1: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}
2: \textheight 21truecm
3: \textwidth 14truecm
4: \topskip 0pt
5: \oddsidemargin 0pt
6: \evensidemargin 0pt
7: \baselineskip 24pt
8: \input psfig
9: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
10: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
11: \def\ba{\begin{array}}
12: \def\ea{\end{array}}
13: \def\beqn{\begin{eqnarray}}
14: \def\eeqn{\end{eqnarray}}
15: \def\bt{\begin{tabular}}
16: \def\et{\end{tabular}}
17: \def\bc{\begin{center}}
18: \def\ec{\end{center}}
19: \def\nonum{\nonumber}
20: \def\vud{$|V_{ud}|$}
21: \def\vus{$|V_{us}|$}
22: \def\vcb{$|V_{cb}|$}
23: \def\vub{$|V_{ub}|$}
24: \def\vcd{$|V_{cd}|$}
25: \def\vcs{$|V_{cs}|$}
26: \def\vtd{$|V_{td}|$}
27: \def\vts{$|V_{ts}|$}
28: \def\vtb{$|V_{tb}|$}
29: \def\vckm{$|V_{CKM}|$}
30: \def\rub{$|\frac {V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}|$}
31: \def\mu{$m_u$}
32: \def\md{$m_d$}
33: \def\ms{$m_s$}
34: \def\mc{$m_c$}
35: \def\mb{$m_b$}
36: \def\mt{$m_t$}
37: \def\as{$a_{\psi K_S}$}
38: \def\sin2{sin$2\beta$}
39: \def\b{$\beta$}
40: \def\del{$\delta$}
41:
42: \begin{document}
43: \title{Constructing ``Reference'' Triangle through Unitarity
44: of CKM Matrix}
45: \author{Monika Randhawa and Manmohan Gupta \\
46: {\it Department of Physics,}\\
47: {\it Centre of Advanced Study in Physics,}\\
48: {\it Panjab University, Chandigarh-
49: 160 014, India.}}
50: \maketitle
51: \begin{abstract}
52: Motivated by the possibility of the low value of \sin2~ in the
53: measurements of BABAR and BELLE collaborations,
54: a reference unitarity triangle is constructed
55: using the unitarity of the CKM matrix and the
56: experimental values of the well known CKM elements,
57: without involving any inputs from the processes which might include
58: the new physics effects. The angles of the triangle are evaluated by finding
59: the CP violating phase $\delta$ through the Jarlskog's rephasing
60: invariant parameter $J$. The present data and the unitarity of the
61: CKM matrix gives for $\delta$ the range 28$^o$ to 152$^o$,
62: which for \sin2~ translates to the
63: range 0.21 to 0.88. This range is
64: broadly in agreement with the recent BABAR and BELLE results. However,
65: a value of \sin2$\leq$0.2, advocated by Silva and Wolfenstein
66: as a benchmark for new physics, would
67: imply a violation in the three generation unitarity and would hint
68: towards the existence of a fourth generation. Further, the future
69: refinements in the CKM elements will push the lower limit on \sin2~
70: still higher.
71: \end{abstract}
72: The recent measurements of the time dependent CP asymmetry
73: $a_{\psi K_S}$ in $B^o_d({\bar B}^o_d) \rightarrow \psi K_S$
74: decay by BABAR and BELLE collaborations, for example,
75: \beqn a_{\psi K_S}& =&0.12 \pm 0.37 \pm 0.09~~~~~~~~ {\rm BABAR}~
76: \cite{babar}, \label{babar} \\
77: a_{\psi K_S}&=&0.45^{+0.43~+0.07}_{-0.44~-0.09}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {\rm BELLE}~
78: \cite{belle}, \label{belle} \eeqn
79: % a_{\psi K_S}&=&0.29 \pm 0.29,~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {\rm AVERAGE}~
80: % \label{avg} \eeqn
81: look to be smaller compared to the CDF measurements \cite{cdf},
82: for example,
83: \be a_{\psi K_S}^{{\rm CDF}}=0.79^{+0.41}_{-0.44}~, \label{cdf} \ee
84: as well as compared to the recent standard analysis of the unitarity
85: triangle \cite{burasrev} with
86: $|\epsilon_K|$, \rub, $\Delta m_d$ and $\Delta m_s$
87: as input, given as
88: \be a_{\psi K_S}^{{\rm SM}} = 0.67 \pm 0.17.
89: \label{burasrev} \ee
90: %\be a_{\psi K_S}^{{\rm SM}} = 0.75 \pm 0.06.
91: %\label{parodi} \ee
92: In the Standard Model, $a_{\psi K_S}$ is related to the angle $\beta$
93: of the unitarity triangle as,
94: \be a_{\psi K_S} = Sin2\beta. \label{sin2} \ee
95:
96: Recently, several authors \cite{kagan} - \cite{nxb} have
97: explored the implications of the possibility of low
98: value of \sin2~ in comparison to the CDF measurements
99: as well as to the global analysis of the unitarity triangle.
100: These analyses lead to the general consensus that the
101: possibility of new physics could be more prominent
102: in the loop dominated processes, in particular the
103: $B_o - \bar{B_o}$ mixing. Further, it is realized that the new
104: physics will not affect the tree level decay processes and
105: the unitarity of the three generation CKM matrix in the SM approaches
106: as well as in its extensions \cite{kagan}-\cite{ut5}.
107: In this connection, for better appraisal of new physics,
108: it has been generally recommended to construct a universal
109: or reference unitarity triangle \cite{kagan},\cite{ut1}-\cite{ut5},
110: wherein the inputs are free from the processes which might include
111: the new physics effects, in particular the
112: $B_o - \bar{B_o}$ mixing and $K_o - \bar{K_o}$ mixing parameters.
113: Keeping this in mind several strategies,
114: model dependent \cite{ut1,ut2} as well as model independent
115: \cite{ut3,ut4,ut5}, have been formulated to construct the triangle,
116: however by and large both approaches rely on the
117: rare decays. The reference triangle to be constructed is defined as,
118: \be V_{ud}V_{ub}^{*} + V_{cd}V_{cb}^{*} + V_{td}V_{tb}^{*} = 0,
119: \label{db} \ee
120: obtained by employing the orthogonality of the
121: first and third column of the CKM matrix (henceforth referred to as
122: triangle $db$).
123: In this triangle the elements involving $t$ quark
124: have not been experimentally measured as yet and hence to
125: construct the triangle, the inputs from rare decays
126: involving elements $V_{td}$ and $V_{tb}$ through loops
127: have to be used.
128:
129: In this context, it is interesting to note that
130: despite several analyses of the CKM
131: phenomenology in the past \cite{burasrev}, \cite{jarlskog}
132: -\cite{parodi}
133: yielding valuable information,
134: the implications of three generation unitarity have not been
135: examined in detail in the construction of the reference triangle.
136: A reference triangle constructed purely from the considerations of
137: unitarity as well as using experimentally measured CKM elements
138: will be free from the effects of new physics and hence could serve
139: as a tool for deciphering deviation from the SM in measuring the
140: CP asymmetries.
141:
142: The purpose of the present communication is to construct
143: the triangle $db$ using unitarity of the three generation CKM matrix
144: by evaluating the Jarlskog's Rephasing Invariant Parameter $J$
145: and consequently the CP violating phase $\delta$. In particular,
146: we intend to evaluate angles $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$
147: of the triangle $db$ and study the implications of the low value of \sin2~
148: for unitarity.
149:
150: To begin with we consider the six non diagonal relations
151: implied by the unitarity of the
152: CKM matrix. One of the relations is mentioned above in equation
153: \ref{db} and the other five are as follows,
154: \beqn
155: ds~~~~~~~V_{ud}V_{us}^{*} + V_{cd}V_{cs}^{*} + V_{td}V_{ts}^{*} = 0,
156: \label{ds} \\
157: sb~~~~~~~V_{us}V_{ub}^{*} + V_{cs}V_{cb}^{*} + V_{ts}V_{tb}^{*} = 0,
158: \label{sb} \\
159: ut~~~~~~~V_{ud}V_{td}^{*} + V_{us}V_{ts}^{*} + V_{ub}V_{tb}^{*} = 0,
160: \label{ut} \\
161: uc~~~~~~~V_{ud}V_{cd}^{*} + V_{us}V_{cs}^{*} + V_{ub}V_{cb}^{*} = 0,
162: \label{uc} \\
163: ct~~~~~~~V_{cd}V_{td}^{*} + V_{cs}V_{ts}^{*} + V_{cb}V_{tb}^{*} = 0.
164: \label{ct}
165: \eeqn
166: The letters before the different equations denote the respective
167: triangles.
168:
169: As mentioned above, in the triangle $db$ the elements
170: $V_{td}$ and $V_{tb}$ are not experimentally
171: measured, therefore to obtain these elements without involving inputs
172: from $K_o - \bar{K_o}$ and $B_o - \bar{B_o}$ mixing and rare decays one
173: needs to make use of the PDG \cite{pdg} representation of the
174: CKM matrix given below,
175: \be V_{CKM}= \left( \ba {lll} c_{12} c_{13} & s_{12} c_{13} &
176: s_{13}e^{-i\delta} \\
177: -s_{12} c_{23} - c_{12} s_{23} s_{13}e^{i\delta} &
178: c_{12} c_{23} - s_{12} s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta}
179: & s_{23} c_{13} \\
180: s_{12} s_{23} - c_{12} c_{23} s_{13}e^{i\delta} &
181: - c_{12} s_{23} - s_{12}c_{23} s_{13}e^{i\delta} &
182: c_{23} c_{13} \ea \right), \label{ckm} \ee
183: with $c_{ij}=cos\theta_{ij}$ and $s_{ij}=sin\theta_{ij}$ for
184: $i,j=1,2,3.$
185: Since one can obtain $s_{12}$, $s_{23}$ and $s_{13}$
186: from the experimentally well known elements
187: \vus, \vcb~ and
188: \rub~ given in Table
189: \ref{tabinput}, the CP violating phase
190: $\delta$ remains the only unknown parameter in determining the triangle
191: $db$, which is related to the Jarlskog's rephasing invariant
192: parameter $J$ as,
193: \be J = s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}c_{12}
194: c_{23}c^2_{13}sin \delta. \label{j} \ee
195: An evaluation of $J$ would allow us to find $\delta$ and
196: consequently the angles $\alpha$, \b~ and $\gamma$ of the
197: triangle $db$. To evaluate $J$, we make use of the fact
198: that the areas of all the six triangles (equations \ref{db}-\ref{ct})
199: are equal and that the area of any of the unitarity triangle
200: is related to Jarlskog's Rephasing Invariant Parameter $J$ as,
201: \be J = 2 \times {\rm Area~ of~any~ of~ the~ Unitarity~ Triangle.}
202: \label{area} \ee
203: This, therefore affords an opportunity to evaluate $J$
204: through one of the unitarity triangle whose sides are
205: experimentally well known, for example, triangle $uc$.
206: The triangle $uc$ though is quite well known, but it is highly
207: squashed, therefore one needs to be careful while
208: evaluating $J$ through this triangle.
209: The sides of the triangle represented by $|V_{ud}^*V_{cd}|~(=a)$ and
210: $|V_{us}^*V_{cs}| ~(=b)$ are of comparable lengths while the third side
211: $|V_{ub}^*V_{cb}| ~(=c)$ is several orders of
212: magnitude smaller compared to $a$ and $b$.
213: This creates complications for evaluating the area of the triangle
214: without violating the existence of CP violation.
215: These complications can be avoided without violating the
216: unitarity by incorporating the constraints
217: $|a|+|c| > |b|$ and $|b|+|c| > |a|$ \cite{branco}.
218: Using these constraints and the experimental data given in the
219: table \ref{tabinput}, a histogram can be generated,
220: shown in figure \ref{fig1}, to which a gaussian is
221: fitted yielding the result,
222: \be |J|= (2.59 \pm 0.79) \times 10^{-5}
223: \label{jpdg1s}. \ee
224: This value of $|J|$
225: can now be used to calculate $\delta$ using the
226: equation \ref{j}, which can be re-written as,
227: \be J = J^{'} sin \delta \label{jpdg}, \ee where,
228: \be J^{'} = s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}c_{12}
229: c_{23}c^2_{13}. \label{j'} \ee
230: Calculating $s_{12},~ s_{23}$ and $s_{13}$ from
231: the experimental values of \vus, \rub,~
232: and \vcb~ given in table \ref{tabinput} and
233: following the procedure outlined above for evaluating $|J|$,
234: $J^{'}$ comes out to be,
235: \be J^{'}= (3.23 \pm 0.63) \times 10^{-5}.
236: \label{xpdg1s} \ee
237: Since $J^{'}sin \delta$ should reproduce $|J|$
238: calculated through the unitarity triangle $uc$, therefore
239: comparing equations \ref{jpdg1s} and \ref{xpdg1s}, one can easily find
240: out the widest limits on $\delta$, for example,
241: \be \delta = 28^o ~{\rm to} ~152^o. \label{deluni} \ee
242: This value of $\delta$ apparently looks to be the consequence
243: only of the unitarity relationship given by equation \ref{uc}.
244: However on further investigation, as shown by Branco and Lavoura
245: \cite{branco}, one finds that this $\delta$ range is consequence
246: of all the non trivial unitarity constraints. In this sense the above
247: range could be attributed to as a consequence of unitarity of the
248: CKM matrix. It needs to be noted that with the above range of $\delta$
249: and the experimental values of \vus, \vcb~ and
250: \rub~ given in Table \ref{tabinput}, the CKM matrix thus evaluated
251: is in excellent agreement with PDG CKM matrix \cite{pdg}.
252:
253: Alternatively, using equation \ref{jpdg}, one can plot a
254: histogram for $\delta$ as well, to which fitting a Gaussian yields,
255: \beqn \delta & = & 50^o \pm 20^o~ ({\rm I~ quadrant}), \nonumber \\
256: & & 130^o \pm 20^o~ ({\rm II~ quadrant}). \label{dhis68} \eeqn
257: This gives us relatively stronger bounds on $\delta$.
258: However, to be conservative, we have used the range of $\delta$
259: as given by equation \ref{deluni} for the
260: subsequent calculations.
261:
262: After having obtained a range for $\delta$, the triangle $db$
263: can be constructed, however without involving inputs from
264: the phenomena which may have influence from the new physics as
265: well as without the inputs from the rare decays.
266: The angles $\alpha$, \b~ and $\gamma$ of the triangle can be
267: expressed in terms of the CKM elements as,
268: \be \alpha = arg\left(\frac{-V_{td}V_{tb}^*}{V_{ud}V_{ub}^*} \right),
269: \label{alpha} \ee
270: \be \beta = arg\left(\frac{-V_{cd}V_{cb}^*}{V_{td}V_{tb}^*}\right),
271: \label{beta} \ee
272: \be \gamma = arg\left(\frac{-V_{ud}V_{ub}^*}{V_{cd}V_{cb}^*}\right),
273: \label{gamma} \ee
274: where CKM elements are as given by the PDG representation in the
275: equation \ref{ckm}. In the Table \ref{tabinput} we
276: have listed the experimental values of the
277: CKM elements as given by PDG \cite{pdg} as well as their future values.
278: Making use of the PDG representation of CKM matrix given in
279: equation \ref{ckm}, experimental values of \vus,~ \vcb~
280: and \rub~ from table \ref{tabinput} and the range of
281: \del ~ given by equation \ref{deluni}, one can easily find out
282: the corresponding ranges for the three angles.
283: In the Table \ref{tab1}, we have listed the corresponding results for
284: $J$, $\delta$, $\alpha$, \b~ and $\gamma$.
285: The ranges for $\alpha$, \b~ and $\gamma$ are as follows,
286: \beqn \alpha \simeq 19^o~ {\rm to}~ 142^o \label{alphauni}, \\
287: \beta \simeq 6^o ~{\rm to} ~ 31^o \label{betauni}, \\
288: \gamma \simeq 28^o ~{\rm to} ~ 152^o. \label{gammauni} \eeqn
289: While evaluating the three angles, we have taken care that the triangle
290: is closed.
291: The range of \sin2~ corresponding to equation \ref{betauni} is given as,
292: \be sin2\beta = 0.21~ {\rm to} ~0.88 \label{sin2uni}. \ee
293: It needs to be emphasized that this range for \sin2~ is obtained by
294: making use of unitarity and the well known CKM elements listed
295: in Table \ref{tabinput}. The above range has considerable overlap
296: with the BABAR and BELLE results,
297: however if \sin2~ is found to be $\leq$0.2, a benchmark for new physics
298: as advocated by Silva and Wolfenstein \cite{silva}, then one may
299: conclude that even the three generation unitarity may not be valid and
300: one may have to go to four generations to explain the low values of \sin2.
301: In such a scenario, the widely advocated assumption \cite{kagan}
302: -\cite{ut5} that the non SM physics
303: resides in loop dominated processes only may not be valid.
304:
305: A few comments are in order.
306: It is interesting to examine the consequences of the future refinements
307: in the CKM elements.
308: While listing the future values of the elements we have considered only
309: those elements where the present error is more than 15$\%$,
310: for example \rub~ and \vcs. The future values of these
311: elements are listed in column III of Table
312: \ref{tabinput}.
313: One finds from the Table \ref{tab1} that the refinements in \rub~
314: and \vcs~ would improve the lower bound on \sin2~ from 0.21 to 0.31.
315: This would give a clear signal for physics beyond the SM
316: in case \sin2~ is measured to be $\leq$ 0.2. To emphasize this conclusion,
317: we have also considered all the future inputs at their 90$\%$ CL
318: and this gives the lower limit of \sin2=0.18.
319: %, which again is a
320: %marginal case for the three generation unitarity to be valid.
321:
322: It may be of interest to mention that a recent investigations
323: involving texture 4 zeros quark mass matrices
324: and unitarity \cite{massmat},
325: yield the following range for \sin2,
326: \be Sin2\beta = 0.27~ {\rm to}~ 0.60, \label{massmat} \ee
327: which looks to be compatible with the present unitarity based
328: calculations. A value of \sin2 $\leq$ 0.2 therefore, will have far
329: reaching consequences for unitarity as well as for texture
330: specific mass matrices \cite{massmat1}.
331:
332: It is interesting to compare our results (equation \ref{sin2uni}) with
333: those of Buras (equation \ref{burasrev}), obtained
334: from the measurements of $|\epsilon_K|$, \rub, $\Delta m_d$
335: and $\Delta m_s$, which look to be much
336: narrower compared to ours. This is easy to understand when one considers
337: the definition of \b~ given in equation \ref{beta}, wherein the magnitude
338: and phase of $V_{td}$ play an important role. For example, the
339: range of $\delta$ given by equation \ref{deluni} yields the
340: $V_{td}$ range as 0.0045 to 0.0135, whereas the
341: range corresponding to Buras's analysis is 0.0067 to 0.0093,
342: which is narrower
343: primarily due to restrictions imposed by $|\epsilon_K|$, $\Delta m_d$
344: and $\Delta m_s$.
345:
346: To conclude, we have constructed a reference unitarity triangle by making
347: use of the three generation unitarity of the CKM matrix and the
348: experimental values of the well known CKM elements,
349: without involving any inputs from the processes which might include
350: the new physics effects, in particular the
351: $B_o - \bar{B_o}$ mixing and $K_o - \bar{K_o}$ mixing parameters
352: as well as the rare decays. The angles of the triangle have been
353: evaluated by finding the CP violating phase $\delta$ through the
354: Jarlskog's rephasing invariant parameter $J$.
355: The range of $\delta$ comes out to be 28$^o$ to 152$^o$ and the
356: corresponding range for \sin2~ is 0.21 to 0.88. This range is
357: broadly in agreement with the recent BABAR and BELLE results and
358: also has considerable overlap with the range found from the
359: texture 4 zeros quark mass matrices and the unitarity of the
360: CKM matrix. However,
361: a value of \sin2$\leq$0.2 advocated by Silva and Wolfenstein
362: as a benchmark for new physics would
363: imply a violation in the three generation unitarity and would hint
364: towards the existence of a fourth generation. Further, the future
365: refinements in the CKM elements will push the lower limit on \sin2~
366: still higher, for example from 0.21 to 0.31, thus
367: giving a clear signal for physics beyond the SM
368: in case \sin2~ is measured to be $\leq$ 0.2. This remains valid
369: even when the future values are considered at their 90$\%$ CL.
370: \vskip 1cm
371: {\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}\\
372:
373: M.G. would like to thank S.D. Sharma for useful discussions.
374: M.R. would like to thank CSIR, Govt. of India, for
375: financial support and also the Chairman, Department of Physics,
376: for providing facilities to work in the department.
377: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
378:
379: \bibitem{babar} D. Hitlin, BABAR Collaboration, Plenary talk
380: in ICHEP 2000 (OSAKA, Japan, July 31, 2000), SLAC-PUB-8540.
381:
382: \bibitem{belle} H. Aihara, BELLE Collaboration, Plenary talk
383: in ICHEP 2000 (OSAKA, Japan, July 31, 2000).
384:
385: \bibitem{cdf} T. Affolder {\it et al.}, CDF Collaboration,
386: Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 072005(2000).
387:
388: \bibitem{burasrev} Andrzej J. Buras, hep-ph/0101336 and references
389: therein.
390:
391: \bibitem{kagan} A. L. Kagan and M. Neubert, hep-ph/0007360.
392:
393: \bibitem{silva} J. P. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, hep-ph/0008004.
394:
395: \bibitem{nxb} G. Eyal, Y. Nir and G. Perez, hep-ph/0008009;
396: Z. Z. Xing, hep-ph/0008018; Y. Nir, hep-ph/0008226;
397: A. J. Buras and R. Buras, hep-ph/0008273.
398:
399: \bibitem{ut1} T. Goto, N. Kitazawa, Y. Okada and M. Tanaka,
400: Phys. Rev. {\bf D53}, 6662(1996).
401:
402: \bibitem{ut2} A. J. Buras, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, S. Jager and
403: L. Silvestrini, hep-ph/0007085.
404:
405: \bibitem{ut3} Y. Grossmann, Y. Nir and M. P. Worah, Phys. Lett.
406: {\bf B407}, 307(1997).
407:
408: \bibitem{ut4} A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, F. Lepeintre, A. E. Nelson,
409: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78} 2300(1997).
410:
411: \bibitem{ut5} G. Barenboim, G. Eyal and Y. Nir, Phys. Rev. Lett.
412: {\bf 83}, 4486(1999).
413:
414: \bibitem{jarlskog} CP violation, Ed. L. Wolfenstein, North Holland,
415: elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1989;
416: CP violation, Ed. C. Jarlskog, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte.
417: Ltd, 1989.
418:
419: \bibitem{gupta} Manmohan Gupta and P. S. Gill, Pramana {\bf 38}, 477(1992);
420: P. S. Gill and Manmohan Gupta, Mod. Phys.
421: Lett. {\bf A13}, 2445(1998).
422:
423: \bibitem{ckmph}
424: L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 51}, 1945(1983);
425: %
426: Stefan Herrlich and Ulrich Nierste, Phys. Rev. {\bf D52},
427: 6505(1995);
428: %
429: M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett.
430: {\bf 76}, 1200(1996);
431: %
432: H. Fritzsch and Z. Z. Xing, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B556}, 49(1999);
433: %
434: J.L. Rosner, hep-ph/0005258;
435: %
436: A. Ali, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C9},
437: 687(1999); hep-ph/0002167;
438: %
439: I. I. Bigi and A. I. Sanda, hep-ph/9909479;
440: %
441: R.D. Peccei, hep-ph/9904456; hep-ph/9909236; hep-ph/0004152.
442: %
443:
444: \bibitem{parodi} M. Ciuchini, G. D'Agostini, E. Franco,
445: V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Parodi, P. Roudeau and
446: A. Stocchi, hep-ph/0012308 and references therein.
447:
448: \bibitem{pdg} D.E. Groom {\it et al.}, Particle Data group, Euro. Phys.
449: J. {\bf C15}, 1(2000).
450:
451: \bibitem{branco} G.C. Branco and L. Lavoura, Phys. Lett. {\bf B208},
452: 123(1988).
453:
454: \bibitem{massmat} Monika Randhawa and Manmohan Gupta, hep-ph/0011388.
455:
456: \bibitem{massmat1}
457: H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. {\bf B353}, 114(1995);
458: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B556}, 49(1999);
459: R. Barbieri, L.J. Hall and A. Romanino,
460: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B551}, 93(1999).
461:
462: \end{thebibliography}
463: \newpage
464:
465: \begin{table}
466: \bc \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|} \hline
467: Parameter & PDG values \cite{pdg} & Future values \\ \hline
468: \vud & 0.9735 $\pm$ 0.0008 & 0.9735 $\pm$ 0.0008 \\
469: \vus & 0.2196 $\pm$ 0.0023 & 0.2196 $\pm$ 0.0023 \\
470: \vcd & 0.224 $\pm$ 0.016 & 0.224 $\pm$ 0.016 \\
471: \vcs & 1.04 $\pm$ 0.16 & 1.04 $\pm$ 0.08 \\
472: \vcb & 0.0402 $\pm$0.0019 & 0.0402 $\pm$0.0019\\
473: \rub & 0.090 $\pm$ 0.025 & 0.090 $\pm$ 0.010 \\
474: & & \\ \hline
475: \end{tabular}
476: \caption{Values of the CKM parameters used throughout the paper.}
477: \label{tabinput}
478: \ec \end{table}
479:
480: \begin{table}
481: \bc
482: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline
483: & With PDG values &
484: With future values & \bt{c} With future values \\ at their
485: 90$\%$ CL \\ \et \\ \hline
486: & & & \\
487: $J$ & $ (2.59 \pm 0.79) \times 10^{-5} $ &
488: $(2.79 \pm 0.49) \times 10^{-5} $ & $ (2.61 \pm 0.78)
489: \times 10^{-5}$ \\ & & & \\
490: $\delta$ & $28^o$ to $152^o$ &
491: $42^o$ to $138^o$ & $30^o$ to $150^o$ \\ & & & \\
492: $\alpha$ & $19^o$ to $141^o$ &
493: $28^o$ to $124^o$ & $19^o$ to $143^o$ \\ & & & \\
494: $\beta$ & $ 6^o$ to $31^o$ &
495: $9^o$ to $31^o$ & $5^o$ to $36^o$ \\ & & & \\
496: $\gamma$ & $28^o$ to $152^o$ &
497: $42^o$ to $138^o$ & $30^o$ to $150^o$ \\ \hline
498: \end{tabular}
499: \caption{$J$, $\delta$ and corresponding $\alpha$, $\beta$
500: and $\gamma$ with PDG and the future values of
501: input parameters listed in table \ref{tabinput}}
502: \label{tab1}
503: \ec \end{table}
504:
505: \newpage
506:
507: \begin{figure}
508: \centerline{\psfig{figure=j.eps,width=5in,height=5in}}
509: \caption{Gaussian fitted to the histogram of $|J|$ generated
510: by considering the triangle $uc$ with the input constraints
511: $|a|+|c| > |b|$ and $|b|+|c| > |a|$, where $a = |V_{ud}^*V_{cd}|$,
512: $b=|V_{us}^*V_{cs}|$ and
513: $c=|V_{ub}^*V_{cb}|$.}
514: \label{fig1}
515: \end{figure}
516:
517: \end{document}
518:
519: