: \frac{4 \pi}{c}{\bf j}$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ \\
160: $\nabla \times {\bf E} + \frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t} = 0$
161: & $+$ & $+$ & $-$ & $-$ \\
162: \end{tabular}
163: \end{center}
164: \end{table}
165:
166: Under P, we have
167: \bea
168: {\bf E}({\bf x},t) & \to & - {\bf E}(-{\bf x},t),~~~
169: {\bf B}({\bf x},t) \to {\bf B}(-{\bf x},t), \\
170: \nabla & \to & - \nabla,~~ {\bf j}({\bf x},t) \to - {\bf j}({\bf -x},t).
171: \eea
172: Electric fields change in sign while magnetic fields do not, and
173: currents change in direction. Under T,
174: \bea
175: {\bf E}({\bf x},t) & \to & {\bf E}({\bf x},-t),~~~
176: {\bf B}({\bf x},t) \to - {\bf B}({\bf x},-t), \\
177: \partial/\partial t & \to & - \partial/\partial t,~~~
178: {\bf j}({\bf x},t) \to - {\bf j}({\bf x}, -t).
179: \eea
180: Magnetic fields change in sign while electric fields do not, since
181: directions of currents are reversed. Under C,
182: \bea
183: {\bf E}({\bf x},t) & \to & - {\bf E}({\bf x},t),~~~
184: {\bf B}({\bf x},t) \to - {\bf B}({\bf x},t), \\
185: \rho({\bf x},t) & \to & - \rho({\bf x},t),~~~
186: {\bf j}({\bf x},t) \to - {\bf j}({\bf x}, t).
187: \eea
188: Both electric and magnetic fields change sign, since their sources
189: $\rho$ and ${\bf j}$ change sign. Finally, under CPT, space and time are
190: inverted but electric and magnetic fields retain their signs:
191: \beq
192: {\bf E}({\bf x},t) \to {\bf E}({\bf -x},-t),~~~
193: {\bf B}({\bf x},t) = {\bf B}(-{\bf x},-t).
194: \eeq
195:
196: A fundamental term in the Lagrangian
197: behaving as ${\bf E} \cdot {\bf B}$, while Lorentz covariant, would violate P
198: and T. Such a term seems to be strongly suppressed, in view of the small
199: value of the neutron electric dipole moment. Its absence is a mystery, but
200: several possible reasons have been proposed (see, e.g., \cite{SCPrev}).
201:
202: \section{CP SYMMETRY FOR KAONS}
203:
204: Some neutral particles, such as the photon, the neutral pion, and the $Z^0$,
205: are their own antiparticles, while some -- those carrying nonzero quantum
206: numbers -- are not. The
207: neutral kaon $K^0$, discovered in 1946 \cite{RB} in cosmic radiation, was
208: assigned a ``strangeness'' quantum number $S=1$ in the classification
209: scheme of Gell-Mann and Nishijima \cite{GN} in order to explain its
210: strong production and weak decay. Production would conserve strangeness,
211: while the weaker decay process would not. For this scheme to make sense it
212: was then necessary that there also exist an anti-kaon, the $\ok$, with $S=-1$.
213:
214: As Gell-Mann described this scheme at a seminar at the University of Chicago,
215: Enrico Fermi asked him what distinguished the $\ok$ from the $K^0$ if both
216: could decay to $\pi \pi$, as seemed to be observed. This question led
217: Gell-Mann and Pais \cite{GP} to propose that the states of definite mass and
218: lifetime were
219:
220: \bea
221: K_1 & = & \frac{K^0 + \ok}{\s}~~~(C = +), \\
222: K_2 & = & \frac{K^0 - \ok}{\s}~~~(C = -), \\
223: \eea
224: with the $K_1$ allowed by C invariance (then thought to be a property of
225: weak interactions) to decay to $\pi\pi$ and the $K_2$ forbidden to decay to
226: $\pi \pi$. The $K_2$ would be allowed to decay only to three-body final states
227: such as $\pi^+ \pi^- \pi^0$ and thus would have a much longer lifetime. It
228: was looked for and found in 1956 \cite{KL}.
229: The discovery that the weak interactions violated C and P but apparently
230: preserved the product CP \cite{CPK} led to a recasting of the above argument
231: through the identification $CP(K_1) = +(K_1)$, $CP(K_2) = -(K_2)$.
232:
233: The $K_1$--$K_2$ system can be illustrated using a degenerate two-state
234: example such as a pair of coupled pendula \cite{BW} or
235: the first excitations of a drum head. There is no way to
236: distinguish between the basis states illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:dh}(a),
237: in which the nodal lines are at angles of $\pm 45^\circ$ with respect to
238: the horizontal, and those in Fig.\ \ref{fig:dh}(b), in which they are
239: horizontal and vertical.
240:
241: % This is Figure 1
242: \begin{figure}
243: \centerline{\epsfysize = 2in \epsffile {dh.ps}}
244: \caption{Basis states for first excitations of a drum head. (a) Nodal
245: lines at $\pm 45^\circ$ with respect to horizontal; (b) horizontal and
246: vertical nodal lines.
247: \label{fig:dh}}
248: \end{figure}
249:
250: If a fly lands on the drum-head at the point marked ``$\times$'', the
251: basis (b) corresponds to eigenstates. One of the modes couples to the
252: fly; the other doesn't. The basis in (a) is like that of $(K^0,\ok)$, while
253: that in (b) is like that of $(K_1,K_2)$. Neutral kaons are produced as in
254: (a), while they decay as in (b), with the fly analogous to the $\pi \pi$
255: state. The short-lived state ($K_1$, in this CP-conserving approximation)
256: has a lifetime of 0.089 ns, while the long-lived state ($\simeq K_2$) lives
257: $\sim 600$ times as long, for 52 ns.
258:
259: In 1964 Christenson, Cronin, Fitch, and Turlay \cite{CCFT} found that indeed
260: one in about 500 long-lived neutral kaons {\it did} decay to $\pi^+ \pi^-$, and
261: one in about 1000 decayed to $\pi^0 \pi^0$. The states of definite mass and
262: lifetime could then be written, approximately, as
263: \bea
264: K_S~({\rm ``short"}) \simeq K_1 + \epsilon K_2, \nonumber \\
265: K_L~({\rm ``long"}) \simeq K_2 + \epsilon K_1 \label{eqn:es},
266: \eea
267: with a parameter $\epsilon$ whose magnitude was about $2 \times 10^{-3}$ and
268: whose phase was about $45^\circ$. Since the states of definite mass and
269: lifetime were no longer CP eigenstates, CP had to be violated {\it somewhere}.
270: However, for many years $\epsilon$ was the only parameter describing CP
271: violation. One could measure its magnitude and phase more and more precisely
272: (including learning about Re($\epsilon$) through a study of charge asymmetries
273: in $K_L \to \pi^\pm l^\mp \nu$), but its origin remained a mystery. One
274: viable theory included a ``superweak'' one \cite{SW} which postulated a new
275: interaction mixing $K^0 = d \bar s$ and $\ok = s \bar d$ but with no other
276: consequences.
277:
278: Kobayashi and Maskawa offered a new opportunity to describe CP violation by
279: boldly postulating three quark families \cite{KM} when charm (the last member
280: of the second family) had not yet
281: even been firmly established. In the diagram of Fig.\ \ref{fig:kbox}
282: describing the second-order weak transition $d \bar s \to s \bar d$ through
283: intermediate states involving pairs of quarks $i,j = u,c,t$ with charges 2/3,
284: the phases of complex weak couplings can have physical effects. As long as
285: there are at least three quark families, one cannot redefine quark phases so
286: that all such couplings are real, and one can generate a nonzero value of
287: $\epsilon$.
288:
289: % This is Figure 2
290: \begin{figure}
291: \centerline{\epsfysize = 1.3in \epsffile {kbox.ps}}
292: \caption{Box diagram describing the second-order weak mixing of a $K^0 =
293: d \bar s$ with a $\ok = s \bar d$. There is another diagram with vertical
294: $W^+ W^-$ and horizontal quark-antiquark pairs $i,j = u,c,t$.
295: \label{fig:kbox}}
296: \end{figure}
297:
298: The time-dependence of the two-component $\k$ and $\ok$ system is governed by
299: a $2 \times 2$ {\it mass matrix} $\m$ \cite{Revs}:
300: \beq
301: i \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left[ \begin{array}{c} \k \\ \ok \end{array}
302: \right] = \m \left[ \begin{array}{c} \k \\ \ok \end{array} \right]~~~,
303: \eeq
304: where $\m = M - i \Gamma/2$, and $M$ and $\Gamma$ are Hermitian matrices.
305: The eigenstates (\ref{eqn:es}) then
306: correspond to the eigenvalues $\mu_{S,L} = m_{S,L} - i \gamma_{S,L}/2$, with
307: \beq
308: \epsilon \simeq \frac{{\rm Im}(\Gamma_{12}/2) + i~{\rm Im}~M_{12}}
309: {\mu_S - \mu_L}~~~.
310: \eeq
311: Using data and the magnitude of CKM matrix elements one can show
312: \cite{Revs} that the second term dominates. Since the mass difference
313: $m_L - m_S$ and width difference $\gamma_S - \gamma_L$ are nearly equal,
314: the phase of $\mu_L - \mu_S$ is about $\pi/4$, so that the phase of $\epsilon$
315: is also $\pi/4$ (mod $\pi$).
316:
317: It is easy to model the CP-conserving neutral kaon system in table-top
318: systems with two degenerate states \cite{BW}. The
319: demonstration of CP violation requires systems that emulate Im($M_{12}) \ne 0$
320: or Im($\Gamma_{12}) \ne 0$. One can couple two identical resonant circuits
321: ``directionally'' to each other (see Fig.\ \ref{fig:ckt}) so that the energy
322: fed from circuit 1 to circuit 2 differs from that fed in the reverse direction
323: \cite{TTTV}. Devices with this property utilize Faraday rotation of the plane
324: of polarization of radio-frequency waves; some references may be found in
325: \cite{Kost}. This asymmetric coupling also is inherent in the
326: equations of motion of a spherical (or ``conical'') pendulum in a rotating
327: coordinate system \cite{RS}, so that the Foucault pendulum is a demonstration
328: (though perhaps not ``table-top'') of CP violation. A ball rolling with
329: viscous damping in a rotating vase of elliptical cross section holds
330: more promise for a laboratory setting \cite{Kost}. In all such
331: cases the CP-violating effect is imposed ``from the outside,'' leaving open
332: the question of whether some ``new physics'' is governing the corresponding
333: effect in particle physics.
334:
335: % This is Figure 3
336: \begin{figure}
337: \centerline{\epsfysize = 2in \epsffile {ckt.ps}}
338: \caption{Coupled ``tank'' circuits illustrating the $K^0 - \bar K^0$ system.
339: The coupling impedance $Z_c$ must be asymmetric to emulate CP violation.
340: \label{fig:ckt}}
341: \end{figure}
342:
343: \section{KOBAYASHI-MASKAWA THEORY OF CP VIOLATION}
344:
345: The interactions of quarks with $W^\pm$ bosons are described by
346: \beq
347: {\cal L}_{\rm int} = \frac{g}{\s} [ \bar U'_L \gamma^\mu W_\mu^{(+)} D'_L
348: + {\rm H.c.} ],
349: \eeq
350: where the primed quarks are ``weak eigenstates'':
351: \beq
352: U' \equiv \left[ \begin{array}{c} u' \\ c' \\ t' \end{array} \right],~~
353: D' \equiv \left[ \begin{array}{c} d' \\ s' \\ b' \end{array} \right].
354: \eeq
355: In the weak-eigenstate basis, the mass term in the Lagrangian,
356: \beq
357: {\cal L}_m = -[\bar U'_R {\m}_U U'_L + \bar D'_L {\m}_D D'_L + {\rm H.c.} ],
358: \eeq
359: will involve a general $3 \times 3$ matrix $\m$, which requires
360: separate left and right unitary transformations
361: \beq
362: R^{\dag}_Q {\m}_Q L_Q = \Lambda_Q
363: \eeq
364: to obtain a diagonal matrix $\Lambda_Q$ with non-negative entries.
365: If we define unprimed (mass) eigenstates by
366: \beq
367: Q'_L = L_Q Q_L,~~Q'_R = R_Q Q_R~~(Q=U,~D),
368: \eeq
369: the interaction Lagrangian may be expressed as
370: \beq
371: {\cal L}_{\rm int} = \frac{g}{\s} [\bar U_L \gamma^\mu W_\mu^{(+)} V
372: D_L + {\rm H.c.} ],
373: \eeq
374: where $V \equiv L^{\dag}_U L_D$ is the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM)
375: matrix. As a result of its unitarity, $V^\dag V = V V^\dag = 1$, the
376: $Z q \bar q$ couplings in the electroweak theory are flavor-diagonal.
377: Since it contains no information about $R_U$ or $R_D$,
378: $V$ provides only partial information about ${\m}_Q$.
379:
380: For $n~u$-type quarks and $n~d$-type quarks, $V$ is $n \times n$. Since it
381: is unitary, it can be described by $n$ real parameters. Relative quark
382: phases account for $2n-1$ of these, leaving $n^2 - (2n-1) = (n-1)^2$ physical
383: parameters. Of these, $n (n - 1)/2$ (the number of independent rotations
384: in $n$ dimensions) correspond to angles, while the rest, $(n-1)(n-2)/2$,
385: correspond to phases.
386:
387: For $n=2$, we have one angle and no phases. The matrix $V$ then can always be
388: chosen as orthogonal \cite{Cab,Charm}. For $n=3$, we have three angles and one
389: phase, which in general cannot be eliminated by arbitrary choices of phases in
390: the quark fields. It was this phase that motivated Kobayashi and Maskawa
391: \cite{KM} to introduce a third quark doublet in 1973 when only two were
392: known. (The bottom quark was discovered in 1977 \cite{ups}, and the top in 1994
393: \cite{top}.) The Kobayashi-Maskawa theory provides a potential
394: source of CP violation, serving as the leading contender for the observed
395: CP-violating effects in the kaon system and suggesting substantial CP
396: asymmetries in the decays of mesons containing $b$ quarks.
397: The pattern of charge-changing weak transitions among quarks is depicted
398: in Fig.\ \ref{fig:trans}.
399:
400: % This is Figure 4
401: \begin{figure}
402: \centerline{\epsfysize=2in \epsffile{trans.ps}}
403: \caption{Pattern of charge-changing weak transitions among quarks. Solid
404: lines: relative strength 1; dashed lines: relative strength 0.22;
405: dot-dashed lines: relative strength 0.04; dotted lines: relative strength
406: $\le 0.01$. Breadths of levels denote estimated errors in quark masses.
407: \label{fig:trans}}
408: \end{figure}
409:
410: A convenient parametrization of the CKM matrix utilizes a hierarchy \cite{WP}
411: whereby magnitudes of elements are approximately powers of $\lambda \equiv
412: \sin \theta_c \simeq 0.22$, where
413: $\theta_c$ is the Gell-Mann--L\'evy--Cabibbo angle \cite{Cab,GL} describing
414: strange particle decays. The matrix may be expressed as
415: \beq
416: V = \left[ \begin{array}{c c c}
417: 1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2} & \lambda & A \lambda^3 (\rho - i \eta) \\
418: - \lambda & 1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2} & A \lambda^2 \\
419: A \lambda^3(1 - \rho - i \eta) & - A \lambda^2 & 1 \end{array} \right],
420: \eeq
421: where rows denote $u,~c,~t$ and columns denote $d,~s,~b$.
422:
423: We learn $|V_{cb}| = A \lambda^2 \simeq 0.041 \pm 0.003$ from the dominant
424: decays of $b$ quarks, which are to charmed quarks \cite{JRCKM,JRTASI}.
425: Smaller errors are quoted in most reviews \cite{CKMrevs} which
426: take different views of the dominantly theoretical sources of error.
427: As an indication that this number is still in some flux we note a new
428: measurement $|V_{cb}| = 0.046 \pm 0.004$ by the CLEO group \cite{CLEOVcb}.)
429: Similarly, we shall take from charmess $b$ decays $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}| = 0.090 \pm
430: 0.025 = \lambda (\rho^2 + \eta^2)^{1/2}$ \cite{Flg}, leading to $\rho^2 +
431: \eta^2 = 0.41 \pm 0.11$, whereas smaller errors are quoted by most
432: authors.
433:
434: % This is Figure 5
435: \begin{figure}
436: \centerline{\epsfysize = 1.4in \epsffile {ut.ps}}
437: \caption{Unitarity triangle for CKM elements. Here $\rho + i \eta =
438: V^*_{ub}/A \lambda^3$; $1 - \rho - i \eta = V_{td}/A \lambda^3$.
439: \label{fig:ut}}
440: \end{figure}
441:
442: As a result of the unitarity of the CKM matrix, the quantities $V^*_{ub}/A
443: \lambda^3 = \rho + i \eta$, $V_{td}/A \lambda^3 = 1 - \rho - i \eta$, and 1
444: form a triangle in the $(\rho,\eta)$ plane (Fig.\ \ref{fig:ut}). We still do
445: not have satisfactory limits on the angle $\gamma$ of this ``unitarity
446: triangle.'' Further information comes from the following constraints:
447:
448: 1. {\it Mixing of neutral $B$ mesons} is
449: dominated by top quark contributions to graphs such as Fig.\ \ref{fig:kbox}
450: but with external quarks $d \bar b$ for $B^0$ or $s \bar b$ for $B_s$.
451: For example, the mass splitting in the nonstrange neutral $B$ system is
452: \beq
453: \Delta m_d = 0.487 \pm 0.014~{\rm ps}^{-1} \sim f_B^2 B_B |V_{td}|^2,
454: \eeq
455: where $f_B$ is the $B$ meson decay constant and $B_B = {\cal O}(1)$ is the
456: ``vacuum saturation factor,'' describing the degree to which graphs such as
457: Fig.\ \ref{fig:kbox} describe the mixing. Recent estimates \cite{lat} give
458: $f_B \sqrt{B_{B}} = 230 \pm 40$ MeV. Consequently, one finds \cite{JRCKM}
459: $|1 - \rho - i \eta| = 0.87 \pm 0.21$. Neutral strange $B$ mesons are
460: characterized by \cite{Bslim}
461: \beq
462: \Delta m_s \sim f_{B_s}^2 B_{B_s} |V_{ts}|^2 > 15~{\rm ps}^{-1}.
463: \eeq
464: Since $|V_{ts}| \simeq |V_{cb}$ is approximately known, this information
465: mainly serves to constrain the product $f_{B_s} \sqrt{B_{B_s}}$ and, given
466: information on the ratio of strange and nonstrange constants \cite{JRFM}, the
467: value of $|V_{td}|$, leading to $|1-\rho-i\eta| < 1.01$. The large top mass,
468: $m_t = 174 \pm 5$ GeV \cite{PDG}, is crucial for these mixings to be so large.
469:
470: 2. {\it CP-violating $K^0$--$\ok$ mixing} through the box graphs
471: of Fig.\ \ref{fig:kbox} accounts for the parameter \cite{PDG}
472: \beq
473: \epsilon = (2.27 \times 10^{-3})e^{i 43.3^\circ} \sim {\rm Im}{\m}_{12}
474: \sim f_K^2 B_K~ {\rm Im}(V_{td}^2),
475: \eeq
476: leading to a constraint \cite{JRCKM,JRTASI}
477: \beq
478: \eta (1 - \rho + 0.39) = 0.35 \pm 0.12~~~.
479: \eeq
480: Here we have used $f_K = 161$ MeV and $B_K = 0.87 \pm 0.13$ \cite{Lubicz}.
481: If top quarks were fully dominant the left-hand side of this equation
482: would be just $\eta(1-\rho)$. The term 0.39 in brackets is a correction due to
483: charmed quarks.
484:
485: The constraints are plotted on the $(\rho,\eta)$ plane in Fig.\ \ref{fig:re}.
486: Also shown are the $\pm 1 \sigma$ bounds on $\sin 2 \beta$, to be discussed
487: presently, from an average $0.49 \pm 0.23$ \cite{JRTASI} of OPAL, ALEPH, CDF,
488: BaBar, and BELLE values. The allowed region is larger than that favored by
489: many other analyses \cite{CKMrevs}.
490:
491: % This is Figure 6
492: \begin{figure}
493: \centerline{\epsfysize = 1.8in \epsffile {re.ps}}
494: \caption{Region of $(\rho,\eta)$ specified by constraints on
495: CKM matrix parameters. Solid semicircles denote limits based on
496: $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}| = 0.090 \pm 0.025$; dashed arcs denote limits $0.66 \le
497: |1 - \rho - i \eta| \le 1.08$ based on $\b$--$\ob$ mixing; dot-dashed arc
498: denotes limit $|1 - \rho - i \eta| < 1.01$ based on $B_s$--$\overline{B_s}$
499: mixing; dotted lines denote limits $\eta (1 - \rho + 0.39) = 0.35 \pm 0.12$
500: based on CP-violating $\k$--$\ok$ mixing. Rays: $\pm 1 \sigma$ limits
501: on $\sin 2 \beta$ (see Sec.\ VI). The plotted point at $(\rho,\eta)
502: \simeq (0.20,0.28)$ lies roughly in the middle of the allowed
503: region.
504: \label{fig:re}}
505: \end{figure}
506:
507: \section{THE CKM MATRIX AND PREDICTIONS FOR KAON PHYSICS}
508:
509: \subsection{$K_{S,L} \to \pi \pi$ rates}
510:
511: If we define
512: \beq
513: \eta_{+-} \equiv \frac{A(K_L \to \pi^+ \pi^-)}{A(K_S \to \pi^+ \pi^-)},~~
514: \eta_{00} \equiv \frac{A(K_L \to \pi^0 \pi^0)}{A(K_S \to \pi^0 \pi^0)},
515: \eeq
516: the possibility of different CP-violating effects in $\pi \pi$ states of
517: isospin $\ipp=2$ and $\ipp = 0$ \cite{paren} gives rise to a parameter
518: $\epsilon'$ such that $\eta_{+-} = \epsilon + \epsilon'$, $\eta_{00} =
519: \epsilon - 2 \epsilon'$. The following ratio of ratios then can differ
520: from unity:
521: $$
522: R \equiv \frac{\Gamma(K_L \to \pi^+ \pi^-)}{\Gamma(K_S \to \pi^+ \pi^-)} /
523: \frac{\Gamma(K_L \to \pi^0 \pi^0)}{\Gamma(K_S \to \pi^0 \pi^0)}
524: $$
525: \beq
526: = 1 + 6~{\rm Re}\frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon}.
527: \eeq
528: The ratio $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ is expected to be approximately real in a
529: CPT-invariant theory \cite{Revs}. A key prediction of the KM theory is that
530: $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ should be a number of order $10^{-3}$. Two types of
531: amplitudes contribute to $K \to \pi \pi$ decays.
532:
533: 1. {\it Tree amplitudes}, involving the quark subprocess $s \to u \bar u
534: d$, have both $\Delta I=1/2$ and $\Delta I = 3/2$ components and thus
535: contribute to both $\ipp=0$ and $\ipp=2$ states. In a standard
536: convention \cite{WP}, tree amplitudes contain no weak phases, since they
537: involve the CKM elements $V_{ud}$ and $V_{us}$.
538:
539: 2. {\it Penguin amplitudes}, involving the quark subprocess $s \to d$
540: with an intermediate loop consisting of a $W$ boson and the quarks $u,~c,~t$,
541: and interacting with the rest of the system through one or more gluons,
542: have only $\Delta I=1/2$ and thus can only contribute to the $\ipp=0$
543: state. The top quark in the loop gives rise to a weak phase through the
544: CKM element $V_{td}$.
545:
546: A relative weak phase of $\ipp=0$ and $\ipp=2$ states is thus generated in
547: the KM theory, leading to $\epsilon'/\epsilon \ne 0$. {\it Electroweak} penguin
548: amplitudes, in which the gluon connecting the $s \to d$ subprocess to the
549: rest of the diagram is replaced
550: by a photon or $Z^0$, can have both $\Delta I=1/2$ and $\Delta I = 3/2$
551: components and tend to reduce the predicted value of $\epsilon'/\epsilon$.
552: One range of estimates \cite{Buras} finds a broad and somewhat asymmetric
553: probability distribution extending from slightly below zero to above $2 \times
554: 10^{-3}$. Others (see articles in \cite{K99}) permit slightly higher values.
555:
556: Recent experiments on Re($\epsilon'/\epsilon$) \cite{E731,NA31,E832,NA48} are
557: summarized in Table \ref{tab:epe}. (The error in the average includes a scale
558: factor
559: \cite{PDG} of 1.86.) The magnitude of $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ is consistent with
560: estimates based on the Kobayashi-Maskawa theory. The qualitative agreement is
561: satisfactory, given that we still cannot account reliably for the
562: large enhancement of $\Delta I = 1/2$ amplitudes with respect to $\Delta I =
563: 3/2$ amplitudes in {\it CP-conserving} $K \to \pi \pi$ decays. More data are
564: expected from the Fermilab and CERN experiments, reducing the eventual
565: statistical error on $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ to a part in $10^4$.
566:
567: % This is Table II
568: \begin{table}
569: \caption{Recent experimental values for Re$(\epsilon'/\epsilon)$.
570: \label{tab:epe}}
571: \begin{center}
572: \begin{tabular}{c c c c}
573: \protect
574: Experiment & Reference & Value ($\times 10^{-4}$) & $\Delta \chi^2$ \\ \hline
575: Fermilab E731 & \cite{E731} & $7.4 \pm 5.9$ & 3.97 \\
576: CERN NA31 & \cite{NA31} & $23.0 \pm 6.5$ & 0.35 \\
577: Fermilab E832 & \cite{E832} & $28.0 \pm 4.1$ & 4.65 \\
578: CERN NA48 & \cite{NA48} & $14.0 \pm 4.3$ & 1.44 \\
579: Average & & $19.2 \pm 4.6$ & $\sum = 10.4$ \\
580: \end{tabular}
581: \end{center}
582: \end{table}
583:
584: \subsection{$K \to \pi l^+ l^-$ information}
585:
586: 1. {\it The decay $K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar \nu$} involves loop diagrams
587: involving $V_{td}$ and a small charm correction in such a way that the
588: combination $|1.4 - \rho - i \eta|$ is constrained, with a predicted branching
589: ratio of order
590:
591: \beq
592: {\cal B}(K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar \nu) \simeq 10^{-10} \left|
593: \frac{|1.4 - \rho - i \eta}{1.4} \right|^2,
594: \eeq
595: or for the range permitted in Fig.\ \ref{fig:re}, a branching ratio of about
596: $(0.8 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{-10}$ \cite{BuK}. Additional
597: uncertainties are associated with $m_c$ \cite{FalkK} and $|V_{cb}|$. A
598: measurement of ${\cal B}(K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar \nu)$ to 10\% will help to
599: constrain $(\rho,\eta)$ more tightly than in Fig.\ \ref{fig:re} or will
600: expose inconsistencies in our present picture of CP violation.
601:
602: Up to now the Brookhaven E787 Collaboration sees only one $K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu
603: \bar \nu$ event with negligible background \cite{E787}, corresponding to
604: \beq
605: {\cal B}(K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar \nu) = (1.5^{+3.4}_{-1.2}) \times 10^{-10}~~~.
606: \eeq
607: More data are expected from the final analysis of this experiment,
608: as well as from a future version with improved sensitivity.
609:
610: 2. {\it The decays $K_L \to \pi^0 l^+ l^-$} should be dominated by
611: CP-violating contributions, both indirect ($\sim \epsilon$) and direct, with a
612: CP-conserving ``contaminant'' from $K_L \to \pi^0 \gamma \gamma \to \pi^0
613: l^+ l^-$. The direct contribution probes the parameter $\eta$. Each
614: contribution (including the CP-conserving one) is expected to correspond to
615: a $\pi^0 e^+ e^-$ branching ratio of a few parts in $10^{12}$.
616: However, $K_L \to \pi^0 e^+ e^-$ may be limited by backgrounds
617: in the $\gamma \gamma e^+ e^-$ final state associated with radiation of a
618: photon in $K_L \to \gamma e^+ e^-$ from one of the leptons
619: \cite{HGr}. Present experimental upper limits (90\% c.l.) \cite{pll} are
620: $$
621: {\cal B}(K_L \to \pi^0 e^+ e^-) < 5.1 \times 10^{-10},
622: $$
623: \beq
624: {\cal B}(K_L \to \pi^0 \mu^+ \mu^-) < 3.8 \times 10^{-10},
625: \eeq
626: still significantly above most theoretical expectations. (See, however,
627: \cite{Ko}.)
628:
629: 3. {\it The decay $K_L \to \pi^0 \nu \bar \nu$} should be due entirely to
630: CP violation, and provides a clean probe of $\eta$. Its branching
631: ratio, proportional to $A^4 \eta^2$, is expected to be about $3 \times
632: 10^{-11}$. The best current experimental upper limit (90\% c.l.) for this
633: process \cite{pnn} is ${\cal B}(K_L \to \pi^0 \nu \bar \nu) < 5.9 \times
634: 10^{-7}$, several orders of magnitude above the expected value.
635:
636: \subsection{Other rare kaon decays}
637:
638: 1. {\it The decay $K_L \to \pi^+ \pi^- e^+ e^-$} involves three
639: independent momenta in the final state and thus offers the opportunity to
640: observe a T-odd observable through a characteristic distribution in the angle
641: $\phi$ between the $\pi^+ \pi^-$ and $e^+ e^-$ planes. A CP- or T-violating
642: angular asymmetry in this process has recently been reported
643: \cite{KTeVa,NA48a}.
644:
645: 2. {\it The decay $K_L \to \mu^+ \mu^- \gamma$} has been studied
646: with sufficiently high statistics to permit a greatly improved measurement
647: of the virtual-photon form factor in $K_L \to \gamma^* \gamma$ \cite{BQ}.
648: This measurement is useful in estimating the long-distance contribution to
649: the real part of the amplitude in $K_L \to \gamma^{(*)} \gamma^{(*)} \to
650: \mu^+ \mu^-$, which in turn allows one to limit the short-distance contribution
651: to $K_L \to \mu^+ \mu^-$.
652:
653: \subsection{Is the CKM picture of CP violation correct?}
654:
655: The KM theory is comfortable with the observed range of $\epsilon'/\epsilon$,
656: and its prediction for ${\cal B}(K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar \nu)$ is consistent
657: with the one event seen so far. Further anticipated tests are the measurement
658: $\eta$ through the decay $K_L \to \pi^0 \nu \bar \nu$ (see below), and the
659: search for CP violation in hyperon decays, which is already under way
660: \cite{CLhyp,Luk}. One also looks forward to a rich set of effects in
661: decays of particles containing $b$ quarks, particularly $B$ mesons. We now
662: describe the experiments and the effects they are expected to see.
663:
664: \section{CP VIOLATION IN $B$ DECAYS}
665:
666: \subsection{Current and planned experiments}
667:
668: Asymmetric $e^+ e^-$ collisions are being studied at ``$B$ factories'':
669: the PEP-II machine at SLAC with the BaBar detector, and the KEK-B collider in
670: Japan with the Belle detector. By July 2000, these detectors
671: had accumulated about 14 and 6 fb$^{-1}$ of data at the energy of the
672: $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance, which decays almost exclusively to $B \bar B$
673: \cite{Bas2b,BEs2b}. As of September, 2000, PEP-II and KEK-B were providing
674: about 150 and 100 pb$^{-1}$ per day to their respective detectors.
675:
676: Further data on $e^+ e^-$ collisions at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ will be provided by
677: the Cornell Electron Storage Ring with the upgraded CLEO-III detector. The
678: HERA-b experiment at DESY in Hamburg hopes to study $b$ quark
679: production via the collisions of 920 GeV protons with a fixed target. The
680: CDF and D0 detectors at Fermilab will devote a significant part of their
681: program at Run II of the Tevatron to $B$ physics. One can
682: expect further results on $B$ physics from the general-purpose LHC detectors
683: ATLAS and CMS, and the dedicated detectors at LHC-b at CERN and BTeV at
684: Fermilab.
685:
686: \subsection{Types of CP violation}
687:
688: In contrast to neutral kaons, whose mass eigenstates differ in lifetime by
689: nearly a factor of 600, the corresponding $B^0$--$\ob$ mass eigenstates
690: are predicted to differ in lifetime by at most 10--20\% for strange $B$'s
691: \cite{BBD,bec}, and much less for nonstrange $B$'s. Thus, instead of
692: mass eigenstates like $K_L$, two main types of $B$ decays are of interest:
693: decays to CP eigenstates, and ``self-tagging'' decays. Both have their
694: advantages and disadvantages.
695:
696: 1. {\it Decays to CP eigenstates $f = \pm {\rm CP}(f)$} utilize interference
697: between direct decays $\b \to f$ or $\ob \to f$ and the corresponding paths
698: involving mixing: $\b \to \ob \to f$ or $\ob \to \b \to f$. Final states
699: such as $f = J/\psi K_S$ provide examples in which one quark
700: subprocess is dominant. In this case one measures $\sin 2 \beta$ with
701: negligible corrections. For $f = \pi^+ \pi^-$, one would measure
702: $\sin 2 \alpha$ only if the direct decay were dominated by
703: a ``tree'' amplitude (the quark subprocess $b \to u \bar u d$). With
704: contamination from the penguin subprocess $b \to d$ expected to be about 30\%
705: in amplitude, one must measure decays to other $\pi \pi$ states (such as
706: $\pi^\pm \pi^0$ and $\pi^0 \pi^0$) to sort out amplitudes
707: \cite{GrL}. In decays to CP eigenstates, one must determine the flavor of
708: the decaying $B$ at time of production.
709:
710: 2. {\it ``Self-tagging'' decays} involve final states $f$ such as $K^+
711: \pi^-$ which can be distinguished from their CP-conjugates $\bar f$. A
712: CP-violating rate asymmetry arises when two weak amplitudes $a_i$ with weak
713: phases $\phi_i$ and strong phases $\delta_i$ ($i=1,2)$ interfere:
714: $$
715: A(B \to f) = a_1 e^{i(+\phi_1 + \delta_1)} + a_2 e^{i(+\phi_2 + \delta_2)}~~~,
716: $$
717: \beq
718: ~~~~~A(\bar B \to \bar f) = a_1 e^{i(-\phi_1 + \delta_1)} + a_2 e^{i(-\phi_2
719: + \delta_2)}~~~.
720: \eeq
721: The weak phase changes sign under CP-conjugation, while the strong
722: phase does not. The rate asymmetry is then
723: $$
724: {\cal A}(f) \equiv \frac{\Gamma(f) - \Gamma(\bar f)}
725: {\Gamma(f) + \Gamma(\bar f)}
726: $$
727: \beq \label{eqn:as}
728: = \frac{2 a_1 a_2 \sin(\phi_1 - \phi_2) \sin(\delta_1 - \delta_2)}
729: {a_1^2 + a_2^2 + 2 a_1 a_2 \cos(\phi_1 - \phi_2) \cos (\delta_1 - \delta_2)}~~.
730: \eeq
731: The two amplitudes must have different weak {\it and} strong phases in order
732: for a rate asymmetry to be observable. The CKM theory predicts the weak phases,
733: but no reliable estimates of strong phases exist. We shall note some ways
734: to avoid this problem.
735:
736: \subsection{Decays to CP eigenstates}
737:
738: The interference between direct and mixing terms in $B$ decays to CP
739: eigenstates modulates the exponential decay (see, e.g., \cite{DR}):
740: \beq
741: \frac{d \Gamma(t)}{d t} \sim e^{- \Gamma t} (1 \mp {\rm Im} \lambda_0 \sin
742: \Delta m t),
743: \eeq
744: where the upper sign refers to $\b$ decays and the lower to $\ob$ decays.
745: $\Delta m$ is the mass splitting, and
746: $\lambda_0$ expresses the interference of decay and mixing amplitudes. For
747: $f = J/\psi K_S$, $\lambda_0 = -e^{-2 i \beta}$, while
748: for $f = \pi^+ \pi^-$, $\lambda_0 \simeq e^{2 i \alpha}$ only to the extent
749: that penguin amplitudes can be neglected in comparison with
750: the dominant tree contribution. The time integral of the modulation term is
751: \beq
752: \int_0^\infty dt e^{- \Gamma t} \sin \Delta m t = \frac{1}{\Gamma} \frac{x}
753: {1 + x^2} \le \frac{1}{\Gamma} \cdot \frac{1}{2}~~~,
754: \eeq
755: where $x \equiv \Delta m/\Gamma$. This expression is maximum for $x = 1$,
756: and 96\% of maximum for the observed value $x \simeq 0.76$.
757:
758: The CDF Collaboration \cite{CDFs2b} ``tags'' neutral $B$
759: mesons at the time of their production and measures the decay
760: rate asymmetry in $\b~(\ob) \to J/\psi K_S$. This asymmetry arises from the
761: phase $2 \beta$ characterizing the two powers of $V_{td}$ in the $\b$--$\ob$
762: mixing amplitude. The tagging methods are of two main types. In
763: ``opposite-side'' methods, since strong interactions produce $b$ and $\bar
764: b$ in pairs, one learns the initial flavor of a decaying $B$ from the ``other''
765: $b$-containing hadron produced in association with it. ``Same-side''
766: methods \cite{GNR} utilize the fact that a $\b$ tends to be associated more
767: frequently with a $\pi^+$, and a $\ob$ with a $\pi^-$, somewhere nearby in
768: phase space.
769:
770: Electron-positron collisions provide $B$ mesons in pairs at the
771: c.m. energy of the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance, just above threshold,
772: in states of negative charge-conjugation eigenvalue. It then
773: becomes necessary to distinguish the vertices of the decaying and tagging $B$'s
774: from one another when studying CP eigenstates. If $t$ and $t'$ denote the
775: decay and tagging proper times, the asymmetry for decay to a CP eigenstate will
776: be proportional to $\sin \Delta m (t-t')$, which vanishes when integrated over
777: all times (see, e.g., \cite{JRTASI} or \cite{BaBarbk}). The BaBar and BELLE
778: results were obtained using asymmetric $e^+ e^-$ collisions,
779: with typical vertex separations of about 250
780: $\mu$m and 200 $\mu$m. PEP-II, constructed in the ring of the old PEP machine,
781: collides 9 GeV electrons with 2.7 GeV positrons, while KEK-B, constructed in
782: the TRISTAN tunnel, collides 8.5 GeV electrons with 3.5 GeV positrons. In
783: symmetric collisions the $\Upsilon(4S)$ is produced at rest and the proper
784: path length of a decaying $B$ is only about 30 $\mu$m.
785:
786: % This is Table III
787: \begin{table}
788: \caption{Samples reported in July 2000 by BaBar and BELLE Collaborations
789: relevant to measurement of $\sin 2 \beta$. \label{tab:samp}}
790: \begin{tabular}{c c c c}
791: Collab. & Final state & Number & No.\ tagged \\ \hline
792: BaBar & $J/\psi K_S \to J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ & 121 & 85 (50 $B^0$, 35 $\ob$) \\
793: & $J/\psi K_S \to J/\psi \pi^0 \pi^0$ & 19 & 12 ( 7 $B^0$, 5 $\ob$) \\
794: & $\psi' K_S \to J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ & 28 & 23 (13 $B^0$, 10 $\ob$) \\
795: & Total & 168 & 120 \\
796: \hline
797: BELLE & CP-odd modes & 92 & 52 (40 $J/\psi K_S$) \\
798: & $J/\psi K_L$ & 102 & 42 \\
799: & $J/\psi \pi^0$ & 10 & 4 \\
800: & Total & 204 & 98 \\
801: \end{tabular}
802: \end{table}
803:
804: Both BaBar and BELLE used tags based on leptons and kaons from $B$ decays.
805: BaBar also used two neural net methods. The samples reported by the summer
806: of 2000 \cite{Bas2b,BEs2b} are shown in Table \ref{tab:samp}.
807:
808: The CDF result and ones from OPAL \cite{OPs2b} and ALEPH \cite{ALs2b} utilizing
809: $B$'s produced in the decays of the $Z^0$ are compared with those from BaBar
810: and BELLE in Table \ref{tab:s2b}. The average \cite{JRTASI} corresponds to the
811: $\pm 1 \sigma$ rays plotted in Fig.\ \ref{fig:re}. There is no contradiction
812: (yet!) with the allowed region, but we look forward eagerly to reduced errors
813: from BaBar and BELLE. New results are due to be presented in February of
814: 2001.
815:
816: \subsection{``Self-tagging'' decays}
817:
818: A typical ``self-tagging'' mode suitable for the study of ``direct'' CP
819: violation is $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$. The tree amplitude [Fig.\ \ref{fig:tp}(a)]
820: involves the quark subprocess $\bar b \to \bar s u \bar u$ with CKM factor
821: $V^*_{ub} V_{us}$ (weak phase $\gamma$). The penguin amplitude [Fig.\
822: \ref{fig:tp}(b)] $\bar b \to \bar s$ with intermediate
823: $u,~c,~t$ quarks has CKM factor $V^*_{tb} V_{ts}$ or $V^*_{cb} V_{cs}$ (weak
824: phase $\pi$ or 0), depending on how the unitarity of the CKM matrix is used.
825: The relative weak phase between the tree and penguin amplitudes thus is
826: non-zero, and direct CP violation can arise if the relative strong phase
827: $\delta_T - \delta_P$ also is non-zero. The interpretation of a rate
828: difference $\Gamma(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-) \ne \Gamma(\ob \to K^- \pi^+)$
829: requires independent information on $\delta_T - \delta_P$.
830:
831: % This is Figure 7
832: \begin{figure}
833: \centerline{\epsfysize=1.1in \epsffile{tp.ps}}
834: \caption{Contributions to $\b \to K^+ \pi^-$. (a) Color-favored
835: ``tree'' amplitude
836: $\sim V^*_{ub}V_{us}$; (b) ``penguin'' amplitude $\sim V^*_{tb}V_{ts}$.}
837: \label{fig:tp}
838: \end{figure}
839:
840: % This is Table IV
841: \begin{table}
842: \caption{Values of $\sin 2 \beta$ implied by recent measurements of the
843: CP-violating asymmetry in $B^0 \to J/\psi K_S$. \label{tab:s2b}}
844: \begin{center}
845: \begin{tabular}{c c}
846: \protect
847: Experiment & Value \\ \hline
848: OPAL \cite{OPs2b} & $3.2^{+1.8}_{-2.0} \pm 0.5$ \\
849: CDF \cite{CDFs2b} & $0.79^{+0.41}_{-0.44}$ \\
850: ALEPH \cite{ALs2b} & $0.84^{+0.82}_{-1.04} \pm 0.16$ \\
851: BaBar \cite{Bas2b} & $0.12 \pm 0.37 \pm 0.09$ \\
852: BELLE \cite{BEs2b} & $0.45^{+0.43+0.07}_{-0.44-0.09}$ \\ \hline
853: Average & $0.49 \pm 0.23$ \\
854: \end{tabular}
855: \end{center}
856: \end{table}
857:
858: If one measures both a CP-violating asymmetry and a rate ratio such as
859: $\Gamma(B \to K^\pm \pi^\mp)/\Gamma(B^\pm \to K \pi^\pm)$ or
860: $\Gamma(B^\pm \to K^\pm \pi^0)/\Gamma(B^\pm \to K \pi^\pm)$, one can
861: eliminate the strong phase difference and solve for $\gamma$ \cite{GR,FM,NR}.
862: One must deal with electroweak penguins (which also affected the interpretation
863: of $\epsilon'/\epsilon$). One proposal (see the first of Refs.~\cite{GR}) to
864: extract $\gamma$ from the rates for $B^+ \to (\pi^0 K^+, \pi^+ K^0,
865: \pi^+ \pi^0)$ and the charge-conjugate processes was flawed by the neglect
866: of these contributions, which are important \cite{DH}. However, they
867: can be calculated \cite{NR}, so that measurements of the rates for these
868: processes can yield useful information on $\gamma$.
869:
870: A necessary condition for the observability of direct CP asymmetries based on
871: the interference of two amplitudes, one weaker than the other, is that one must
872: be able to detect processes at the level of the absolute square of the weaker
873: amplitude \cite{EGR}. Let the weak phase difference $\Delta \phi$ and the
874: strong phase difference $\Delta \delta$ both be near $\pm \pi/2$ (the most
875: favorable case). Then the rate asymmetry ${\cal A}$ in Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:as}) has
876: magnitude
877: \beq
878: |{\cal A}| = {\cal O} \left( \frac{2 A_1 A_2}{A_1^2 + A_2^2} \right) \simeq
879: \frac{2 A_2}{A_1}~~~{\rm for}~A_2 \ll A_1.
880: \eeq
881: Define a rate based on the square of each amplitude: $N_i = {\rm const.}~
882: |A_i|^2$. Then $|{\cal A}| \simeq 2 \sqrt{N_2/N_1}$.
883:
884: The statistical error in ${\cal A}$ is based on the total number of events.
885: For $A_2 \ll A_1$, one has $\delta {\cal A} \simeq 1/\sqrt{N_1}$. Then the
886: significance of the asymmetry (in number of standard deviations) is
887: \beq
888: \left| \frac{{\cal A}}{\delta{\cal A}} \right| \sim {\cal O}(2 \sqrt{N_2}).
889: \eeq
890: Thus (aside from the factor of 2) one must be able to see the {\it square of
891: the weaker amplitude} at a significant level in order to see a significant
892: asymmetry due to $A_1$--$A_2$ interference.
893:
894: In searching for direct CP asymmetries one thus considers $B$ decays with
895: at least two amplitudes having an expected weak phase difference, with a
896: large enough rate that the smaller amplitude alone would be detectable, and
897: with a good chance for a strong phase difference.
898:
899: Many branching ratios for charmless $B$ decays are one to several
900: parts in $10^5$. Rates associated with the subdominant amplitudes are expected
901: to be $\lambda^2 \simeq 1/20$ of these. Thus when sensitivities to branching
902: ratios of a few parts in $10^7$ are reached, searches for direct CP asymmetries
903: will take on great significance.
904:
905: Two processes whose rates favor a weak phase $\gamma$ exceeding $90^\circ$ are
906: $\b \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $\b \to K^{*+} \pi^-$ \cite{NR,GRg,Hou}, which favor
907: destructive and constructive tree-penguin interference, respectively. A fit to
908: these and other processes in the second of Refs.\ \cite{Hou} finds $\gamma =
909: (114^{+24}_{-23})^\circ$, grazing the allowed region of Fig.\ \ref{fig:re}
910: but inconsistent with some more restrictive fits \cite{CKMrevs}. Since the
911: upper bound on $\gamma$ is set by the limit on $B_s$--$\overline{B_s}$ mixing,
912: $\Delta m_s > 15$ ps$^{-1}$, such mixing should be visible soon. There
913: is a hint of a signal at $\sim 17$ ps$^{-1}$ \cite{Bslim}.
914:
915: The Tevatron and the LHC will produce many neutral $B$'s decaying to $\pi^+
916: \pi^-$, $K^\pm \pi^\mp$, and $K^+ K^-$ \cite{WurtJesik}.
917: Each of these channels has particular advantages.
918:
919: 1. {\it The decays $\b \to K^+ K^-$ and $B_s \to \pi^+ \pi^-$} should be
920: suppressed unless these final states are ``fed'' by rescattering from other
921: channels \cite{resc}.
922:
923: 2. {\it The decays $\b \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $B_s \to K^+ K^-$} can yield
924: $\gamma$ via time-dependence measurements \cite{RFKK}.
925:
926: 3. {\it A recent proposal for measuring $\gamma$} \cite{bskpi} utilizes the
927: decays $\b \to K^+ \pi^-$, $B^+ \to \k \pi^+$, $B_s \to K^- \pi^+$, and the
928: corresponding charge-conjugate processes. The $\b \to K^+ \pi^-$ and
929: $B_s \to K^- \pi^+$ peaks are well separated from one another and from
930: $\b \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $B_s \to K^+ K^-$ kinematically \cite{WurtJesik}.
931:
932: The proposal of Ref.~\cite{bskpi} is based on the observation that $B \to K
933: \pi$ decays involve tree ($T$) and penguin ($P$) amplitudes
934: with relative weak phase $\gamma$ and relative strong phase $\delta$.
935: The decays $B^\pm \to K \pi^\pm$ are expected to be dominated by the penguin
936: amplitude (there is no tree contribution except through rescattering from other
937: final states), so this channel is not expected to display any CP-violating
938: asymmetries. The prediction $\Gamma(B^+ \to \k \pi^+) = \Gamma(B^- \to \ok
939: \pi^-)$ thus will check the assumption that rescattering
940: effects can be neglected. A typical amplitude is given by $A(\b \to K^+
941: \pi^-) = - [P + T e^{i(\gamma + \delta)}]$, where the signs are associated
942: with phase conventions for states \cite{GHLR}. Defining
943: \beq
944: \left\{ \begin{array}{c} R \\ A_0 \end{array} \right\}
945: \equiv \frac{\Gamma(\b \to K^+ \pi^-)
946: \pm \Gamma(\ob \to K^- \pi^+)}{2 \Gamma(B^+ \to \k \pi^+)},
947: \eeq
948: \beq
949: \left\{ \begin{array}{c} R_s \\ A_s \end{array} \right\}
950: \equiv \frac{\Gamma(B_s \to K^- \pi^+)
951: \pm \Gamma(\overline{B_s} \to K^+ \pi^-)}{2 \Gamma(B^+ \to \k \pi^+)},
952: \eeq
953: and $r \equiv T/P$, $\tl \equiv V_{us}/V_{ud}$, one finds
954: $$
955: R = 1 + r^2 + 2 r \cos \delta \cos \gamma,
956: $$
957: \beq
958: R_s = \tl^2 + (r/\tl)^2 - 2 r \cos \delta \cos \gamma,
959: \eeq
960: \beq
961: A_0 = - A_s = -2 r \sin \gamma \sin \delta.
962: \eeq
963: The sum of $R$ and $R_s$ allows one to determine $r$. Using $R$, $r$, and
964: $A_0$, one can solve for both $\delta$ and $\gamma$. The prediction $A_s =
965: - A_0$ checks the flavor SU(3) assumption on which these relations are based.
966: An error of $10^\circ$ on $\gamma$ seems feasible with forthcoming
967: Tevatron data.
968:
969: Recent upper limits on CP-violating asymmetries in $B$ decays to light-quark
970: systems \cite{CLEOCP}, defined as
971: \beq
972: {\cal A}_{CP} \equiv
973: \frac{\Gamma(\overline{B} \to \bar f) - \Gamma(B \to f)}
974: {\Gamma(\overline{B} \to \bar f) + \Gamma(B \to f)},
975: \eeq
976: are shown in Table \ref{tab:CPA}. No significant asymmetries have been seen,
977: but sensitivities adequate to check the maximum predicted values \cite{comb}
978: $|{\cal A}_{CP}^{K^+ \pi}| \le 1/3$ are being approached.
979:
980: % This is Table V
981: \begin{table}
982: \caption{CP-violating asymmetries in decays of $B$ mesons to light quarks.
983: \label{tab:CPA}}
984: \begin{center}
985: \begin{tabular}{c c c}
986: Mode & Signal events & ${\cal A}_{CP}$ \\ \hline
987: $K^+ \pi^-$ & $80^{+12}_{-11}$ & $-0.04 \pm 0.16$ \\
988: $K^+ \pi^0$ & $42.1^{+10.9}_{-9.9}$ & $-0.29 \pm 0.23$ \\
989: $K_S \pi^+$ & $25.2^{+6.4}_{-5.6}$ & $+0.18 \pm 0.24$ \\
990: $K^+ \eta'$ & $100^{+13}_{-12}$ & $+0.03 \pm 0.12$ \\
991: $\omega \pi^+$ & $28.5^{+8.2}_{-7.3}$ & $-0.34 \pm 0.25$ \\
992: \end{tabular}
993: \end{center}
994: \end{table}
995:
996: \section{THE ROLE OF CHARM}
997:
998: \subsection{Mixing and CP violation}
999:
1000: The dominant decay modes of the neutral charmed mesons $\d$ and $\od$ are
1001: to states of negative and positive strangeness, respectively, and not to CP
1002: eigenstates. Thus $\d$--$\od$ mixing induced by shared final states
1003: is expected to be small. Short-distance contributions to mixing also are
1004: expected to be small. Thus, in contrast to the case of neutral kaons and $B$
1005: mesons, one expects small mass splittings, $\Delta m/\Gamma \ll 1$, and, in
1006: contrast to neutral kaons, also small width differences. The degree to which
1007: cancellations among contributions of intermediate states such as $\pi^+ \pi^-$,
1008: $K^+ K^-$, and $K^\pm \pi^\mp$ to mixing suppress such effects further is a
1009: matter of debate \cite{HG}. If
1010: any rate difference is expected, it would be in the direction favoring a
1011: slightly greater rate for the CP-even mass eigenstate.
1012:
1013: CP violation in the charm sector is expected to be small in the Standard
1014: Model. It is also easy to look for, since $D$ mesons are easier to
1015: produce than $B$ mesons and the Standard Model background is low.
1016:
1017: Recent interesting studies of mixing by the CLEO \cite{CLEOmix} and
1018: FOCUS \cite{FOCUSmix} Collaborations hint at the possibility of non-zero
1019: values of $\Delta m$, $\Delta \Gamma$, or both, but are not yet
1020: statistically compelling. No evidence for mixing is found by the Fermilab
1021: E791 Collaboration \cite{E791}. It may be necessary to invoke large final-state
1022: phase differences in order to reconcile the CLEO and FOCUS results
1023: \cite{BGLNP}. No CP-violating asymmetries have been seen in
1024: charmed meson decays at the level of several percent \cite{E791,CPcharm}.
1025:
1026: \subsection{Spectroscopy}
1027:
1028: A wide variety of excited $cqq$ and $c \bar q$ states are accessible at
1029: CLEO and FOCUS. The $cqq$ states are providing unique insights into baryon
1030: spectroscopy \cite{CLEOomc,CLEOlc,CLEOxic}, while the $c \bar q$ states
1031: \cite{CLEOD**,FOCUSspec}, are important sources of incormation about the
1032: corresponding $b \bar q$ states, useful for ``same-side'' tagging of neutral
1033: $B$ mesons.
1034:
1035: \section{THE FUTURE}
1036:
1037: \subsection{Envisioned measurements}
1038:
1039: Future CP studies involve a broad program of experiments with kaons, charmed
1040: and $B$ mesons, and neutrinos.
1041:
1042: 1. {\it Rare kaon decays:}
1043: Measurement of the branching ratio for $K_L \to \pi^0 \nu \bar \nu$ at the
1044: required sensitivity (${\cal B} \simeq 3 \times 10^{-3}$) is foreseen at
1045: Brookhaven National Laboratory \cite{K0pio} and the Fermilab Main Injector
1046: \cite{KAMI}. A Fermilab proposal \cite{CKM} seeks to acquire enough events of
1047: $K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar \nu$ to measure $|V_{td}|$ to a precision of 10\%.
1048:
1049: 2. {\it Charmed mesons:}
1050: While great strides have been taken in the measurement of mass and
1051: lifetime differences for CP eigenstates of the neutral charmed mesons $D^0$,
1052: \cite{CLEOmix,FOCUSmix}, it would be worth while to follow up present hints
1053: of nonzero effects. Both electron-positron colliders and hadronic experiments
1054: devoted to future $B$ studies may also have more to say about mixing,
1055: lifetime differences, and CP violation for charmed mesons.
1056:
1057: 3. {\it $B$ production in symmetric $e^+ e^-$ collisions:}
1058: Although asymmetric $e^+ e^-$ colliders are now taking data at an impressive
1059: rate, the CLEO Collaboration is continuing with an active program. It will be
1060: able to probe charmless $B$ decays down to branching ratios of
1061: $10^{-6}$. It may be able to detect the elusive $\b \to \pi^0
1062: \pi^0$ mode, whose rate will help pin down the penguin amplitude's
1063: contribution and permit a determination of the CKM phase $\alpha$ \cite{GrL}.
1064: Other final states of great interest at this level include $VP$ and $VV$,
1065: where $P,V$ denote light pseudoscalar and vector mesons.
1066: A useful probe of rescattering effects \cite{resc} is
1067: the decay $\b \to K^+ K^-$. This decay is expected to have a branching
1068: ratio of only a few parts in $10^8$ if rescattering is unimportant, but could
1069: be enhanced by more than an order of magnitude in the presence of rescattering
1070: from other channels. A challenging but crucial channel is $B^+ \to \tau^+ \bar
1071: \nu_\tau$, whose rate will provide information on the combination $f_B
1072: |V_{cb}|$. Rare decays such as $B \to X \ell^+ \ell^-$ and $B \to X \nu \bar
1073: \nu$ will probe the effects of new particles in loops.
1074:
1075: 4. {\it $B$ production in asymmetric $e^+ e^-$ collisions:}
1076: The BaBar and Belle detectors have made a start at the measurement
1077: of $\sin 2 \beta$ in $\b \to J/\psi K_S$. The moving center-of-mass
1078: facilitates both flavor
1079: tagging and improvement of signal with respect to background. These machines
1080: will make possible a host of time-dependent studies in such decays as $B \to
1081: \pi \pi$, $B \to K \pi$, etc., and their impressive luminosities will
1082: eventually add significantly to the world's tally of detected $B$'s.
1083:
1084: 5. {\it Hadronic $B$ production:}
1085: The strange $B$'s cannot be produced at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ which will dominate
1086: the attention of $e^+ e^-$ colliders for some years to come. Hadronic reactions
1087: at high energies will produce copious $b$'s incorporated into nonstrange,
1088: strange, and charmed mesons, and baryons. A measurement of the strange-$B$
1089: mixing parameter $\Delta m_s$is likely to be made soon. $B_s$ decays provide
1090: valuable information on CKM phases and CP violation, as in $B_s \to K^+ K^-$
1091: \cite{RFKK}. The width difference expected between the CP-even and CP-odd
1092: eigenstates of the $B_s$ system \cite{BBD,bec}
1093: should be visible in the next round of experiments.
1094:
1095: 6. {\it Neutrino studies:}
1096: The magnitudes and phases in the CKM matrix are connected with the quark masses
1097: themselves, whose pattern we will not understand until we have mapped out a
1098: similar pattern for the leptons. We will learn much about neutrino masses and
1099: mixings from forthcoming experiments at the Sudbury Neutrino
1100: Observatory \cite{SNO}, Borexino \cite{Bxo}, K2K \cite{Kam}, and Fermilab
1101: (BooNE and MINOS) \cite{Fnu}.
1102:
1103: \subsection{A likely parameter space}
1104:
1105: Our knowledge of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa is likely to improve
1106: over the next few years \cite{JRlat,fut}. With $\sin(2 \beta)$
1107: measured in $\b \to J/\psi K_S$ decays to an accuracy of $\pm 0.06$ (the
1108: BaBar goal with 30 fb$^{-1}$ \cite{BaBarbk}), errors on $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$
1109: reduced to 10\%, strange-$B$ mixing bounded by $x_s = \Delta m_s/\Gamma_s
1110: > 20$ (the present bound is already better than this!), and ${\cal B}(B^+ \to
1111: \tau^+ \nu_\tau)$ measured to $\pm 20\%$ (giving $f_B|V_{ub}|$, or $|V_{ub}/\
1112: V_{td}|$ when combined with $\b$--$\ob$ mixing), one finds the result
1113: shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:fut}.
1114:
1115: \begin{figure}
1116: \centerline{\epsfysize=2in \epsffile{fut.ps}}
1117: \caption{Plot in $(\rho,\eta)$ of anticipated constraints on CKM
1118: parameters in the year 2003. Solid curves: $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$; dashed lines:
1119: constraint on $|V_{ub}/V_{td}|$ by combining measurement of ${\cal B}(B^+ \to
1120: \tau^+ \nu_\tau)$ with $\b$--$\ob$ mixing; dotted lines: constraint due to
1121: $\epsilon_K$ (CP-violating $\k$--$\ok$ mixing); dash-dotted line: limit
1122: due to $x_s$; solid rays: measurement of $\sin 2 \beta$ to $\pm 0.06$.
1123: \label{fig:fut}}
1124: \end{figure}
1125:
1126: The narrow range of $(\rho,\eta)$ increases the chance that any non-standard
1127: physics will show up as a contradiction among various measurements, most
1128: likely by providing additional contributions to $\b$--$\ob$ mixing \cite{GLmix}
1129: but possibly directly affecting decays \cite{GW}.
1130:
1131: \subsection{Baryon number of the Universe}
1132:
1133: The number of baryons in the Universe is much larger than the corresponding
1134: number of antibaryons. Sakharov proposed \cite{Sakh} three requirements for
1135: this preponderance of matter over antimatter: (1) an epoch in which
1136: the Universe was not in thermal equilibrium, (2) an interaction violating
1137: baryon number, and (3) CP (and C) violation. The observed baryon asymmetry is
1138: not explained directly by the CP violation in the CKM matrix; the effects are
1139: too small, requiring some new physics. Two examples are the following:
1140:
1141: 1. {\it Supersymmetry}, in which each particle of spin $J$ has
1142: a ``superpartner'' of spin $J \pm 1/2$, affords many opportunities for
1143: introducing new CP-violating phases and interactions which could affect
1144: particle-antiparticle mixing \cite{SSBrev}.
1145:
1146: 2. {\it Neutrino masses at the sub-eV level} can signal large right-handed
1147: neutrino Majorana masses, exceeding $10^{11}$ GeV \cite{Ram}.
1148: Lepton number ($L$), violated by such masses, can
1149: be reprocessed into baryon number ($B$) by $B-L$ conserving
1150: interactions at the electroweak scale \cite{LepBar}. New CP-violating
1151: interactions must exist at the high mass scale if lepton number is to
1152: be generated there. These interactions could be related to CKM phases
1153: \cite{DPF}. If this alternative is correct, it will be
1154: important to understand the leptonic analogue of the CKM matrix!
1155:
1156: \subsection{Surprises ahead?}
1157:
1158: The CKM theory of CP violation in neutral kaon decays has passed a crucial
1159: test. The parameter $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ is nonzero, and has the expected
1160: order of magnitude. Tests using $B$ mesons, including the observation of a
1161: difference in rates between $\b \to J/\psi K_S$ and $\ob \to J/\psi K_S$,
1162: are just around the corner. Progress in ``tagging'' neutral $B$'s and
1163: rich information from measurements of many $B$ decay rates will round out
1164: the picture.
1165:
1166: If $B$ decays do not provide a consistent set of CKM phases in the next few
1167: years, we will re-examine other proposed sources of CP violation.
1168: Most of these, in contrast to the CKM theory, predict neutron
1169: and electron dipole moments very close to their present experimental upper
1170: limits. If, however, the CKM picture remains self-consistent, we should ask
1171: about the origin of the CKM phases and the associated quark and
1172: lepton masses. It is probably time to start anticipating this possibility,
1173: given the resilience of the CKM picture since it was first proposed nearly
1174: 30 years ago.
1175:
1176: I am looking forward to a surprise such as one encountered
1177: many years ago when exploring a small cave in Pennsylvania. We had entered
1178: it in the afternoon and thought we had seen all its rooms, when I came upon
1179: another chamber with ghostly stalactites silhouetted against the
1180: darkness behind them. A breeze of warm air signaled that I was actually
1181: looking outside, with the ``stalactites'' the faintly
1182: glowing night sky, and the dark spaces the shadows of pine trees. Such a
1183: ``perception shift'' does not come often, but is a welcome source of wonder.
1184:
1185: \section{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
1186:
1187: It is a pleasure to thank Adriano Natale and Rogerio Rosenfeld for the
1188: invitation to attend the Brazilian Meeting of Particles and Fields and
1189: for their wonderful hospitality in Sao Paulo and Sao Louren\c{c}o, and
1190: Patrick Roudeau for constructive correspondence.
1191: This work was supported in part by the United States
1192: Department of Energy under Grant No.\ DE FG02 90ER40560.
1193:
1194: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1195:
1196: \bibitem[*]{Thanks}
1197: {Invited talk presented at XXI Brazilian National Meeting on
1198: Particles and Fields, Sao Louren\c{c}o, Minas Gerais, October 23--26, 2000,
1199: proceedings to be published in a special issue of the Brazilian Journal
1200: of Physics. \efi~01-01, hep-ph/0101033.}
1201:
1202: \bibitem{PR} J. L. Rosner,
1203: in {\it Particle Physics and Cosmology: 2nd Tropical Workshop},
1204: edited by Jose F. Nieves (New York, American Institute of Physics, 2000),
1205: pp.\ 283--304.
1206:
1207: \bibitem{CCFT} J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch, and R. Turlay,
1208: \prl{13}{138-140}{1964}.
1209:
1210: \bibitem{CPT} J. Schwinger, \pr{91}{713-728}{1953}; \pr{94}{1362-1384}{1954};
1211: G. L\"uders, \kdvs{28}{5, 1-17}{1954}; \apny{2}{1-15}{1957}; W. Pauli, in
1212: {\it Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics}, edited by W. Pauli
1213: (Pergamon, New York, 1955), pp.~30-51.
1214:
1215: \bibitem{KM} M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, \ptp{49}{652-657}{1973}.
1216:
1217: \bibitem{Cab} N. Cabibbo, \prl{10}{531-532}{1963}.
1218:
1219: \bibitem{SCPrev} S. M. Barr, in {\it TASI 94: CP Violation
1220: and the Limits of the Standard Model,} Boulder, CO, 29 May -- 24 June 1994,
1221: edited by J. F. Donoghue (World Scientific, River Edge, NJ, 1995), pp.~87-111.
1222:
1223: \bibitem{RB} G. D. Rochester and C. C. Butler, \nat{160}{855-857}{1947}.
1224:
1225: \bibitem{GN} M. Gell-Mann, \pr{92}{833-834}{1953}; ``On the Classification of
1226: Particles,'' 1953 (unpublished); M. Gell-Mann and A. Pais, in
1227: {\it Proceedings of the 1954 Glasgow Conference on Nuclear and Meson Physics},
1228: edited by E. H. Bellamy and R. G. Moorhouse (Pergamon, London and New York,
1229: 1955); M. Gell-Mann, \nc{4}{Suppl.\ 848-866}{1956};
1230: T. Nakano and K. Nishijima, \ptp{10}{581-582}{1953};
1231: K. Nishijima, \ptp{12}{107-108}{1954}; \ptp{13}{285--304}{1955}.
1232:
1233: \bibitem{GP} M. Gell-Mann and A. Pais, \pr{97}{1387-1389}{1955}.
1234:
1235: \bibitem{KL} K. Lande, E. T. Booth, J. Impeduglia, and L. M. Lederman,
1236: \pr{103}{1901-1904}{1956}.
1237:
1238: \bibitem{CPK} T. D. Lee, R. Oehme, and C. N. Yang, \pr{106}{340-345}{1957};
1239: L. D. Landau, \np{3}{127-131}{1957}.
1240:
1241: \bibitem{BW} B. Winstein, in {\it Festi-Val -- Festschrift
1242: for Val Telegdi}, ed.~by K. Winter (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988), pp.~245-265.
1243:
1244: \bibitem{SW} L. Wolfenstein, \prl{13}{562-564}{1964}.
1245:
1246: \bibitem{Revs} For reviews, see, e.g.,
1247: R. G. Sachs, {\it The Physics of Time Reversal
1248: Invariance} (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988);
1249: K. Kleinknecht, in \cp89, pp.~41-104;
1250: J. L. Rosner, in \tasi, pp.~91-224;
1251: B. Winstein and L. Wolfenstein, \rmp{63}{1113-1148}{1992};
1252: G. C. Branco, L. Lavoura, and J. P. Silva, {\it CP Violation} (Oxford, 1999);
1253: I. I. Bigi and A. I. Sanda, {\it CP Violation} (Cambridge, 2000).
1254:
1255: \bibitem{TTTV} J. L. Rosner, \ajp{64}{982-985}{1996}.
1256:
1257: \bibitem{Kost} V. A. Kosteleck\'{y} and \'{A}. Roberts, Indiana University
1258: preprint IUHET 428, hep-ph/0012381 (unpublished).
1259:
1260: \bibitem{RS} J. L. Rosner and S. A. Slezak, \ajp{69}{44-49}{2001}.
1261:
1262: \bibitem{Charm} J. D. Bjorken and S. L. Glashow, \pl{11}{255-257}{1964}; Y.
1263: Hara, \pr{134}{B701-B704}{1964}; Z. Maki and Y. Ohnuki, \ptp{32}{144-158}
1264: {1964}; S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani, \prd{2}{1285-1292}{1970}.
1265:
1266: \bibitem{ups} Fermilab E288 \cn, S. W. Herb \ite, \prl{39}{252-255}{1977};
1267: W. R. Innes \ite, \prl{39}{1240-1242,1640(E)}{1977}.
1268:
1269: \bibitem{top} CDF \cn, F. Abe \ite, \prd{50}{2966-3026}{1944}; \ibj{51}
1270: {4623-4637}{1994}; \ibj{52}{2605-2609}{1995}; \prl{73}{225-231}{1994}; \ibj{74}
1271: {2626-2631}{1995}; D0 \cn, S. Abachi \ite, \prl{72}{2138-2142}{1994}; \ibj{74}
1272: {2422-2426}{1995}; \ibj{74}{2632-2637}{1995}; \prd{52}{4877-4919}{1995}.
1273:
1274: \bibitem{WP} L. Wolfenstein, \prl{51}{1945-1947}{1983}.
1275:
1276: \bibitem{GL} M. Gell-Mann and M. L\'evy, \nc{16}{705-725}{1960}.
1277:
1278: \bibitem{JRCKM} J. L. Rosner, \efi~2000-42, hep-ph/0011184. To be published
1279: in Proceedings of Beauty 2000, Kibbutz Maagan, Israel, September 13--18,
1280: 2000, edited by S. Erhan, Y. Rozen, and P. E. Schlein, Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.\
1281: A, 2001.
1282:
1283: \bibitem{JRTASI} J. L. Rosner, \efi~2000-47, hep-ph/0011355. To be
1284: published in {\it Flavor Physics for the Millennium}
1285: (Proceedings of the TASI-2000 Summer School, Boulder, CO, June 5--30, 2000),
1286: edited by J. L. Rosner (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001).
1287:
1288: \bibitem{CKMrevs} F. Gilman, K. Kleinknecht, and Z. Renk, mini-review on pp.\
1289: 110-114 of \PDG; A. Ali and D. London,
1290: DESY report DESY-00-026, hep-ph/0002167, in {\it Proceedings of the
1291: 3rd Workshop on Physics and Detectors for DAPHNE}, Frascati, Italy,
1292: Nov.\ 16--19, 1999, edited by S. Bianco \ite~(INFN, 1999), pp.\ 3--23;
1293: S. Stone, Conference Summary, Beauty 2000, hep-ex/0012162, to be published in
1294: Proceedings of Beauty 2000 \cite{JRCKM}; M. Ciuchini \ite, Orsay preprint LAL
1295: 00-77, hep-ex/0012308, to be submitted to JHEP.
1296:
1297: \bibitem{CLEOVcb} CLEO \cn, J. P. Alexander \ite, CLEO-CONF 00-3,
1298: presented at Osaka Conference \os.
1299:
1300: \bibitem{Flg} A. F. Falk, in\lg, \econf{C990809}{174}{2000}.
1301:
1302: \bibitem{lat} C. Sachrajda, to be published in Proceedings of Beauty 2000
1303: \cite{JRCKM}.
1304:
1305: \bibitem{Bslim} D. Abbaneo, presented at Conference on Heavy Quarks at
1306: Fixed Target, Rio de Janeiro, Oct.\ 9--19, 2000, hep-ex/0012010. Current world
1307: averages for nonstrange and strange neutral $B$ mixing amplitudes may be found
1308: in http://www.cern.ch/LEPBOSC/.
1309:
1310: \bibitem{JRFM} J. L. Rosner, \prd{42}{3732-3740}{1990}.
1311:
1312: \bibitem{PDG} \PDG.
1313:
1314: \bibitem{Lubicz} V. Lubicz, Invited Talk at the XX {\it Physics in Collision
1315: Conference}, June 29 -- July 1, 2000, Lisbon, Portugal, Univ.\ of Rome III
1316: report RM3-TH/00-15, hep-ph/0010171.
1317:
1318: \bibitem{paren} Bose statistics forbid a spinless $\pi \pi$ state with $I=1$.
1319:
1320: \bibitem{Buras} A. J. Buras, M. Jamin, and M. E. Lautenbacher, \plb{389}
1321: {749-756}{1996}.
1322:
1323: \bibitem{K99} See the articles on $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ by A. J. Buras,
1324: S. Bertolini, R. Gupta, G. Martinelli, and W. A. Bardeen in {\it Kaon Physics},
1325: edited by J. L. Rosner and B. Winstein (University of Chicago Press, 2001).
1326:
1327: \bibitem{E731} Fermilab E731 \cn, L. K. Gibbons \ite, \prl{70}{1203-1206}
1328: {1993}; \prd{55}{6625-6715}{1997}.
1329:
1330: \bibitem{NA31} CERN NA31 \cn, G. D. Barr \ite, \plb{317}{233-242}{1993}.
1331:
1332: \bibitem{E832} Fermilab E832/KTeV Collaboration, A. Alavi-Harati \ite,
1333: \prl{83}{22-27}{1999}.
1334:
1335: \bibitem{NA48} NA48 \cn, G. D. Barr \ite, presented at CERN seminar
1336: by A. Ceccucci, Feb.\ 29, 2000 (unpublished). Follow the links on
1337: http://www/cern.ch/NA48/ for a copy of the transparencies.
1338:
1339: \bibitem{BuK} G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, \np{B548}{309-327}{1999};
1340: G. Buchalla, in {\it Kaon Physics} \cite{K99}.
1341:
1342: \bibitem{FalkK} A. F. Falk, A. Lewandowski, and A. A. Petrov,
1343: Cornell Univ.\ report CLNS-00-1707, hep-ph/0012099.
1344:
1345: \bibitem{E787} Brookhaven E787 \cn, S. Adler \ite, \prl{84}{3768-3770}{2000}.
1346:
1347: \bibitem{HGr} H. B. Greenlee, \prd{42}{3724-3731}{1990}.
1348:
1349: \bibitem{pll} Fermilab E-799-II/KTeV \cn, A. Alavi-Harati \ite,
1350: preprint hep-ex/0011093 ($\pi^0 e^+ e^-$), \prl{84}{5279-8282}{2000} ($\pi^0
1351: \mu^+ \mu^-$).
1352:
1353: \bibitem{Ko} P. Ko, \prd{44}{139-165}{1991}.
1354:
1355: \bibitem{pnn} Fermilab E-799-II/KTeV \cn, A. Alavi-Harati \ite, \prd{61}
1356: {072006}{2000}.
1357:
1358: \bibitem{KTeVa} Fermilab E-799-II/KTeV \cn, A. Alavi-Harati \ite, \prl{84}
1359: {408-411}{2000}.
1360:
1361: \bibitem{NA48a} NA48 \cn, A. Lai \ite, \plb{496}{137-144}{2000}.
1362:
1363: \bibitem{BQ} KTeV \cn, G. Breese Quinn, Ph.\ D. Thesis, University of Chicago,
1364: May, 2000 (unpublished).
1365:
1366: \bibitem{CLhyp} CLEO \cn, D. E. Jaffe \ite, Cornell University report
1367: CLNS-98-1587, hep-ex/0009037 (unpublished).
1368:
1369: \bibitem{Luk} Fermilab E756 \cn, K. B. Luk \ite, \prl{85}{4860}{2000}.
1370:
1371: \bibitem{Bas2b} BaBar \cn, reported by D. Hitlin at Osaka Conf. \cite{CLEOVcb},
1372: hep-ex/0011024.
1373:
1374: \bibitem{BEs2b} BELLE \cn, reported by H. Aihara at Osaka Conf. \cite{CLEOVcb},
1375: hep-ex/0010008.
1376:
1377: \bibitem{BBD} M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, and I. Dunietz, \prd{54}{4419-4431}
1378: {1996}.
1379:
1380: \bibitem{bec} D. Becirevic \ite, \epjc{18}{157-166}{2000}.
1381:
1382: \bibitem{GrL} M. Gronau and D. London, \prl{65}{3381-3384}{1990}.
1383:
1384: \bibitem{DR} I. Dunietz and J. L. Rosner, \prd{34}{1404-1417}{1986}.
1385:
1386: \bibitem{CDFs2b} CDF \cn, T. Affolder \ite, \prd{61}{072005}{2000}.
1387:
1388: \bibitem{GNR} M. Gronau, A. Nippe, and J. L. Rosner, \prd{47}{1988-1993}{1993};
1389: M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prl{72}{195-198}{1994}; \prd{49}{254-264}{1994};
1390: Technion report TECHNION-PH-2000-27, hep-ph/0010238, \prd{63}{0540XX}{2001}.
1391:
1392: \bibitem{OPs2b} OPAL \cn, K. Ackerstaff \ite, \epjc{5}{379-388}{1998}.
1393:
1394: \bibitem{ALs2b} ALEPH \cn, R. Barate \ite, \plb{492}{259-274}{2000}.
1395:
1396: \bibitem{BaBarbk} {\it The BaBar Physics Book: Physics at an Asymmetric
1397: $B$ Factory}, edited by P. F. Harrison and H. R. Quinn, SLAC Report SLAC-504,
1398: 1998.
1399:
1400: \bibitem{GR} M. Gronau, J. Rosner and D. London, \prl{73}{21-24}{1994};
1401: M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prl{76}{1200-1203}{1996}; \prd{57}{6843-6850}
1402: {1998}; A. S. Dighe, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \prd{54}{3309-3320}{1996};
1403: A. S. Dighe and J. L. Rosner, \ibj{54}{4677-4679}{1996};
1404: M. Gronau and D. Pirjol, \plb{449}{321-327}{1999}; \prd{61}{013005}{2000}.
1405:
1406: \bibitem{FM} R. Fleischer, \plb{365}{399-406}{1996}; \prd{58}{093001}{1998};
1407: R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, \prd{57}{2752-2759}{1998};
1408: A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, and T. Mannel, \np{B533}{3-24}{1998};
1409: R. Fleischer and A. J. Buras, \epjc{11}{93-109}{1999}; A. J. Buras and
1410: R. Fleischer, \epjc{16}{97-104}{2000}.
1411:
1412: \bibitem{NR} M. Neubert and J. L. Rosner, \plb{441}{403-409}{1998}; \prl{81}
1413: {5076-5079}{1998}; M. Neubert, \jhep{9902}{014}{1999}.
1414:
1415: \bibitem{DH} N. G. Deshpande and X.-G. He, \prl{74}{26-29}{1995}; \ibj{74}
1416: {4099(E)}{1995}; O. F. Hern\'andez, D. London, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner,
1417: \prd{52}{6374-6382}{1995}.
1418:
1419: \bibitem{EGR} G. Eilam, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \prd{39}{819-824}{1989}.
1420:
1421: \bibitem{GRg} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{61}{073008}{2000}.
1422:
1423: \bibitem{Hou} X.-G. He, W.-S. Hou, and K.-C. Yang, \prl{83}{1100-1103}{1999};
1424: W.-S. Hou, J. G. Smith, and F. W\"urthwein, preprint
1425: hep-ex/9910014 (unpublished).
1426:
1427: \bibitem{WurtJesik} F. W\"urthwein and R. Jesik, talks for Working Group 1
1428: presented at Workshop on B Physics at the Tevatron -- Run II and Beyond,
1429: Fermilab, February 2000 (unpublished).
1430:
1431: \bibitem{resc} B. Blok, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \prl{78}{3999-4002}{1997};
1432: \ibj{79}{1167}{1997};
1433: A. Falk, A. L. Kagan, Y. Nir, and A. A. Petrov, \prd{57}{4290-4300}{1998};
1434: M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{57}{6843-6350}{1998}; \ibj{58}{113005}{1998};
1435: R. Fleischer, \plb{435}{221-232}{1998}; \epjc{6}{451-470}{1999}.
1436:
1437: \bibitem{RFKK} R. Fleischer, \plb{459}{306-320}{1999}; \epjc{16}{87-95}{2000}.
1438: See also I. Dunietz, Proceedings of the Workshop on $B$ Physics at Hadron
1439: Accelerators, Snowmass, CO, 1993, pp.\ 83--96;
1440: D. Pirjol, \prd{60}{054020}{1999}.
1441:
1442: \bibitem{bskpi} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \plb{482}{71-76}{2000}.
1443:
1444: \bibitem{GHLR} M. Gronau, O. F. Hern\'andez, D. London and J. L. Rosner,
1445: \prd{50}{4529-4543}{1994}.
1446:
1447: \bibitem{CLEOCP} CLEO \cn, S. Chen \ite, \prl{85}{525-529}{2000}.
1448:
1449: \bibitem{comb} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{59}{113002}{1999}.
1450:
1451: \bibitem{HG} H. Georgi, \plb{297}{353-357}{1992}; L. Wolfenstein, \plb{164}
1452: {170-172}{1985}; \prl{75}{2460-2461}{1995}; J. Donoghue, E. Golowich, B. R.
1453: Holstein, and J. Trampeti\'{c}, \prd{33}{179-183}{1986}.
1454:
1455: \bibitem{CLEOmix} CLEO \cn, R. Godang \ite, \prl{84}{5038-5042}{2000}.
1456:
1457: \bibitem{FOCUSmix} FOCUS \cn, J. M. Link, \ite, \plb{485}{62-70}{2000};
1458: Fermilab preprint FERMILAB-PUB-00-341-E, hep-ex/0012048.
1459:
1460: \bibitem{E791} Fermilab E791 \cn, presented by A. J. Schwartz, Univ.\ of
1461: Cincinnati report UCTP-112-00, hep-ex/0012006 (unpublished);
1462: J. A. Appel, hep-ex/0002022, in {\it Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Physics
1463: and Detectors for DAPHNE} \cite{CKMrevs}, pp.\ 231--247.
1464:
1465: \bibitem{BGLNP} A. F. Falk, Y. Nir, and A. A. Petrov, \jhep{12}{019}{1999};
1466: S. Bergmann, Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti, Y. Nir and A. A. Petrov,
1467: \plb{486}{418-425}{2000}; I. I. Bigi and N. G. Uraltsev, \np{B592}{92-106}
1468: {2000}.
1469:
1470: \bibitem{CPcharm} See, e.g., FOCUS \cn, J. M. Link \ite, \plb{491}{232-239}
1471: {2000}; \ibj{495}{443(E)}{2000}.
1472:
1473: \bibitem{CLEOomc} CLEO \cn, D. Cronin-Hennessy \ite, Cornell University
1474: report CLNS 00-1695, hep-ex/0010035.
1475:
1476: \bibitem{CLEOlc} CLEO \cn, M. Artuso \ite, Cornell University report
1477: CLNS 00-1698, hep-ex/0010080.
1478:
1479: \bibitem{CLEOxic} CLEO \cn, S. E. Csorna \ite, Cornell University report
1480: CLNS 00-1702, hep-ex/0012020.
1481:
1482: \bibitem{CLEOD**} CLEO \cn, S. Anderson \ite, \np{A663}{647-650}{2000}.
1483:
1484: \bibitem{FOCUSspec} FOCUS \cn, presented by F. L. Fabbri at Osaka Conf.
1485: \cite{CLEOVcb}, hep-ex/0011044; presented by C. Ricciardi, \np{A663}
1486: {651-654}{2000}.
1487:
1488: \bibitem{K0pio} KOPIO \cn, in {\it Rare Symmetry Violating Processes}, proposal
1489: to the National Science Foundation, October 1999, and Brookhaven National
1490: Laboratory Proposal P926 (unpublished).
1491:
1492: \bibitem{KAMI} KAMI \cn, Fermilab Proposal P804 (unpublished).
1493:
1494: \bibitem{CKM} CKM \cn, Fermilab Proposal P905.
1495:
1496: \bibitem{SNO} SNO \cn, presented by R. van de Water
1497: in {\it Particle Physics and Cosmology: 2nd Tropical Workshop} \cite{PR},
1498: pp.\ 193-200.
1499:
1500: \bibitem{Bxo} See the description of this experiment at
1501: http://almime.mi.infn.it/
1502:
1503: \bibitem{Kam} Super-Kamiokande \cn, presented by M. Vagins
1504: in {\it Particle Physics and Cosmology: 2nd Tropical Workshop} \cite{PR},
1505: pp.\ 122-192.
1506:
1507: \bibitem{Fnu} NuTeV \cn, presented by J. Conrad
1508: in {\it Particle Physics and Cosmology: 2nd Tropical Workshop} \cite{PR},
1509: pp.\ 331-340; M. Shaevitz, {\it ibid.}, pp.\ 105-121.
1510:
1511: \bibitem{JRlat} J. L. Rosner, \npbps{73}{29-42}{1999}.
1512:
1513: \bibitem{fut} P. Burchat \ite, Report of the NSF Elementary Particle
1514: Physics Special Emphasis Panel on $B$ Physics, July, 1998 (unpublished).
1515:
1516: \bibitem{GLmix} See, e.g., C. O. Dib, D. London, and Y. Nir, \ijmpa{6}
1517: {1253-1266}{1991}; M. Gronau and D. London, \prd{55}{2845-2861}{1997}.
1518:
1519: \bibitem{GW} Y. Grossman and M. P. Worah, \plb{395}{241-249}{1997};
1520: Y. Grossman, G. Isidori, and M. P. Worah, \prd{58}{057504}{1998}.
1521:
1522: \bibitem{Sakh} A. D. Sakharov, \pisma{5}{32-35}{1967}{24-27}.
1523:
1524: \bibitem{SSBrev} M. P. Worah, \prd{56}{2010-2018}{1997}; \prl{79}{3810-3813}
1525: {1997}; M. Carena, M. Quiros, A. Riotto, I. Vilja, and C. E. M. Wagner,
1526: \np{B503}{387-404}{1997}; M. P. Worah, in {\it Kaon Physics} \cite{K99}.
1527:
1528: \bibitem{Ram} P. Ramond,
1529: in {\it Particle Physics and Cosmology: 2nd Tropical Workshop} \cite{PR},
1530: pp.\ 75-90.
1531:
1532: \bibitem{LepBar} G. 't Hooft, \prl{37}{8-11}{1976};
1533: M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, \plb{174}{45-47}{1986};
1534: M. A. Luty, \prd{45}{455-465}{1992};
1535: M. Pl\"umacher, \zpc{74}{549-559}{1997};
1536: W. Buchm\"uller and M. Plumacher, \plb{389}{73--77}{1996}; \ibj{431}{354-362}
1537: {1998}; \prp{320}{329--339}{1999}.
1538:
1539: \bibitem{DPF} J. L. Rosner, in {\it The Albuquerque Meeting} (Proceedings of
1540: the 8th Meeting, Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical
1541: Society, Aug.\ 2--6, 1994, The University of New Mexico), edited by S. Seidel
1542: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995), pp.~321-350;
1543: M. P. Worah, \prd{53}{3902-3912}{1996}.
1544:
1545: \end{thebibliography}
1546: \end{document}
1547: #!/bin/csh -f
1548: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
1549: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
1550: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
1551: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., pffigs.uu
1552: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
1553: # then say csh pffigs.uu
1554: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
1555: # uudecode pffigs.uu ; uncompress pffigs.tar.Z ;
1556: # tar -xvf pffigs.tar
1557: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
1558: # filename in "begin" line below to pffigs.tar_Z , then execute
1559: # uudecode pffigs.uu
1560: # compress -d pffigs.tar_Z
1561: # tar -xvf pffigs.tar
1562: #
1563: uudecode $0
1564: chmod 644 pffigs.tar.Z
1565: zcat pffigs.tar.Z | tar -xvf -
1566: rm $0 pffigs.tar.Z
1567: exit
1568:
1569: