1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf]{article}
2: \textheight 600pt \textwidth 16.5cm
3: \hoffset -1.8cm
4: \voffset -1.7cm
5: \parskip=4pt plus 1pt
6: \newcommand{\Frac}[2]{\frac{\displaystyle #1}{\displaystyle #2}}
7: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}
10: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}
11: \newcommand{\beqns}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
12: \newcommand{\eeqns}{\end{eqnarray*}}
13: \begin{document}
14: \begin{titlepage}
15: \begin{center}
16: \hfill INFNNA-IV-2001/12\\
17: \hfill DSFNA-IV-2001/12\\
18: \hfill hep-ph/0105078\\
19: \hfill May 2001
20: \vspace{1.5cm}\\
21: {\Large\bf The diquark model: New Physics effects for charm and kaon
22: decays ${}^*$\\}
23: \vspace*{1.5cm}
24: {Giancarlo D'Ambrosio$^{\dagger}$ }$\; \; $ and $ \; \; $ {Dao-Neng
25: Gao$^{\ddagger}$ }
26: \vspace*{0.4cm} \\
27: {\it Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di
28: Napoli, Dipartamento di Scienze Fisiche, Universit\`a di Napoli
29: I-80126 Napoli, Italy}
30: \vspace*{1cm}
31: \end{center}
32: \begin{abstract}
33: \noindent
34: Motivated by diquark exchange, we construct a class of extensions of
35: the standard model. These models can generate large CP conserving and CP
36: violating contributions to the doubly Cabbibo suppressed decays
37: $D^0\rightarrow K^+\pi^-$ without affecting $D^0-\overline{D^0}$ mixing,
38: contrary to what is usually believed in the literature. We find an
39: interesting specific realization of these models, which has the $LR$
40: chiral structure and can induce novel density $\times$ density
41: operators. It is new for non-leptonic kaon decays, and particularly, may
42: provide a possible solution to the $\Delta I=1/2$ rule and direct CP
43: violation, without inducing large flavour changing neutral currents.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \vfill
47: \noindent $^{\dagger}$ E-mail:~giancarlo.dambrosio@na.infn.it\\
48: \noindent $^{\ddagger}$ E-mail:~gao@na.infn.it, and
49: on leave from {\it the Department of
50: Astronomy and Applied Physics, University of Science and Technology of
51: China, Hefei, Anhui 230026 China}.\\ \noindent * Work supported in part
52: by TMR, EC--Contract No. ERBFMRX-CT980169 (EURODA$\Phi$NE).
53: \end{titlepage}
54:
55: \section{Introduction}
56:
57: $D^{0}-\overline{D^{0}}$ mixing and in general the charm sector is a very
58: interesting place to test the Standard Model (SM) and its possible
59: extensions \cite{Buch01, Bigi01, Nirdelta99, Nir99}. Recent data from
60: FOCUS \cite{focus} and
61: CLEO \cite{CLEO2000} have given further excitement to this field. Indeed
62: the decay $D^{0}\rightarrow K^{+}\pi^{-}$ has been now clearly
63: observed; this
64: may occur either through the double Cabibbo suppressed decays (DCS) or $
65: D^{0}-\overline{D^{0}}$ mixing with a subsequent Cabibbo favoured decays
66: (CF).\ Data \cite{focus,CLEO2000} seem to exceed the naive SM\
67: expectation for the ratio of DCS to CF branching fractions is
68: \begin{equation}
69: R_{D}\equiv \left| \frac{A(D^{0}\rightarrow K^{+}\pi ^{-})_{\rm DCS}}{A(%
70: \overline{D^{0}}\rightarrow K^{+}\pi ^{-})_{\rm CF}}\right| ^{2}
71: \label{eq:rdcs}
72: \end{equation}
73: $\approx $ $\tan ^{4}\theta _{C}\approx $ 0.25\%.\ \ Also SM predictions for
74: $D^{0}-\overline{D^{0}}$ mixing give a very negligible contribution.
75:
76: It is generally believed that extensions of the SM can significantly affect
77: the mixing but not the decay \cite{Nir99}. We challenge this statement by
78: constructing a class of models which can generate large CP conserving and
79: violating contributions only to DCS decays without affecting $D^{0}-
80: \overline{D^{0}}$ mixing. Thus we want to stimulate the experiments to also
81: put bounds on CP violating contributions to DCS decays. These models are
82: obtained by introducing a new scalar particle, a diquark $\chi $, triplet
83: under colour and can also be theoretically motivated in extensions of the
84: SM. We fix the $\chi-$coupling so that this is relevant for DCS decays i.e.
85: \begin{equation}
86: A(D^{0}\rightarrow K^{+}\pi ^{-})_{\chi }\approx 10^{-2}G_{F}.
87: \label{eq:DCSchi}
88: \end{equation}
89: On the other hand, we also show that a possible large direct CP asymmetry
90: in $D^\pm$ channel could be induced by the
91: diquark exchange.
92:
93: Further we study more in detail an intriguing specific realization of these
94: models which may have relevant implications for non-leptonic kaon decays
95: \cite{kaon}, in
96: particular the $\Delta I=1/2$ rule. In fact, diquark interchange may
97: generate non-leptonic $\Delta I=1/2$ transitions, and the size of these
98: contributions is appropriately constrained by $\Delta S=2$
99: interactions. Thus one would have expected that a
100: sizable interaction like the one in (\ref{eq:DCSchi}) for kaon decays,
101: though in principle interesting for the $\Delta I=1/2$ rule would generate
102: a disaster in the flavour changing neutral current (FCNC) sector.\ However
103: we do find, we think, an elegant solution to this problem, and
104: it may also have other applications, for
105: instance, generating new direct CP violating $\Delta S=1$ operators
106: without inducing large $\varepsilon$.
107:
108: Differently from Ref. \cite{glashow} our model is based on supersymmetry
109: and we do not address the issue of strong CP problem.
110:
111: \section{Charm phenomenology}
112:
113: Mass and width eigenstates of the neutral $D-$ system are written as linear
114: combinations of the interactions eigenstates:
115: \begin{equation}
116: \left| D_{1,2}\right\rangle =p\left| D^{0}\right\rangle \pm q\left|
117: \overline{D^{0}}\right\rangle \label{eq:dmix}
118: \end{equation}
119: with eigenvalues $m_{1,2}$ and $\Gamma _{1,2}.\;$The mass and width average
120: and difference are defined as
121: \begin{equation}
122: m=\frac{m_{1}+m_{2}}{2},\quad \Gamma =\frac{\Gamma _{1}+\Gamma _{2}}{2},
123: \end{equation}
124: \begin{equation}
125: x=\frac{m_{2}-m_{1}}{\Gamma },\quad y=\frac{\Gamma _{2}-\Gamma _{1}}{2\Gamma
126: }.
127: \end{equation}
128: Decay amplitudes into a final state $f$ are defined by
129: \begin{equation}
130: A_{f}\equiv \langle f\left| H_{W}\right| D^{0}\rangle
131: ,\quad \overline{A_{f}} \equiv \langle f\left| H_{W}\right|
132: \overline{D^{0}}\rangle .
133: \end{equation}
134: Then one can generally define the complex parameter:
135: \begin{equation}
136: \lambda _{f}\equiv
137: \frac{q}{p}\frac{\overline{A_{f}}}{A_{f}}.
138: \end{equation}
139:
140: The phenomenological evidence of possible large DCS decays comes from the
141: analysis of CLEO \cite{CLEO2000} and FOCUS \cite{focus} that have been able
142: to disentangle in the total data sample the DCS contribution from the
143: $D^{0}\rightarrow \overline{D^{0}}\rightarrow K^{+}\pi ^{-}$ contribution.
144: CLEO\ is able to study the time dependence in the ratio of the DCS to the
145: CF decays, which in the limit of $CP$ conservation is written as:
146: \begin{eqnarray}
147: \begin{array}{ll}
148: R\left( t\right) \equiv & \left| \frac{\displaystyle \langle K^{+}\pi
149: ^{-}\left| H_{W}\right| D^{0}(t)\rangle }{\displaystyle \langle K^{+}\pi
150: ^{-}\left| H_{W}\right| \overline{D^{0}}(t)\rangle }\right| ^{2}=\left[
151: R_{D}\right. \\
152: & \\
153: & \left. +\sqrt{R_{D}}y^{\prime }\Gamma t+\left( y^{\prime 2}+x^{\prime
154: 2}\right) \left( \Gamma t\right) ^{2}/4\right] e^{-\Gamma t},
155: \end{array}
156: \label{eq:rws}
157: \end{eqnarray}
158: where $R_{D}$ is defined in (\ref{eq:rdcs}) and
159: the final state interaction will generate a strong phase difference
160: $\delta$ between the DCS and the CF amplitudes so that the following
161: rotation is used in (\ref{eq:rws})
162: \[
163: \begin{array}{ll}
164: x^{\prime }= & x\cos \delta +y\sin \delta, \\
165: y^{\prime }= & y\cos \delta -x\sin \delta.
166: \end{array}
167: \]
168:
169:
170: CLEO by a careful time dependent study
171: finds $R_{D}=$ $\left( 0.33_{-0.065}^{+0.063}\pm 0.040\right) \cdot
172: 10^{-2}$ \cite{CLEO2000} with no-mixing fit,
173: while FOCUS \cite{focus} assuming that there is no charm
174: mixing and no $CP$ violation finds $R_{D}=\left(0.404\pm 0.085\pm
175: 0.025\right) \cdot 10^{-2}$.
176: Possible $CP$ violation effects in the mixing, the direct decay, and
177: the interference between those two processes, characterized by $A_M$,
178: $A_D$, and $\phi$ respectively, can affect the three terms in
179: (\ref{eq:rws}), where, to leading order, both $x^\prime$ and $y^\prime$
180: are scaled by $(1\pm A_M)^{1/2}$, $R_D\rightarrow R_D(1\pm A_D)$, and
181: $\delta\rightarrow \delta\pm \phi$, as has been taken into account in the
182: analysis by CLEO \cite{CLEO2000}. The corresponding values obtained
183: in \cite{CLEO2000} are
184: as follows:
185: \beq\label{DCPE}
186: A_M=0.23^{+0.63}_{-0.80},\;\; A_D=-0.01\pm0.17, \;\;
187: \sin \phi=0.00\pm0.60.
188: \eeq
189:
190: The SM prediction to the $D^0-\overline{D^0}$ mixing is highly suppressed
191: because it is the second order in $\alpha_W$ and has a very strong GIM
192: suppression factor $m_s^4/(M_W m_c)^2$. The experimental data are
193: \beq\label{expx}
194: x\leq 0.03 ~\cite{Bigi01},
195: \eeq
196: \begin{eqnarray}\label{yprime}
197: y^\prime \cos\phi=(-2.5^{+1.4}_{-1.6})\cdot 10^{-2}~
198: \cite{CLEO2000},
199: \end{eqnarray}
200: and
201: \begin{eqnarray}\label{yfocus}
202: y=(3.42\pm1.39\pm0.74)\cdot 10^{-2} ~\cite{focus},
203: \end{eqnarray}
204: which cannot be clearly explained in the SM,
205: where one expects \cite{Buch01}
206: \beq
207: x_{\rm SM}, y_{\rm SM}
208: \le 10^{-3}.
209: \eeq
210:
211: Theoretically, the strong phase $\delta$ was expected small, even
212: vanishing in the SU(3) limit \cite{Wolf95}. However, as pointed out in
213: \cite{Nirdelta99}: (i) a large $\delta$ would make the possible different
214: signs of the measured $D^0-\overline{D^0}$ mixing parameters shown in
215: eqs. (\ref{yprime}) and (\ref{yfocus}) consistent with each other, and
216: (ii) recent data allow large values of $\delta$. A large
217: $\delta$ would be welcome in searching for direct CP asymmetry of
218: $D^\pm\rightarrow K_S\pi^\pm$.
219:
220: At the present, on one hand, the experimental results in charm
221: phenomenology obviously need to be further improved; on the other hand,
222: the discrepancy between the SM estimates and the data invites for
223: speculations about the New Physics contributions.
224:
225: \section{Theory}
226:
227: As mentioned in the Introduction, let us now imagine the theory with the
228: spin 0 diquark $\chi$ with the quantum numbers as follows
229: \cite{Zwirner, ellis, glashow},
230: i.e.
231: \[
232: \begin{array}{ccccc}
233: & SU(3)_C & SU(2)_L & U(1)_Y & B\\
234: \chi & \mathbf{3} & 1 & -1/3 &-2/3\\
235: \chi^{c} & \overline{\mathbf{3}} & 1 & 1/3& 2/3
236: \end{array}
237: \]
238: coupled to quark left-handed doublets, $Q$ and right--handed singlets $
239: U,D$ and assume now that these are supersymmetric degrees of freedom. We
240: write the R-parity conserving interaction in the superpotential $W$
241: \cite{Zwirner, ellis}
242: \begin{equation}
243: W_{diquark}=g_{L}\left( h_{L}\right)^A_{ij}Q^{i}Q^{j}\chi _{A}+g_{R}\left(
244: h_{R}\right)^A_{ij}U_{i}^{c}D_{j}^{c}\chi _{A}^{c}, \label{Wsuper}
245: \end{equation}
246: where $i,j$, and $A$ are family indices, and the possible
247: intergenerational mixing in $\left(h_{L}\right)^A_{ij}$ and
248: $\left(h_{R}\right)^A_{ij}$ is
249: assumed. $h^A_{L}$ are flavour symmetric matrices in the
250: weak-isospin basis, but they depart from symmetry in mass-eigenstate
251: basis. Also (super-)Yukawa couplings of quarks to the two Higgses belong
252: to this so-called superpotential.\ All this does make sense in the
253: supersymmetric version of $E_{6}$ \cite{HR89}, therefore the terms
254: in the superpotential are protected by the no-renormalization
255: theorem \cite{martin99}. Anyway, the supersymmetric predictions, for our
256: purpose, can be regarded as the effective predictions of extensions of the
257: SM satisfying the phenomenological limits including LEP data. This is
258: different from Ref. \cite{glashow} which is in the
259: framework of a standard renormalizable theory.
260:
261: From eq. (\ref{Wsuper}), one can get the four-quark operators
262: which have $LL$ and $RR$ chiral structures mediated by the diquarks $\chi$
263: and $\chi^c$ respectively. Interestingly, $\chi-\chi^c$ mixing
264: \cite{Zwirner} will generate instead the $LR$ chiral structure.
265: Generally, squaring $\Delta S=1$ operators \cite{kaon} could
266: automatically lead to
267: dangerous FCNC transitions. However, this is not the
268: case for $\Delta C=1$ operators contributing to DCS $D\rightarrow
269: K\pi$ decays. Therefore, as shown in the next section,
270: all the chiral structures $LL$, $RR$, and $LR$ can
271: enhance the DCS decays without affecting $D^0-\overline{D^0}$
272: mixing, while only using the $LR$ structure, one can get the possible
273: large contributions to $\Delta I=1/2$ transitions and new direct CP
274: violation without large FCNC in kaon sector.
275:
276: As further motivation, Voloshin recently \cite{vol00} has considered a
277: new centiweak four-quark interaction, with the strength $10^{-2} G_F$ to
278: reproduce the experimental ratio of $\tau(\Lambda_b)/\tau(B_d)$. The new
279: interaction arises through a weak $SU(2)$ singlet scalar field with
280: quantum numbers of diquark $\chi$:
281: \beq
282: b_R u_R\rightarrow\chi\rightarrow c_L d_L,
283: \eeq
284: and the chiral structure is like
285: the $LR$ one of this paper.
286:
287: \section{Phenomenological analysis}
288:
289: \subsection{ DCS $D\rightarrow K\pi$ decays and $D^0-\overline{D^0}$
290: mixing}
291:
292: It is straightforward to get the following chiral structures which could
293: contribute to the DCS decays $D\rightarrow K\pi$:
294: \begin{equation}\label{LL}
295: {\cal L}^{LL}=\frac{g_L^2}{2
296: m_\chi^2}(h_{11}^{L*}h_{22}^L)\left[(\overline{u_L}\gamma_\mu
297: c_L)(\overline{d_L}\gamma^\mu s_L)-(\overline{u_L}\gamma_\mu
298: s_L)(\overline{d_L}\gamma^\mu c_L)\right]+h.c.,
299: \end{equation}
300: \begin{equation}\label{RR}
301: {\cal L}^{RR}=
302: \frac{g_R^2}{2m_\chi^2}(h_{11}^{R*}h_{22}^R)\left[(\overline{u_R}\gamma_\mu
303: c_R)(\overline{d_R}\gamma^\mu s_R)-(\overline{u_R}\gamma_\mu
304: s_R)(\overline{d_R}\gamma^\mu c_R)\right]+h.c.,
305: \end{equation}
306: and
307: \begin{eqnarray} \label{LR}
308: {\cal L}^{LR}&=&\frac{g_Lg_R}{2
309: m_\chi^2}(h_{11}^{R*}h_{22}^L)\left\{\left[(\overline{u_R}c_L)
310: (\overline{d_R}s_L)-(\overline{u_R}s_L)(\overline{d_R}c_L)\right]
311: \right. \nonumber \\
312: &&\left. +\frac{1}{4}\left[(\overline{u_{R}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu
313: }c_{L})(\overline{d_{R}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }s_{L})-(\overline{u_{R}}\sigma
314: ^{\mu \nu }s_{L})(\overline{d_{R}}\sigma_{\mu
315: \nu}c_{L})\right]\right\}+h.c.
316: \end{eqnarray}
317: Note that the $LR$ structure (\ref{LR}) is derived by assuming the mixing
318: between $\chi$ and $\chi^c$, and we neglect the tensor contributions in
319: the present work.
320: Typically we can choose
321: \begin{equation}\label{input}
322: \frac{g_L^2}{m_\chi^2}=\frac{g_R^2}{m_\chi^2}=\frac{g_L g_R}{m_\chi^2}\sim
323: 10^{-6}~{\rm GeV^{-2}}
324: \end{equation}
325: for $m_\chi=300~{\rm GeV}$, and $g_L=g_R=0.3$.
326: Thus, we can fix $h_{11}^{L*}h_{22}^L$, $h_{11}^{R*}h_{22}^R$, and
327: $h_{11}^{R*}h_{22}^L$ to render that the diquark
328: contributions to the DCS decays $D^0\rightarrow K^+\pi^-$ from
329: eqs. (\ref{LL}), (\ref{RR}), and (\ref{LR}) separately satisfy
330: \begin{equation}
331: A(D^0\rightarrow K^+\pi^-)_\chi=G_\chi \approx 10^{-2} G_F,
332: \end{equation}
333: which can compete with the corresponding SM contribution.
334:
335: Note that all the couplings in eqs. (\ref{LL}), (\ref{RR}), and
336: (\ref{LR}) do not induce $\Delta C=2$ transitions, therefore, in the
337: diquark models, one can get the enhancement of DCS decays $D^0\rightarrow
338: K^+\pi^-$ without the large $D^0-\overline{D^0}$ mixing.
339: Since $D^0-\overline{D^0}$ mixing will involve
340: other matrix elements of $h_L$ and $h_R$ than $h_{11}^{L, R}$ and
341: $h_{22}^{L, R}$, we can tune these new couplings to accommodate the
342: experimental bounds of this mixing.
343:
344: The new $\Delta C=1$ dynamics induced from the structures in
345: eqs. (\ref{LL})-(\ref{LR}) can contribute to the direct CP violation in
346: DCS $D^0\rightarrow K^+\pi^-$, which is
347: \beq
348: A_D^\chi\sim \Im m (h_{11}^{A*}h_{22}^B)\sin\delta,
349: \eeq
350: where $A=B=L$ denotes the contribution from eq. (\ref{LL}), $A=B=R$ from
351: eq. (\ref{RR}), and $A=R$ and $B=L$ from
352: eq. (\ref{LR}) respectively. From
353: experimental value in eq. (\ref{DCPE}), $A_D=-0.01\pm 0.17$, we can get
354: \beq\label{phase}
355: |\Im m (h_{11}^{A*}h_{22}^B)\sin\delta|<0.2.
356: \eeq
357:
358: The charge asymmetry in $D^\pm\rightarrow K_S \pi^\pm$ arises
359: from the interference between the CF $D^\pm\rightarrow \overline{K^0}\pi^\pm$
360: and DCS $D^\pm\rightarrow K^0\pi^\pm$ decays, and
361: the $K^0-\overline{K^0}$ mixing will give the following contribution
362: without any theoretical uncertainty \cite{Bigi01,BY95}:
363: \beqn\label{DCP}
364: \Frac{\Gamma(D^+\rightarrow K_S\pi^+)-\Gamma(D^-\rightarrow K_S \pi^-)}{
365: \Gamma(D^+\rightarrow K_S\pi^+)+\Gamma(D^-\rightarrow K_S \pi^-) }=-2 Re
366: ~\varepsilon_K \simeq -3.3\cdot 10^{-3}.
367: \eeqn
368: Here the same asymmetry both in magnitude and in sign as
369: eq.(\ref{DCP}) will arise for the final state with a $K_L$ instead of
370: a $K_S$.
371: On the other hand, from
372: eqs. (\ref{LL})--(\ref{LR}), one can get contribution to the asymmetry
373: from the diquark exchange as
374: \beq
375: \Frac{\delta \Gamma_\chi}{2\Gamma}=\Frac{|\Gamma(D^+\rightarrow
376: K_S\pi^+)-\Gamma(D^-\rightarrow K_S \pi^-)|_\chi}{\Gamma(D^+\rightarrow
377: K_S\pi^+)+\Gamma(D^-\rightarrow K_S \pi^-) }
378: \sim |\Im m
379: (h_{11}^{A*}h_{22}^{B})\sin\delta |\cdot 10^{-1}.
380: \eeq
381: The factor $10^{-1}$ is due to the ratio of $\Frac{g_A g_B}{m_\chi^2}$ and
382: $G_F$. Thus using eq. (\ref{phase}), one can get
383: \beq
384: \Frac{\delta \Gamma_\chi}{2\Gamma}\le 10^{-2}.
385: \eeq
386: Here eqs. (\ref{LL})--(\ref{LR}) will make a contribution of the opposite
387: sign to the asymmetry in $D^+\rightarrow K_L\pi^+$ vs. $D^-\rightarrow
388: K_L\pi^-$, which is different from the case of eq. (\ref{DCP}).
389: Note that this upper bound is one order larger than the value given in
390: (\ref{DCP}), which is consistent with the statement in Ref. \cite{BY95}.
391: Therefore, it is of interest to carry out the precise
392: measurement of this asymmetry in order to exploit New Physics
393: effects.
394:
395: It is found that all three chiral structures $LL$, $RR$, and $LR$
396: [(\ref{LL})--(\ref{LR})] can separately produce the large contributions to
397: DCS $D^0\rightarrow K^+\pi^-$ decays without affecting
398: $D^0-\overline{D^0}$ mixing. This is somewhat contrary to the statement in
399: Ref. \cite{Nir99}. In the kaon physics, only $LR$ chiral structure is
400: useful when we consider the constraints from the $K^0-\overline{K^0}$
401: mixing.
402:
403: \subsection{$K^0-\overline{K^0}$ mixing, $\Delta
404: I=1/2$ rule, and direct $CP$ violation}
405:
406: Diquark exchange between the LR structure generates
407: \begin{eqnarray}
408: {\cal L}^{LR}=\frac{g_L g_R}{2 m_{\chi }^{2}}\left\{
409: (h_{11}^{R*}h_{12}^L)\left[(\overline{u_R} u_L)(\overline{d_R}s_L)
410: -(\overline{u_{R}}s_{L})(\overline{d_{R}}u_{L})\right]\right.\nonumber\\
411: +\left.(h_{12}^{R}h_{11}^{L*})\left[(\overline{u_L}u_R)(\overline{d_L}s_R)-
412: (\overline{u_{L}}s_{R})(\overline{d_{L}}u_{R})\right] \right\}+h.c.
413: \label{1/2}
414: \end{eqnarray}
415: The matrix elements of these operators can be enhanced compared to the
416: usual $Q_{-} $ operator \cite{kaon}, and they will induce pure
417: $\Delta I=1/2$ transitions. Therefore, if $h_{ij}^{L(R)}$'s appearing in
418: eq. (\ref{1/2}) are not very small, one can expect a possible solution to
419: the $\Delta I=1/2$ rule.
420:
421: However, we have to show that this structure could avoid large
422: FCNC. Indeed $K^0-\overline{K^0}$ mixing can be generated from $\left(
423: \overline{d_{R}}s_{L}\right)^{2}$, $\overline{
424: d_{R}}s_{L}$ $\overline{d_{L}}s_{R}$, and $\overline{d_{L}}\gamma ^{\mu
425: }s_{L}$ $\overline{d_{L}}\gamma_{\mu}s_{L}.\;$
426: The last one is generated by the
427: usual $Q_{-}$ operator. If we assume that only one of the
428: terms in (\ref{1/2}),
429: for instance $h_{11}^{R*}h_{12}^{L},$ is large and the other is very
430: small then squaring the structure in (\ref{1/2}) will \textbf{not}
431: generate $K^0-\overline{K^0}$ mixing because
432: \[
433: \left\langle \overline{u_{R}}u_{L}\overline{u_{R}}u_{L}\right\rangle =0.
434: \]
435:
436: Also, if we assume some electroweak phases in the
437: ${\Delta S=1}$ transitions induced by the diquark, we
438: can obtain the contribution to $\varepsilon _{\chi }^{\prime }$. The only
439: thing we have to be concerned that we do not generate too much $\varepsilon
440: _{\chi },$ i.e. $H_{\Delta S=2,CP}^{\chi }$ larger than the one in SM.
441: Indeed in the SM
442: \[
443: \Re e(\varepsilon )\sim \frac{\Im m\left\langle \overline{K}|H_{\Delta
444: S=2}|K\right\rangle }{\Re e\left\langle \overline{K}|H_{\Delta
445: S=2}|K\right\rangle }\sim 2\cdot10^{-3}.
446: \]
447: The diquark exchange can generate $\Im m(A_{0})$ in
448: \[
449: \varepsilon^{\prime }=i{\frac{e^{i(\delta _{2}-\delta
450: _{0})}}{\sqrt{2}}}\omega
451: \left[ {\frac{\Im m(A_{2})}{\Re e(A_{2})}}-{\frac{\Im m(A_{0})}{\Re
452: e(A_{0})\,}}\right],
453: \]
454: to match the experimental result
455: $\Frac{\varepsilon^{\prime}}{\omega}\sim 10^{-4}$ \cite{Bigi01, kaon} with
456: a value for the imaginary part \begin{equation}
457: \Im m(h_{12}^{L}h_{11}^{R*})\sim 10^{-3}. \label{CPchi}
458: \end{equation}
459: Now since we claim that with a particular choice of $h^{R}$ and $h^{L}$,
460: \[
461: \Re e\left\langle \overline{K}|H_{\Delta S=2}^{\chi }|K\right\rangle <\Re
462: e\left\langle \overline{K}|H_{\Delta S=2}^{SM}|K\right\rangle
463: \]
464: then with the value in (\ref{CPchi}) we obtain
465: \[
466: \frac{\Im m\left\langle \overline{K}|H_{\Delta S=2}|K\right\rangle }{\Re
467: e\left\langle \overline{K}|H_{\Delta S=2}|K\right\rangle }<10^{-3}
468: \]
469: and so there is no problem for $\Re e(\varepsilon).$ If the electroweak
470: phase is only in $h^L_{12}$, the induced electric dipole moment of the
471: neutron is smaller than the experimental value \cite{RGF00}.
472:
473: \subsection{The diquark is coupled to the first two
474: generations}
475:
476: In this subsection, we present an example to show that one can address
477: simultaneously the issue of DCS $D^0\rightarrow K^+\pi^-$ decays,
478: the contributions to $\Delta I=1/2$ transitions and the direct CP
479: violation in kaon sector without large FCNC.
480: For simplicity, we assume
481: the following 2$\times$2 matrices for $h^R$ and $h^L$
482: \begin{equation}
483: h^{R}=\left(
484: \begin{array}{cc}
485: 1 & \lambda ^{4} \\
486: \lambda ^{2} & \lambda ^{2}
487: \end{array}
488: \right) ,\quad h^{L}=\lambda\left(
489: \begin{array}{ccc}
490: 1 & 1 \\
491: 1 & 1
492: \end{array}
493: \right),
494: \label{textures}
495: \end{equation}
496: i.e. the diquark is coupled to the first two generation quark fields.
497: Note that the matrix elements of $h_L$ and $h_R$ merely have the
498: meaning of order of magnitude,
499: therefore, it should be understood, for instance, $h^L_{11}\sim
500: O(\lambda)$, and $\lambda=0.22$ is the Wolfenstein parameter. So our
501: analysis is at qualitative level.
502:
503: From (\ref{textures})
504: $h_{11}^{L*}h_{22}^L\sim h_{11}^{R*}h_{22}^R\sim O(\lambda^2)$, and
505: $h_{11}^{R*}h_{22}^L\sim O(\lambda)$, so induced by the diquark, one can
506: obtain the DCS $D^0\rightarrow K^+\pi^-$ decays amplitude which can be
507: compared with the SM contribution, as shown in eq. (\ref{eq:DCSchi}).
508:
509: \begin{figure}
510: \begin{center}
511: \leavevmode
512: \hbox{
513: \epsfxsize=8cm
514: \epsffile{fig1.eps}}
515: \end{center}
516: \caption{The box diagrams contributing to $D^0-\overline{D^0}$
517: mixing. The $\otimes$ denotes the chirality flip on the internal
518: and external lines.
519: }
520: \end{figure}
521:
522: Now we check the $D^0-\overline{D^0}$ mixing generated by the diquark
523: exchange. The most relevant box diagrams are $\chi-\chi-$box and $\chi-W-$
524: box, which have been drawn in Figure 1. Here, we only
525: consider the contributions induced by the $LR$ chiral
526: structure, and the calculation is straightforward. From Fig. (1a), one can
527: get
528: \beq
529: \xi
530: (h_{22}^{L*}h_{12}^{L}+h_{21}^{L*}h_{11}^{L})\cdot(h_{21}^{R*}h_{11}^{R}+
531: h_{12}^{R*}h_{22}^R)~(\overline{u_{R}}c_{L})(\overline{u_{L}}c_{R}),
532: \eeq
533: where
534: \begin{equation}
535: \xi=\frac{g_{L}^{2}g_{R}^{2}}{16\pi ^{2}m_{\chi
536: }^{2}}\sim 10^{-10}~{\rm GeV}^{-2}
537: \end{equation}
538: for the same values of $g_L$, $g_R$, and $m_\chi$ used in
539: eq. (\ref{input}). Likewise, the contributions of Fig. (1b) and
540: Fig. (1c) are respectively
541: \beqn
542: \frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{g_{L}g_{R}m_{c}}{4\pi^{2}m_{\chi }^{2}}
543: (V_{cd}h_{21}^{L}+V_{cs}h_{22}^{L})\cdot
544: (m_{d}h_{11}^{R*}V^*_{ud}+m_{s}h_{12}^{R*}V^*_{us})
545: ~(\overline{u_{R}}c_{L})(\overline{u_{L}}c_{R}),
546: \eeqn
547: and
548: \beqn
549: \frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{g_{L}g_{R}m_{c}}{4\pi
550: ^{2}m_{\chi }^{2}} (V^*_{ud}h_{11}^{L*}+V^*_{us}h_{12}^{L*})\cdot
551: (m_{d}h_{21}^{R}V_{cd}+m_{s}h_{22}^{R}V_{cs})
552: ~(\overline{u_{L}}c_{R})(\overline{u_{L}}c_{R}).
553: \eeqn
554:
555: Experimentally, as shown in eq. (\ref{expx}), $x\leq 0.03$, and the SM
556: predicts $x_{\rm SM}\sim 10^{-3}$.
557: Using eq. (\ref{textures}), we can get that all the above box
558: diagrams lead to $x_\chi\sim 10^{-3}-10^{-2}$, not larger than the
559: experimental value.
560:
561: \begin{figure}
562: \begin{center}
563: \leavevmode
564: \hbox{
565: \epsfxsize=8cm
566: \epsffile{fig2.eps}}
567: \end{center}
568: \caption{The box diagrams contributing to $K^0-\overline{K^0}$
569: mixing. The $\otimes$ denotes the chirality flip on the internal and
570: external lines.}
571: \end{figure}
572:
573: From eq. (\ref{textures}) $h^{R*}_{11}h^L_{12}\sim O(\lambda)$ and thus
574: the amplitudes of non-leptonic $\Delta I=1/2$ transitions of kaon decays
575: could be $10^{-2} G_F$.
576: In order to check the problem of FCNC, similar box
577: diagrams, which are shown in Figure 2, have been calculated.
578: Fig. (2a), Fig. (2b) and Fig. (2c) will give respectively the following
579: contributions
580: \beq
581: \xi
582: (h_{11}^{L*}h_{12}^{L}+h_{21}^{L*}h_{22}^{L})
583: \cdot(h_{12}^{R*}h_{11}^{R}+h_{12}^{R*}h_{22}^{R})
584: ~(\overline{d_{L}}s_{R})(\overline{d_{R}}s_{L}),
585: \eeq
586: \beq
587: \frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{g_{L}g_{R}m_{s}}{4\pi
588: ^{2}m_{\chi }^{2}}
589: (V_{us}h_{12}^{L}+V_{cs}h_{22}^{L})\cdot
590: (m_{c}h_{21}^{R*}V^*_{cd}+m_{u}h_{11}^{R*}V^*_{ud})
591: ~(\overline{d_{L}}s_{R})(\overline{d_{R}}s_{L}),
592: \eeq
593: and
594: \beq
595: \frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{g_{L}g_{R}m_{s}}{4\pi
596: ^{2}m_{\chi }^{2}}
597: (V^*_{ud}h_{11}^{L*}+V^*_{cd}h_{21}^{L*})\cdot
598: (m_{u}h_{12}^{R}V_{us}+m_{c}h_{22}^{R}V_{cs})
599: ~(\overline{d_{L}}s_{R})(\overline{d_{L}}s_{R}).
600: \eeq
601:
602: It is easy to find that all the above contributions are not larger than
603: the SM prediction of the $K^0-\overline{K^0}$ mixing.
604:
605: Another FCNC problem could be $Z^0$ penguin diagram contribution
606: to the decay $K_L\rightarrow\mu\overline{\mu}$. It will generate the
607: following effective hamiltonian
608: \beq
609: \Frac{g_Lg_R\alpha_{\rm EM}m_c m_\mu}{4\pi m_\chi^2 m_W^2 {\rm
610: sin}^2\theta_W}(h_{22}^{L*}h_{21}^R+h_{21}^L
611: h_{22}^{R*})\overline{d}\gamma_5 s\overline{\mu}\gamma_5\mu,
612: \eeq
613: which has to be compared with the SM prediction
614: $\sim \lambda^2 (10^{-12} {\rm GeV}^{-2}) \overline{d}\gamma_5 s
615: \overline{\mu}\gamma_5\mu$
616: and thus substantially smaller.
617:
618: Furthermore, if we put a small electroweak phase $\varphi\sim 10^{-2}$ in
619: $h^L_{12}$, $\Im m (h^L_{12}h^{R*}_{11})\sim \lambda {\rm sin}\varphi\sim
620: 10^{-3}$ and eq. (\ref{CPchi}) will hold.
621: Also as pointed out in the previous subsection,
622: no large electric dipole moment of the neutron will be induced.
623:
624: It has been shown that, in the simple realization (\ref{textures}) with
625: only one diquark, we get the enhancement of the amplitudes of DCS
626: $D^0\rightarrow K^+\pi^-$ decays and non-leptonic $\Delta I=1/2$
627: transitions of kaon decays up to $10^{-2} G_F$ without any dangerous FCNC.
628: Phenomenologically we could also make $h_{12}^L\sim O(1)$ and not
629: $O(\lambda)$ as in eq. (\ref{textures}), which means that a larger
630: contribution to $\Delta I=1/2$ kaon decays would be possible. However, we
631: do not want $h^L$ in (\ref{textures}) to depart severely from a
632: symmetric structure, but a larger enhancement could be still achieved from
633: the hadronic matrix element.
634:
635: \section{Conclusions}
636:
637: In this paper, we have constructed a class of models motivated by diquark
638: exchange, which can generate large contributions to the DCS
639: $D^0\rightarrow K^+\pi^-$
640: decays without affecting $D^0-\overline{D^0}$ mixing. Our conclusion
641: somewhat disagrees with the statement
642: in Ref. \cite{Nir99} that the New Physics can only affect
643: significantly the mixing but not the decay. A large direct CP
644: asymmetry in $D^\pm\rightarrow K_S\pi^\pm$ is possible in our model, which
645: may be regarded as the signal to look for New Physics scenarios.
646:
647: All the chiral structures including $LL$, $RR$, and $LR$ can lead to the
648: enhancement of the DCS decays in the charm sector, however, only $LR$
649: structure is useful in kaon sector when we impose the constraints by
650: avoiding the large FCNC. It is particularly interesting that
651: this $LR$ structure can generate novel density $\times$ density operators,
652: which can induce
653: the pure $\Delta I=1/2$ transitions and new direct CP violation.
654: To our knowledge, the role of these operators in non-leptonic kaon decays
655: is discussed for the first time in the present paper.
656:
657: \vspace{1.2cm}
658: \begin{center}
659: {\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
660: \end{center}
661: G.D. wishes to thank Shelly Glashow for drawing his attention on
662: diquark contributions in weak interactions, Riccardo Barbieri
663: and Gino Isidori for very illuminating
664: discussions, and the support of the ``Bruno Rossi" INFN-MIT exchange
665: program.
666:
667: \newpage
668:
669: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
670:
671: \bibitem{Buch01}G. Buchalla, hep-ph/0103166.
672:
673: \bibitem{Bigi01}I.I. Bigi, hep-ph/0104008.
674:
675: \bibitem{Nirdelta99}S. Bergmann, Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti, Y. Nir, and
676: A. Petrov, Phys. Lett. \textbf{B} 486 (2000) 418.
677:
678: \bibitem{Nir99}S. Bergmann and Y. Nir, J. High Energy
679: Phys. \textbf{09} (1999) 031.
680:
681: \bibitem{focus}J.M. Link \textit{et al. }(FOCUS
682: collaboration), Phys. Lett. B \textbf{485} (2000) 62;
683: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86} (2001) 2955.
684:
685: \bibitem{CLEO2000}R. Godang \textit{et al.} (CLEO collaboration),
686: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{84} (2000) 5038.
687:
688: \bibitem{kaon}A.J. Buras, hep-ph/0101336; G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras, and
689: M.E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 68} (1996) 1125;
690: A. Pich, hep-ph/9806303; G. D'Ambrosio and G. Isidori,
691: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 13} (1998) 1; G. Isidori, hep-ph/0011017.
692:
693: \bibitem{glashow}P.H. Frampton, S.L. Glashow, and T. Yoshikawa,
694: hep-ph/0103022.
695:
696: \bibitem{Wolf95}L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75} (1995) 2460;
697: T.E. Browder and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 383}
698: (1996) 475; A.F. Falk, Y. Nir, and A.A. Petrov, J. High Energy Phys. {\bf
699: 9912} (1999) 019.
700:
701: \bibitem{Zwirner}F. Zwirner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A \textbf{3}
702: (1988) 49.
703:
704: \bibitem{ellis}B.A. Campbell, J. Ellis, K. Enqvist, M.K. Gaillard, and
705: D.V. Nanopoulos, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A
706: \textbf{2} {(1987)} 831.
707:
708: %\bibitem{leontaris}G.K. Leontaris, N.T. Tracas and J.D. Vergados,
709: %Phys. Lett. B \textbf{193 }(1987) 335.
710:
711: \bibitem{HR89}J.L. Hewett and T.G. Rizzo, Phys. Rep. {\bf 183} (1989) 193.
712:
713: \bibitem{martin99}H.P. Nilles, Phys. Rep. {\bf 110} (1984) 1;
714: S.P. Martin, hep-ph/9709356.
715:
716: \bibitem{vol00}M.B. Voloshin, hep-ph/0011099.
717:
718: \bibitem{BY95}I. Bigi and H. Yamamoto, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 349} (1995) 363.
719:
720: \bibitem{RGF00}M.V. Romalis, W.G. Griffith, and E.N. Fortson,
721: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86} (2001) 2505.
722:
723: \end{thebibliography}
724: \end{document}
725: